Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Clearly, handouts to the poor AREN'T helping solve the core problem, which depending on your point of view... is either lack of marketable skills or lack of opportunity to learn those skills (or lack of work ethic).  

I'd be very interested to hear if there is a solution that does NOT involve simply giving away money to people who don't work and have no skills.  Besides my solution, that is...

I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top. I'd like labor laws to be strengthened in favor of labor, including laws to strengthen unions.

I'd like to see the education system reformed so that the difference between good and bad public schools is smaller.

I'd like to see improvements in housing and child care subsidies.

Why not let the hard-working KEEP their riches?  I'm in favor of cutting back on inherited wealth, but why are you so set on penalizing those that work hard (and/or smart) and succeed?

Your way basically says "If you're poor, the best you can hope for is middle class, because if you make it to upper class, we're taking it all back."  WHICH IS ******* STUPID.  

Unions favor the lazy and the stupid, so it makes sense that you would encourage them.

I think this was the start.    "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top."  

I don't know that he out and out means "Tax the rich because they'll miss it less" but I believe that got the "Change tax laws" rolling.

Now he's asking "What's wrong with the current system?"


Hey, BL, couldn't you have just locked yourself in a bathroom and argued both sides of the discussion for the last 5 days?

I don't like the current system because it isn't progressive enough. You and tec, from the policies you've suggested, think it should be more regressive. Tec, specifically, said the current system is unfair. We have to nail down exactly what's unfair about the current system to really have a discussion.

I would start by not using the word 'fair' to describe it if its not fair for everyone... And I'd stop accusing people of not paying their 'fair share'. Jmo but a tax system doesn't necessarily have to be fair but it should be reasonable and somewhat easy to understand.

I agree. Fairness really isn't the goal and people (on both sides) shouldn't lean on that as an excuse.

We need to collect X amount of dollars to run the country in the way that we have decided to run it. So the next question becomes, what's the most effective way to collect that money?

In my opinion, we should tax the lowest marginal value dollars the highest amount. In other words, collect a lot of money from people who have a lot of money and collect little to no money from people who do not have a lot of money. It makes the most sense economically.

If someone wants to argue that we should move away from an income tax system or away from a progressive income tax system, they should explain whether or not the tax burden will change from the current system. And, if it will, how will it shift?

The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

If it decreases revenue, how much are we losing? And who is seeing the biggest benefit of the cut?

Those are questions that need to be answered before we decide what to cut.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

If it decreases revenue, how much are we losing? And who is seeing the biggest benefit of the cut?

Those are questions that need to be answered before we decide what to cut.

Curious why that matters before spending is cut? Shouldn't the govt be able to discern what is a want and what is a need regarding its spending? Needs must be paid.... Wants are discretionary.

That's probably the crux of the issue with the liberal idea of taxing more.... 'Well gosh... We need to figure out how much money we make so we know how much we can spend!' The end goal should not be spending.... It should be saving and to do that discretionary expenses need to be kept in check.

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

If it decreases revenue, how much are we losing? And who is seeing the biggest benefit of the cut?

Those are questions that need to be answered before we decide what to cut.

Curious why that matters before spending is cut? Shouldn't the govt be able to discern what is a want and what is a need regarding its spending? Needs must be paid.... Wants are discretionary.

That's probably the crux of the issue with the liberal idea of taxing more.... 'Well gosh... We need to figure out how much money we make so we know how much we can spend!' The end goal should not be spending.... It should be saving and to do that discretionary expenses need to be kept in check.

Well, A) don't you need to know how much is available when you're prioritizing a budget? For example, if we're considering infrastructure improvements in the budget, some things that should be done now could be put off if absolutely necessary. But we'd be better off doing it now if the budget allows for it so obviously we need to know if the budget allows for it.

And B) Once we know how much we have to work with, we need to know who is getting the benefit of the tax cuts. For example, if group A is getting a large government subsidy and a large percentage of group A is also benefiting from the tax cut, that would factor into the decision of whether or not to continue the subsidy.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 7:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 7:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 6:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

If it decreases revenue, how much are we losing? And who is seeing the biggest benefit of the cut?

Those are questions that need to be answered before we decide what to cut.

Curious why that matters before spending is cut? Shouldn't the govt be able to discern what is a want and what is a need regarding its spending? Needs must be paid.... Wants are discretionary.

That's probably the crux of the issue with the liberal idea of taxing more.... 'Well gosh... We need to figure out how much money we make so we know how much we can spend!' The end goal should not be spending.... It should be saving and to do that discretionary expenses need to be kept in check.

Well, A) don't you need to know how much is available when you're prioritizing a budget? For example, if we're considering infrastructure improvements in the budget, some things that should be done now could be put off if absolutely necessary. But we'd be better off doing it now if the budget allows for it so obviously we need to know if the budget allows for it.

