We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Of course we won't. I disagree with your reasoning. Retired people who can buy will buy. Those who can't will do just as they do now. Not buy. I wouldn't tax food bought at groceries. I would tax food bought at McDonald's, Outback, etc, etc.

People who have money will spend it. Unless your contention is that we're going to become a country of savers. That $1000 paycheck will be $1000 instead of $750(or whatever it would be). But that $1000 purchase will be $1200. Do you really think someone who got an extra $250 won't spend that extra $200?

I'm not really interested in reforming the tax system. I just tire of hearing "fair share", then we find out a guy like Trump isn't paying anything and we think by increasing the tax rate on those making 250k will somehow force Trump into paying his "fair share". It won't. So why are the Dems going after 250k guy? Depending on where you live, that's middle class.

Sales Tax increases do in fact hurt people on a fixed income. That increases health care costs. I know this because I was aware of someone close who during some difficult spots had to put off prescriptions for a week because they chose to eat and pay their heating/gas bill for that week.

Economic Darwinism is a path to ruin. And it won't be ruining the rich. Well perhaps the Queen of Versaille.

The tax system fixes that are needed are the ones that revisit deductions and loopholes.

Also, retired people paid taxes on income their entire working lives. Now, when all they have is savings, we'd tax that money again when they spend it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):
When most of us realize big tax savings, we spend it locally by perhaps buying a new car or getting our bathroom redone. Or we save it. All which helps employment and builds equity.

It doesn't make much sense for the super-rich to save money. And generally they are not buying consumer items like we are. They tend to spend that extra money in purchasing land or stocks. Generally none of those expenditures create jobs. They just increase the overall ownership of the super rich. Check out Gordon geckos Check out Gordon gekko's speech in Wall Street. He puts it out there.

So saving rich people money on their taxes generally does not have a positive impact on the economy. It just makes them more rich.

You or I buy a new car, we buy a Chevy or Ford.

Kevin Durant buys a Ferrari. Rich people buy cars.

Who pays more sales tax? Assuming sales tax is no longer capped.

If one saves $20 million in taxes, then you'd have to buy a lot of Ferrari's to soak up that extra disposable income. If you are rich, chances are you already have that Ferrari. So that $20 million - in all probability - is going to purchase land, goes into trusts, or into stock. Ownership. Not incoming producing.

Maybe they'll build an 11m mansion. I can't build an 11m mansion.

Again - ownership. Not income producing. If low and middle class people gain tax space, they - generally - make expenditures that create income for the community. For other tax payers.

Rich people - generally - do not spend tax savings in the same way. If you purchase an 11M mansion, then you are - generally - only transferring that money to another rich person. I guess this is probably different if you are a Kardashian or Adam Jones. Then it goes to butt implants and strippers.

Jesus. I'm agreeing with BL.

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):
When most of us realize big tax savings, we spend it locally by perhaps buying a new car or getting our bathroom redone. Or we save it. All which helps employment and builds equity.

It doesn't make much sense for the super-rich to save money. And generally they are not buying consumer items like we are. They tend to spend that extra money in purchasing land or stocks. Generally none of those expenditures create jobs. They just increase the overall ownership of the super rich. Check out Gordon geckos Check out Gordon gekko's speech in Wall Street. He puts it out there.

So saving rich people money on their taxes generally does not have a positive impact on the economy. It just makes them more rich.

You or I buy a new car, we buy a Chevy or Ford.

Kevin Durant buys a Ferrari. Rich people buy cars.

Who pays more sales tax? Assuming sales tax is no longer capped.

If one saves $20 million in taxes, then you'd have to buy a lot of Ferrari's to soak up that extra disposable income. If you are rich, chances are you already have that Ferrari. So that $20 million - in all probability - is going to purchase land, goes into trusts, or into stock. Ownership. Not incoming producing.

Maybe they'll build an 11m mansion. I can't build an 11m mansion.

Again - ownership. Not income producing. If low and middle class people gain tax space, they - generally - make expenditures that create income for the community. For other tax payers.

Rich people - generally - do not spend tax savings in the same way. If you purchase an 11M mansion, then you are - generally - only transferring that money to another rich person. I guess this is probably different if you are a Kardashian or Adam Jones. Then it goes to butt implants and strippers.

For ****'s sake.

Who builds houses? Do they buy material? Wouldn't it be smart business sense to include the cost of your materials in your price for the house? Who buys the house?

I'm not disagreeing that money of the rich is different than money of the poor/middle class. But they buy ****. More **** than I'll every buy. And, if Queen Hillary is to be believed, Trump doesn't pay Federal tax.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

Full circle now.

Hasn't correct/close loopholes been an option? And it hasn't been done, right?

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

So let's just scream "FAIR SHARE" so the doltish poor will vote for us.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

Full circle now.

Hasn't correct/close loopholes been an option? And it hasn't been done, right?

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

So let's just scream "FAIR SHARE" so the doltish poor will vote for us.

Just because we haven't taken the best option doesn't mean we should abandon the best option for a bad option.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:21:00 AM (view original):
LOL Mike's talking himself into voting for trump.

This

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

Full circle now.

Hasn't correct/close loopholes been an option? And it hasn't been done, right?

The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result.

So let's just scream "FAIR SHARE" so the doltish poor will vote for us.

Just because we haven't taken the best option doesn't mean we should abandon the best option for a bad option.

Seems like an odd time to take the "There's nothing we can do so let's do nothing".

But congrats on accepting a dick up the *** from our political leaders.

Neither candidate is advocating for your position. Clinton is advocating for mine (or something close to it). Trump has a terrible plan.

Who should I vote for?

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

LOL.

"Fair share" means that everybody pays the same rate. Whether you make $25k or $25m, you pay x% to the government to keep it running.

And, as an aside, and I believe I've mentioned this before, capping the Social Security portion of FICA tax at the first $118,500 of income is utterly retarded. There should be no cap at all.

Removing the cap will bring in a ton more money from those making over $118.5k to the coffers of SS, and would in turn then allow the SS rate (currently 6.2% to be lowered, probably significantly). That gives an immediate tax break to those lower income earners. Something PSBL should be all over.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/28/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

LOL.

"Fair share" means that everybody pays the same rate. Whether you make $25k or $25m, you pay x% to the government to keep it running.

I think you could make the argument that fair share means everyone pays the same exact dollar amount. Or fair share could mean everyone pays a percentage that varies depending on how much you make.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 12:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 9/28/2016 12:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:37:00 AM (view original):
We should attempt to get a fair share from everyone. The best way to do that is to correct/close loopholes. Not institute a national sales tax.

LOL.

"Fair share" means that everybody pays the same rate. Whether you make $25k or $25m, you pay x% to the government to keep it running.

I think you could make the argument that fair share means everyone pays the same exact dollar amount. Or fair share could mean everyone pays a percentage that varies depending on how much you make.

How could the latter ever be considered "fair share"?

I pay 10%.
You pay 20%.

Sound fair?