Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 108
Like Tree12Likes
  1. #26  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    The Fair Tax literature does address this with the ability to escape taxes by buying used goods, however we don't have a model to visualize the impact of that on the consumer goods markets, economy and inflation, nor any analysis about the feasibility of those behaviors being massively adopted by 70-90% of the population. As such, it will grow inherently more regressive, because inflation is the mother of all regressive taxes. It is attempting to be fairer than a straight sales tax, however it provides a direct incentive to either not consume goods or to not consume new goods, and as such most likely inflates the need for process optimization and other job killing measures. A regressive tax does the only thing that a regressive tax can do: widens the gap between the top and the bottom. So the question of the day: are the jobs destroying capabilities of this worse than the alleged job destroying capabilities of a progressive tax?
    They use market theories to describe what they expect to happen with businesses, as the plan allows them to run more efficiently and also making the U.S. a tax haven for them. Look at our own states, like Texas for example. They have no income taxes and businesses have been flooding in lately to escape places like California with high tax rates.

    And here's a kicker, even the government would have to pay the tax when making purchases. Wrap your head around that one.
    Darth Spock likes this.
  2. #27  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    They use market theories to describe what they expect to happen with businesses, as the plan allows them to run more efficiently and also making the U.S. a tax haven for them. Look at our own states, like Texas for example. They have no income taxes and businesses have been flooding in lately to escape places like California with high tax rates.

    And here's a kicker, even the government would have to pay the tax when making purchases. Wrap your head around that one.
    I have no disagreement with any of the theories, except that on paper, pure capitalism and pure communism both work. In reality, neither work without augmentation. The logic is fairly sound, but it's dependant on consumer behaviors, as well as businesses working in their own self interest. Consumers work against their own self interest ALL THE TIME. People are collectively dumb. So, I'm not saying that the program would not function, and function largely as intended... I'm saying, if it does function, but not fully as intended, that it will be regressive in practice, if not in intent. Regressive taxes can work, they do create revenue, the downstream impact is just very harsh on sustainability because of the widening gap between "classes". All the creative mitigation strategies seem to be covering up for what is inherently a problematic code that solves two major problems, while having the potential to open up a much larger set of issues. Will the sum product work? Maybe.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  3. #28  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    People are collectively dumb.
    Truer words were never spoken. I know they try to factor in human nature, but I'm sure some things will need to be fine tuned once implemented. I will say that I don't think your concerns will be realized all that much. I think the first year, maybe two, will see exceptionally higher savings rates as people realize they gain interest tax free and hold off spending some to jump start retirement and such. But it also means investments in businesses from those funds will increase (helping shore them up and advance developments), and things will plateau, bringing consumer spending back to normalized levels. I don't have anything to back up that opinion, just my guess based on life experiences and what I've seen happen.
  4. #29  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    But yet the people at the bottom would have zero tax burden. No one is denying it's a sales tax, but no other sales tax has an offset measure like the prebate either.



    See my first statement. :rolleyes:


    Now this is at least a good critical questioning, but the prebate is no more income than is a tax refund under our current system. Whether you get it before or after the fact, it's a refund of the expected taxes spent at the poverty line. The designers believe that no one should have to pay taxes on the basic necessities of life. Whether you make $5k or $5M a year, those basics are the same for everyone. That's why everyone gets the same prebate amount for their family size and location (notice, this excludes income requirements).


    Perhaps, depending on your spending vs saving. But again, reference my first statement.


    This isn't an income tax, so those arguments are not valid for this system. Plus, everyone can affect their tax burden based on purchases if they choose.


    Again, this depends on purchasing habits. If they choose to live a meager life and save that extra income, that's their choice. But also, that higher earner could be in a job where dress code demands better clothing, maybe a new car every few years if traveling, and also wanting better home furnishings.


    When coupled with the prebate that allows the poorest to live tax free and then some and the fact that it's not income being taxed, yes.
    Again how is this nothing more than a fancy sales tax. It shift the burden of funding onto the middle class thing. It is an extremely regressive tax.

    I ask again how is it nothing more than a fancy sales tax.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  5. #30  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Round and round we go...

    No one is denying it's a sales tax, but you're apparently purposely ignoring how the prebate negates that regressiveness. You've still yet to explain the reasoning behind your statements.


