Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 9:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 9:16:00 PM (view original):

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 tecwrg on 6/11/2014 9:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

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?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 9:20:00 PM (view original):

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.

If you think the current system is unfair because it's too progressive, I don't know what else to assume. A more regressive tax policy is the only other option.

I've stayed out of your argument because, well, I can only read parts of it.   But tell me if I'm right.

You've suggested no tax up to 75k.    Then a tax rate of 60%, or whatever, at 75001 to infinity.  

Now this is where I'm confused.   Where is 75k a low wage earner?    So, assuming nowhere, what's his problem with your suggestion?

I'm not saying I like it but I don't know what he doesn't like.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2014 10:01:00 PM (view original):
The $75k and 60% numbers were just for sake of example.  I don't know what "good" numbers, that would work, would be.  But I specifically chose those numbers for the example as a shot at him, knowing that he couldn't flat-out dismiss them as "protecting the rich", which I think he thinks is what I'm trying to do.

He hasn't said what he doesn't like about it.  He's just been arguing for dozens of pages trying to get me to say it's a progressive tax.

So in short . . . he's just arguing with me for the sake of arguing with me, with no other apparent agenda.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/11/2014 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2014 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Here's my plan. It's a progressive, two bracket system. 

The first bracket is for income earned between $1 and $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 0%. 

The second bracket is for income earned above $75,000. The rate for this bracket is 60%. 

Do you think my system is fair?

Yes or no?

Fair?  Possibly.  IF your definition of fair is "same tax rate for everyone" and you consider under $75K to be some sort of social barrier.

Stupid. Definitely.  There is NO incentive to earn between $75K and $150K.  In fact, you are DIS-incentivized to earn more.  Typical liberal stupidity that favors the lazy and unproductive and encourages a lower bar rather than high achievement.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
So, if I work hard and earn, say, $150,000, I have to give up $45,000 (60% of $75K), so on my marginal income increase of $75K, I only keep $30K.

So, I earn twice as much, but only show 40% additional income.  

And that's incentive for doubling my output?  If you hypertax marginal income, each additional dollar of gross income realizes less marginal discretionary income.  Put in hourly terms I would make roughly $37.50 an hour for the first six months, and $15.00 an hour for the rest of the year, putting my earning power just a little more than minimum wage.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/12/2014 1:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/12/2014 1:13:00 AM (view original):
So, if I work hard and earn, say, $150,000, I have to give up $45,000 (60% of $75K), so on my marginal income increase of $75K, I only keep $30K.

So, I earn twice as much, but only show 40% additional income.  

And that's incentive for doubling my output?  If you hypertax marginal income, each additional dollar of gross income realizes less marginal discretionary income.  Put in hourly terms I would make roughly $37.50 an hour for the first six months, and $15.00 an hour for the rest of the year, putting my earning power just a little more than minimum wage.

That was just using the numbers made up by tec.

No one is actually arguing for that. 

The tax rate of 70% would be for money earned over a number like 1M or something along those lines.

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 6/11/2014 1:19:00 PM (view original):

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

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/11/2014 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 6/11/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):

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. 

If you go along with the 23% sales tax idea, you raise taxes on the lower class.

They'll have more money in their hands to invest.   And become millionaires with their shrewd stock trading. 

If you make $30000 a year, the federal income tax for you is $4500.  You take home $25500. (let's pretend it's Florida)

If you make $30000 a year in your plan, you take it all home, but everything you bought before is now 23% more expensive.

Unless I'm missing something, the lower class will be paying more in taxes. 

Actually a 23% national sales tax makes everything 30% more expensive.

$100 is 30% higher than $77, which is what it USED to cost.

You're doing it backwards, I think.  A 23% tax on $77 makes it $94.71.

You are right. I don't know what I was doing there....

They call it 23% because they want to compare it to the income tax rate, where if you are in a 25% bracket you pay $25 out of each $100.
So with the fair tax you would pay $23 out of each $100 which is a 30% tax ($77 * 30% = 23.1), but they push the 23% # "for comparison".

Another interesting caveat concerning the Fair Tax was that they only charge tax on FINAL GOODS. 
What this means is that when manufacturing something made up of multiple components or parts (think a PC, or maybe a lawnmower) the individual parts used to build product X would not be taxed when the manufacturer bought those components. So they purchase several small blank PC boards for network cards, video cards, sound cards, one large one for the motherboard, capacitors, resistors, processor chips, diodes, cabling, power supplies, plastic connectors, etc etc and none of it is taxed. 

ONLY the final built computer would be taxed when it went to market, which in theory would LOWER the end cost by quite a bit considering that in the current system the company that makes PC boards pays taxes when they buy the plastic to manufacture the boards, they pay taxes on the copper they use to run traces in those boards, etc etc. THEN the manufacturer of the computer pays taxes on every part he buys, which includes the plastic and copper that has ALREADY been taxed. Finally the consumer that buys the finished computer pays tax on that PC, which includes parts that have been taxed once twice or more already in the manufacturing process. 

This is one of the biggest overlooked PROS of the "fair tax" as it is written. People have more money in their pocket (no income tax), and even though there is a 30% national sales tax added to every final good purchased, in theory it COULD end up costing less than it does today, or at least only marginally more expensive and not 30% more expensive.