And B) Once we know how much we have to work with, we need to know who is getting the benefit of the tax cuts. For example, if group A is getting a large government subsidy and a large percentage of group A is also benefiting from the tax cut, that would factor into the decision of whether or not to continue the subsidy.

Sure it helps and its important....

Tell you what.... You tell me what the bare minimum the govt NEEDS to spend and I'll tell you how much they have to spend.... But not before that or you'll just work to get down to whatever I give you.

Kinda like they had us do for my MBA.... Write everything you know about the financial meltdown of 2008 and you can't exceed 2 pages. Why? Cause if its not on those 2 pages its not important. Its an exercise on prioritizing as well as being clear and concise... No fluff. Same concept here....What does the govt NEED to spend. If its not on those 2 pages its not important.

I'm not going to write out a budget and, really, it doesn't matter. We aren't arguing about how much to collect. We're arguing about the best way to collect it.

Posted by moy23 on 6/11/2014 6:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 5:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 5:19:00 PM (view original):
The system I suggested would collect tax from every consumer in the US.   Not just US citizens.  It would collect money from people who do not have income tracked by the US govt.  It would collect income from retirees.   If you want to buy something, you will be taxed.   Plain and simple.

Will this "hurt" some people?   I suppose it will.   But you either adapt or you take the dinosaur route.   It's not my job, or the government's job, to make sure you feel good about your situation.

Do you see that as increasing revenue, decreasing revenue, or being revenue neutral?

Let's say revenue decreasing (at least in the short term), maybe revenue neutral... So what spending is getting cut back?

If only there were a way to calculate money spent each year.  Then we could figure out what the sales tax rate would need to be to match the previous tax revenue. 

I guess we need to force businesses to keep records of sales in order to get started.

What?   They already do that?   Who knew????

So, revenue neutral?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 3:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 3:18:00 PM (view original):
"It's exactly the same as your plan."

Using a different framework to get to the same result does not make it "exactly the same".

It's labeled differently but it's structured exactly the same. All income below 75k isn't taxed. All income above 75k is taxed at 60%.

So some people pay a higher rate than people who make less. The exact definition of a progressive tax.

Do you understand what a framework is?

Never mind.  It's clear that you don't.

Maybe I don't understand.

Is there any practical difference between:

     People that make less than $75k are exempt from paying taxes. All dollars earned over $75k are taxed at 60%.

 and

     People that make less than $75K pay a 0% tax rate. All dollars earned over $75k are taxed at 60%.

?

If there is, then I clearly don't understand.

Didn't you say this:

                         What is unfair about the current system?

                         A progressive tax rate.  The more you make, the higher rate you pay. 

Under this plan, someone making $60,000 a year pays no taxes (or 0%). Someone making more ($90,000, for example), pays a higher rate. The more you make, the higher rate you pay. It looks like your own plan doesn't measure up to your definition of "fair."

My plan has only one tax rate, that's applied to everybody, rich or poor, after a standard income exemption (which is also applied to everybody, rich or poor) is met.

It's one rule, one rate, applied consistently.  To everybody.

It's so obvious that's what it is, you have to be an idiot to argue that it's something else.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 4:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 4:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/6/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/6/2014 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Clearly, handouts to the poor AREN'T helping solve the core problem, which depending on your point of view... is either lack of marketable skills or lack of opportunity to learn those skills (or lack of work ethic).  

I'd be very interested to hear if there is a solution that does NOT involve simply giving away money to people who don't work and have no skills.  Besides my solution, that is...

I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top. I'd like labor laws to be strengthened in favor of labor, including laws to strengthen unions.

I'd like to see the education system reformed so that the difference between good and bad public schools is smaller.

I'd like to see improvements in housing and child care subsidies.

Why not let the hard-working KEEP their riches?  I'm in favor of cutting back on inherited wealth, but why are you so set on penalizing those that work hard (and/or smart) and succeed?

Your way basically says "If you're poor, the best you can hope for is middle class, because if you make it to upper class, we're taking it all back."  WHICH IS ******* STUPID.  

Unions favor the lazy and the stupid, so it makes sense that you would encourage them.

I think this was the start.    "I'd like to see public policy adjusted so that less wealth is accumulated at the top."  

I don't know that he out and out means "Tax the rich because they'll miss it less" but I believe that got the "Change tax laws" rolling.

Now he's asking "What's wrong with the current system?"


Hey, BL, couldn't you have just locked yourself in a bathroom and argued both sides of the discussion for the last 5 days?

I don't like the current system because it isn't progressive enough. You and tec, from the policies you've suggested, think it should be more regressive. Tec, specifically, said the current system is unfair. We have to nail down exactly what's unfair about the current system to really have a discussion.

I never once said it should be regressive.  Please show me the post where you think I said that.

Unless now you also don't know the meaning of "regressive" with respect to taxation.  Yet another thing you don't understand.  I'm losing count.

Also, you're not interested in having a "discussion".  You just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  Which is why every thread you participate in, no matter what the topic is, goes 50+ pages.