    EDIT: Let me give you some numbers and then you can explain the fallacy. Hypothetically, let's take three people with the same poverty level. Poor, middle, and rich. They all get the same prebate amount according to the plan.

    In a given year, the poor (by buying second hand and limiting extra expenses), pays less tax than the prebate gives him. He made money from the plan. The middle class person (by buying more new items and enjoying extras in life) pays a few hundred in taxes after accounting for the prebate. The rich person (by buying high end products, fancy boats, new housing, employees a lawn care service, etc) could pay several thousand or even tens of thousands in tax after the prebate.

    So where's the problem in that? Explain how that's placing an undue burden on the poor and middle class.
  6. #31  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I would just be happy with a flat tax at this point with no exceptions. Everyone pays xx% period, no exceptions, no deductions, no reduced rates for anything.
  7. #32  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I'm using very generic numebrs here, not necessarily the numbers in the plan...



    It's very easy for this to happen. A 20% (example) tax on consumer goods with a $5,000 rebate (or prebate) (example) allows the prebate to mitigate the regressiveness of the system for the lowest class, but does nothing to help the middle class. However, as demonstrated in the chart, it's easy for the effective tax rate for the top 1% to be below that of the poorest citizen (very easy), and far below that of what the middle class is supporting. Of course, if the higher classes decide to spend, rather than reinvest, more of their income, then they will pay more taxes. But, where is the incentive for them to do that? And that demphasis on consumer products (new or used) is the danger to the economy.

    Assuming a smooth distribution of about 11% up to the top 1%, we'd get a situation where the top 1% pay about 16% of all taxes on 27% of all income, while literally every other group would pay more of the % of income as taxes than their % of income represents of the whole, simply to make up the gargantuan tax break being bestowed upon the most wealthy. The top 45% of the population would pay around 76% of all taxes on 80% of all income, which is pretty close and goes to show that too much is shouldered by the middle ground, while the tax on the lowest classes greatly outpaces their proportion of income and only the most wealthy catch a break and receive more of the share of income than their share of taxes would merit.

    I'm not in favor of punishing the most wealthy or anything even remotely like that... but I'm definitely not in favor of taxing them less than we tax anyone else. The Warren Buffet example is sickening. Raising the tax rates of everyone up to parity doesn't sound reasonable, so maybe we should lower everyone's taxes down to the lowest common denominator. That obviously also requires reducing expenses to match the lowered income stream.
    Last edited by NothingIsTrue; 12-12-2013 at 10:56 PM.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  8. #33  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Round and round we go...

    No one is denying it's a sales tax, but you're apparently purposely ignoring how the prebate negates that regressiveness. You've still yet to explain the reasoning behind your statements.


    EDIT: Let me give you some numbers and then you can explain the fallacy. Hypothetically, let's take three people with the same poverty level. Poor, middle, and rich. They all get the same prebate amount according to the plan.

    In a given year, the poor (by buying second hand and limiting extra expenses), pays less tax than the prebate gives him. He made money from the plan. The middle class person (by buying more new items and enjoying extras in life) pays a few hundred in taxes after accounting for the prebate. The rich person (by buying high end products, fancy boats, new housing, employees a lawn care service, etc) could pay several thousand or even tens of thousands in tax after the prebate.

    So where's the problem in that? Explain how that's placing an undue burden on the poor and middle class.
    And you yet again do not understand it is a sales tax and a sales tax is highly regressive.
    You agree it is a fancy sales tax. Sales tax are very regressive. The prebate is set on the poverty line. Generally pretty low.
    Percentage of income paid in taxes will be larger by the lower group. Simple as that.

    If you think the fair tax is fair and not regressive then you have been hood wink by the people pushing it. It is very regressive. Basically the less you make the larger chunk of your income goes to taxes.
    A flat tax is fairer than the so call fair tax.

    You have yet to get around the fact the fair tax is nothing more than a fancy sales tax. A very fancy sales tax. But still a sales tax.

    Basically you are for the people making less taking in the burden of funding the government.

    The prebate is set pretty low.


    Edit:

    Using your poor middle and Rich.

    Poor will spend around 100% of their income. So 20% paid in taxes.

    Middle spend around 90% of their income. so 18% of the income in taxes.

