Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:34:00 PM (view original):
Florida gets a sh!t ton of tourism dollars.

Money spent.  And retirees pay taxes.  As do the cocaine dealers.

Do we need to go back about 20 pages where I said "Sales tax only" and start over.

Numerous studies have shown that 1) it IS a regressive tax, and 2) it wouldn't generate enough revenue.

Since we are already in a bad way with regards to our debt crisis, I would be all for going to a sales tax only format if only to demonstrate to those who still don't get it, that it will not be sustainable, and would do more harm to the economy than good.

Define "enough revenue".

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Tell me the percentage.   Is it 2%?   Because the economy wouldn't suffer then.  10%?   Nope, no economic suffering.   50%?   Yeah, that's gonna sting. 

And now there's another reason to ignore you.   If you're brief, you still don't ask legit questions.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
So besides just claiming that what used to work isn't relevant and listing numerous social problems of the day, could you point to any specific reason that the tax rate of those days wouldn't work now? Or how that tax rate harmed anything?

I was 19 in 1982.  I definitely was not in a higher tax bracket.   I have no idea if it "harmed anything".   Nor do I know if it was "good for anything" either.   I do know that we live in a different world in 2014.   This is not 1932 or 1952 or 1982.   I will say that I know there were some tough economic times in between 1932 and 1982.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse than what we're experiencing now.    Just saying "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982" is not a solution.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone who's rambling on about this ever had to live on minimum wage?      

You have roommates in a ****** neighborhood.  You eat chicken and rice instead of steak.   You wear what you have and not the shiny new clothes you want.   IOW, you get by with what you have and try to get better for the future.   

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/5/2014 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Has anyone who's rambling on about this ever had to live on minimum wage?      

You have roommates in a ****** neighborhood.  You eat chicken and rice instead of steak.   You wear what you have and not the shiny new clothes you want.   IOW, you get by with what you have and try to get better for the future.   

Here you go, greeny.    This is how you get by.    You're only 6 days late. 

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 12:41:00 PM (view original):
So besides just claiming that what used to work isn't relevant and listing numerous social problems of the day, could you point to any specific reason that the tax rate of those days wouldn't work now? Or how that tax rate harmed anything?

I was 19 in 1982.  I definitely was not in a higher tax bracket.   I have no idea if it "harmed anything".   Nor do I know if it was "good for anything" either.   I do know that we live in a different world in 2014.   This is not 1932 or 1952 or 1982.   I will say that I know there were some tough economic times in between 1932 and 1982.  Sometimes better, sometimes worse than what we're experiencing now.    Just saying "Look at the tax rates between 1932 and 1982" is not a solution.

So in summary:
1) I have no idea.
2) This is a different world now.
3) There were instances of tough times during that half a century period.
4) So therefore we needn't look any further into finding an answer to #1.

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:31:00 PM (view original):
Tell me the percentage.   Is it 2%?   Because the economy wouldn't suffer then.  10%?   Nope, no economic suffering.   50%?   Yeah, that's gonna sting. 

And now there's another reason to ignore you.   If you're brief, you still don't ask legit questions.

Seriously? Isn't it obvious that the fair tax would be what the average tax is across all taxpayers?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 11:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 11:48:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, we have a philosophical difference.

I'll go back to charging the 10m a year guy $200 for the steak I'll eat for $18.99.   He'll miss that $200 less than I'll miss $18.99 and it will be good for the economy.   The difference is the steak would be voluntary while taxes are not.

If you don't understand why that's ****** up, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better.

Maybe you pay $18.99 for the steak and they sell the same exact steak to the next guy in line for $5.   If you say "Wouldn't bother me because he obviously makes less than me", I'll be forced to call you a ******* liar.

I think the difference is that the guy who doesn't want to spend $18 on dinner can buy something else for $5.

Americans deserve roads and bridges that are sufficient for driving on. They deserve a military that they know will protect them. They deserve a basic education for their children. So what's the best way to collect money for those things?

Too late. Your order is in. You have no $5 option.

Of course roads, bridges, military, education, etc, etc are necessary.   I'm sure you won't find a post where I said they weren't.    I'm just not sure why a guy making 400k needs to pay a higher percentage to build those bridges while the guy making 40k is given a pass.   Will there be a special lane for 400k guy or will they both cross the same bridge in the same manner?

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):
I for one don't remember mikeT ever giving us a solution that makes sense. All I hear from him is make tax fair, but since when is life fair? Nor have I ever seen him really explain why the economy wouldn't suffer from taxing the low and middle classes more then they are taxed now. I can't wait to see that. Nor seen him dispute that more money in poor peoples hands would improve the economy too.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:03:00 PM (view original):
I've said all along that I'm against "Tax the rich more because they'll miss it less".     I'm not for raising taxes on anyone.   If you think I've said that, please quote it. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by greeny9 on 6/11/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):
I for one don't remember mikeT ever giving us a solution that makes sense. All I hear from him is make tax fair, but since when is life fair? Nor have I ever seen him really explain why the economy wouldn't suffer from taxing the low and middle classes more then they are taxed now. I can't wait to see that. Nor seen him dispute that more money in poor peoples hands would improve the economy too.

I think he admitted it may suffer, but he doesn't really care.  "Deal with it."