    Rich spend 70% so 14% income in taxes.

    The prebat can not address than fundamental flaw in your system. It is simple the more you make the less of your income that you spend. As such the turn around less income would be spent on a sales tax.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  9. #34  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I don't know enough to say how realistic your numbers are. Is that kind of outcome possible? Perhaps. Likely? I don't know. Something you need to consider is it's possible for the richest people to live with the same expenses as the poorest, but you know that's not going to happen.

    But since this plan isn't taxing income, I don't think it's fair to relate the tax burden under the Fair Tax to income. I'll have to think more on your numbers
  10. #35  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    Edit:

    Using your poor middle and Rich.

    Poor will spend around 100% of their income. So 20% paid in taxes.

    Middle spend around 90% of their income. so 18% of the income in taxes.

    Rich spend 70% so 14% income in taxes.

    The prebat can not address than fundamental flaw in your system. It is simple the more you make the less of your income that you spend. As such the turn around less income would be spent on a sales tax.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    The expectation is that buying used goods will mitigate that difference and bring everyone down closer to the 14%. In my example (chart) I included a scaling % of used goods with income that was also matched by an increase in savings, etc. thus reducing total % of capital expense and increasing the taxed % of expense... this still resulted in a situation where the middle class paid the highest, the lowest class paid the 2nd highest and the top tier paid by far the lowest rates.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  11. #36  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    I'm using very generic numebrs here, not necessarily the numbers in the plan...



    It's very easy for this to happen. A 20% (example) tax on consumer goods with a $5,000 rebate (or prebate) (example) allows the prebate to mitigate the regressiveness of the system for the lowest class, but does nothing to help the middle class. However, as demonstrated in the chart, it's easy for the effective tax rate for the top 1% to be below that of the poorest citizen (very easy), and far below that of what the middle class is supporting. Of course, if the higher classes decide to spend, rather than reinvest, more of their income, then they will pay more taxes. But, where is the incentive for them to do that? And that demphasis on consumer products (new or used) is the danger to the economy.

    Assuming a smooth distribution of about 11% up to the top 1%, we'd get a situation where the top 1% pay about 16% of all taxes on 27% of all income, while literally every other group would pay more of the % of income as taxes than their % of income represents of the whole, simply to make up the gargantuan tax break being bestowed upon the most wealthy. The top 45% of the population would pay around 76% of all taxes on 80% of all income, which is pretty close and goes to show that too much is shouldered by the middle ground, while the tax on the lowest classes greatly outpaces their proportion of income and only the most wealthy catch a break and receive more of the share of income than their share of taxes would merit.

    I'm not in favor of punishing the most wealthy or anything even remotely like that... but I'm definitely not in favor of taxing them less than we tax anyone else. The Warren Buffet example is sickening. Raising the tax rates of everyone up to parity doesn't sound reasonable, so maybe we should lower everyone's taxes down to the lowest common denominator. That obviously also requires reducing expenses to match the lowered income stream.
    I am a fan of a flat tax on disposable income.
    Since cost of living is not linear with income but more logomatic function you need a progressive tax system to balance that out.
    Our tax code needs to be fix. I would be for lowering the tax rate and closing the loop holes so badly abused. Sadly they will never close the loop holes.
    Proof of this happening is lets look back at regon. He said lower taxes and we will close the loop holes. 30 years later we are still waiting for those so call loop holes to be closed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    The expectation is that buying used goods will mitigate that difference and bring everyone down closer to the 14%. In my example (chart) I included a scaling % of used goods with income that was also matched by an increase in savings, etc. thus reducing total % of capital expense and increasing the taxed % of expense... this still resulted in a situation where the middle class paid the highest, the lowest class paid the 2nd highest and the top tier paid by far the lowest rates.
    Yep part as normal the middle class get screwed.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  12. #37  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    But since this plan isn't taxing income, I don't think it's fair to relate the tax burden under the Fair Tax to income. I'll have to think more on your numbers
    And that's the only pretext under which the Fair Tax isn't regressive, so the question is really one of paradigm: Given the differences between disposable income and actual income, is it more fair to tax only the disposable income, only the non-disposable income or all of it? Every tax plan essentially goes after one fo those categories. As a society we've more or less adopted a philosophy of taxing disposable income, while this plan challenges that in a big way. Now, if there were exemptions, say... groceries, childcare supplies, a primary automobile purchase or payment up to a certain amount and/or the rent/mortgage (up to a certain amount) of a primary residence... then this is easier to balance out, however then it requires math to figure out who owes how much on which expenditures, and we lose a lot of the grace of simplicity and open up further channels for corruption.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  13. #38  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NothingIsTrue View Post
    Now, if there were exemptions, say... groceries, childcare supplies, a primary automobile purchase or payment up to a certain amount and/or the rent/mortgage (up to a certain amount) of a primary residence... then this is easier to balance out, however then it requires math to figure out who owes how much on which expenditures, and we lose a lot of the grace of simplicity and open up further channels for corruption.
    This I know was specifically addressed in the first Fair Tax book, and was a conscious decision not to exempt anything, and to go with the prebate instead. The designers were afraid that if you make exemptions, that it would become a slippery slope as all the D.C.lobbyists would try to convince congress that this that and the other product should be exempt. As example, look at the debates had on things like Viagra being covered under health insurance. So by not having exemptions sand using the easier method of the prebate, it takes the power from the lobbyists.

    Now, as for the regressive issue, I just had a talk with someone much more knowledgeable than me on the plan. He agreed that there's no way to truly predict the spending habits (and thus tax burden) of various classes of people under the new system. What we do know is this plan puts the power of taxation back into the hands of the people. Under the current system, the tax is withheld before you get to see a penny of it. Even if you wanted to pay less, you couldn't or would be cheating to do so. With the Fair Tax, you get the power to directly influence the amount of taxes you pay simply by the purchases you make. It's now a direct incentive to spend less and save more, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.

    That being said, we also know the more money people earn, the more they want to enjoy it. That means while those at the very bottom don't pay any net federal taxes, the people at top are going to pay lots and lots of tax. Is it theoretically possible for even millionaires to get away with paying no Fair Tax? Yes, but you know that's not going to happen. Like in NothingIsTrue's numbers, it is easily conceivable that the tax burden in relation to income can go down as income goes up, but in the words of the guy I talked to, "who cares?"

    To be less blunt, his point is it shouldn't matter what percentage you pay, nor should we punish the most productive people for being successful. As a country, we've got too wrapped up in who pays what and burdens and trying to make everyone pay "their fair share," a number that no one seems to be able to clearly define. Why can't we be happy with the poor paying very little and the rich paying uber amounts, regardless of percentages? If you are so concerned with that type of issue, then the Fair Tax should be the perfect plan to support.

    Going back to the chart and keeping this all in mind, let's now look at the middle class that could see a higher tax burden than anyone else. Again, theoretically possible, but that would only happen by the choice of the individual tax payer. For anyone that is complaining any one class is paying too much, they should instead promote the idea of those people adjusting their spending habits. Then it is up to the person, not the government or anyone else to determine how much they pay in taxes. That person can balance tax implications (should they choose to at all) with the price of an item, its suitability and value of their purchase, and how easily they could afford the product.

    As was explained to me, while the plan itself is simple in its execution, the concepts behind it can get fairly complex when you dig into it. It's one of those things that you can't pick out this part and that part and criticize, because you have to look at how it affects everything else in the big picture. Much like what they say about Obamacare, only this is something that would shrink and streamline the government, not increase and over complicate things.
  14. #39  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    This I know was specifically addressed in the first Fair Tax book, and was a conscious decision not to exempt anything, and to go with the prebate instead. The designers were afraid that if you make exemptions, that it would become a slippery slope as all the D.C.lobbyists would try to convince congress that this that and the other product should be exempt. As example, look at the debates had on things like Viagra being covered under health insurance. So by not having exemptions sand using the easier method of the prebate, it takes the power from the lobbyists.

    Now, as for the regressive issue, I just had a talk with someone much more knowledgeable than me on the plan. He agreed that there's no way to truly predict the spending habits (and thus tax burden) of various classes of people under the new system. What we do know is this plan puts the power of taxation back into the hands of the people. Under the current system, the tax is withheld before you get to see a penny of it. Even if you wanted to pay less, you couldn't or would be cheating to do so. With the Fair Tax, you get the power to directly influence the amount of taxes you pay simply by the purchases you make. It's now a direct incentive to spend less and save more, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.

    That being said, we also know the more money people earn, the more they want to enjoy it. That means while those at the very bottom don't pay any net federal taxes, the people at top are going to pay lots and lots of tax. Is it theoretically possible for even millionaires to get away with paying no Fair Tax? Yes, but you know that's not going to happen. Like in NothingIsTrue's numbers, it is easily conceivable that the tax burden in relation to income can go down as income goes up, but in the words of the guy I talked to, "who cares?"

    To be less blunt, his point is it shouldn't matter what percentage you pay, nor should we punish the most productive people for being successful. As a country, we've got too wrapped up in who pays what and burdens and trying to make everyone pay "their fair share," a number that no one seems to be able to clearly define. Why can't we be happy with the poor paying very little and the rich paying uber amounts, regardless of percentages? If you are so concerned with that type of issue, then the Fair Tax should be the perfect plan to support.

    Going back to the chart and keeping this all in mind, let's now look at the middle class that could see a higher tax burden than anyone else. Again, theoretically possible, but that would only happen by the choice of the individual tax payer. For anyone that is complaining any one class is paying too much, they should instead promote the idea of those people adjusting their spending habits. Then it is up to the person, not the government or anyone else to determine how much they pay in taxes. That person can balance tax implications (should they choose to at all) with the price of an item, its suitability and value of their purchase, and how easily they could afford the product.

    As was explained to me, while the plan itself is simple in its execution, the concepts behind it can get fairly complex when you dig into it. It's one of those things that you can't pick out this part and that part and criticize, because you have to look at how it affects everything else in the big picture. Much like what they say about Obamacare, only this is something that would shrink and streamline the government, not increase and over complicate things.
    Oh you can.
    End of the day the fair tax is nothing more than a sales tax.

    Your entire argument is trying to cover up that fact. It is a very regressive tax.
    You want the poor and the middle class to shoulder the burden of government while the richer you are the less you have to pay for it.
    A flat tax is fairer. The fair tax is the least fair of any system.

    Basically your so called fair tax punishes those who make less. This is nothing more than letting the richer you are paying less of each dollar in taxes.

    Your say no way to predict how people will spend money. Sorry that is bs and you know it. We can do that with current data. We can predict that pretty well. So yes it can be done.
    Your are arguing for a sales tax. A very regressive tax.



    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  15. #40  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Ok, now your lack of comprehension on the subject is just laughable to me. It's clear you didn't actually read what I wrote, as the answer was given about if it's regressive. Hint: it's the next to the last paragraph.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    A flat tax is fairer. The fair tax is the least fair of any system.
    Enacting a similar plan lead to the complex tax regulations we have today.

    Your say no way to predict how people will spend money. Sorry that is bs and you know it. We can do that with current data. We can predict that pretty well.
    There's no other place that has anything like this on a large scale. So I highly doubt existing models can be trusted to accurately predict spending habits under a Fair Tax plan.
  16. #41  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    For anyone that is complaining any one class is paying too much, they should instead promote the idea of those people adjusting their spending habits. Then it is up to the person, not the government or anyone else to determine how much they pay in taxes. That person can balance tax implications (should they choose to at all) with the price of an item, its suitability and value of their purchase, and how easily they could afford the product.
    Meaningless percentages aside, this is the part that is actually philosophically concerning. We live in a consumer driven cyclical debt based economy. Longest story short, if people aren't spending money, more of it constantly, and more importantly if they're not borrowing money to do it... this whole game crashes. It's not just about inflation, but that's a huge part of it and while this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    It's now a direct incentive to spend less and save more, which I'm sure we can all agree is a good thing.
    is outstanding for an individual, collectively, in my non expert opinion, this is disastrous. Savings for an individual is awesome, but if it's in a bank, it's open to fractional reserve lending... and because there is little incentive to spend like crazy (the opposite is encouraged by a factor of 8 when annually compounded), unnecessary expense (and thus borrowing and transferring of funds) decreasing in the slightest causes interest rates to bottom out (more supply, less demand) ... these three things are a recipe for inflation on a massive scale. Unfortunately inflation is going to impact those spending all or most or more than their income far more than anyone else, thus substantially increasing their net and realized tax burden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Like in NothingIsTrue's numbers, it is easily conceivable that the tax burden in relation to income can go down as income goes up, but in the words of the guy I talked to, "who cares?"
    One of the major foundational precepts of our society is the elimination of the caste doctrine in favor of a dynamic and fluid effort and talent based reward system. The ability for the son of the bricklayer to become the hotel tycoon, and for the tycoon to fall and have to pound nails to get by. Equality relative to income mobility is an important libertarian philosophy and behaviors that intentionally widen the income gap and insulate those at the top from risk while creating ever-increasingly productive and ever-decreasingly rewarded debt slaves out of the majority of the population is a disease to our sustainability as a democratically oriented civilization. Going too far in either direction, favoritism to either group is wrong. However, the line between what is clearly favoritism and what is enhancing equality of opportunity is pretty blurry and takes political scientists and philosophers much more qualified than me to flesh out.

    Based on that assumption, the relative starting positions of various players versus the distinctions in their inherent ability and their prescribed ability to change their position is pretty central and important to the argument of what is "fair". Paying a "fair share" might mean something different to democrats, but for me it's not about increasing the responsibility of or penalizing those most well off. It's about deflating unwarranted advantages that are unemployable by those struggling while providing tangible incentives to seek incremental mobility, as opposed to the "all or nothing" mentality that the dumbest enjoy. We need people that are excited to move from base positions to slightly better positions, steadily increasing their value and thus income over time, rather than gambling everything on trying to go from 0 to 100%. Right now it seems like everyone expects to be treated and compensated like the CEO, despite not putting in the effort to even learn the business they're in, let alone the industry, etc.

    It's not up to me to say who should do what with their money (and I'm glad of that), but it seems pretty obvious that a small family of modest means should not be penalized for not having been born into nobility. That goes far deeper than taxation, but also into hiring practices, educational opportunities and it's one of the biggest issues on which both democrats and republicans have most betrayed us. The establishment's interests is in the perpetuation of the establishment.

    In my esteem, I feel that if I am the most qualified linear programmer applying for NASA's Mission to Mars analytics team, the fact that I'm an immigrant, or that my biological parents were very wealthy or that my adoptive parents were Catholic or that my sister voted for McCain once and Obama the next time should all have no bearing whatsoever on my application review process, let alone things as silly as hair/skin/eye color/texture, etc. I'm sure everyone would agree with all or most of that. (The fact of the matter is that no one who is not 6th generation or more Bostonian with a reference from MIT is being considered, but totally besides the point, or maybe that's the exact point).

    Opportunity relative to income mobility is much more subtle a form of discrimination, but on this thing the moderates considering a flat tax and/or liberals and establishment conservatives favoring a progressive tax may have an advantage on, because even though they don't know it, most of the country is in the group of people that gets screwed by radical changes in favor of increasing the wealth of the top 1% at the expense of the lowest and middle class populations.

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  17. #42  
    Darth Spock's Avatar

    Posts
    5,708 Posts
    Global Posts
    5,747 Global Posts
    ROM
    Assassin 'Droid

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Different question: (and rant)

    We fought the revolutionary war primarily because of tyrannical practices relative to banking, currency and taxation. For over 100 years from the beginning of the United States, we fought a raging battle against having a centralized bank and/or any form of an income tax. Why on earth are we discussing the best way to be figuratively raped by the establishment, rather than discussing how to end their abuse? The concept of an income tax was insanity to most of our leaders and a centralized bank was a treasonous to install.

    In my opinion, the lowest risk plan for our long term outlook is to find a way to politely cancel the debt to the federal reserve banks, cancel any obligations to the IMF and cancel the debt to the Bank of England.

    Step 1, cut ties, deport their officers and be done with it. That one move eliminations 7-12% of our carried expenditures, eliminations 70-75% of our total debt, arrests inflation based on fractional reserve capital and puts an end to the greatest 100 year long theft of property and "money" ever conceived.

    Step two, new currency, based on something that actually exists. Issued by the treasury department and never inflated. If a dollar represents an ounce of silver, it's an ounce of silver. Whatever, use coconuts if it makes you happy, just pick a commodity, establish value and chain it to currency. Banks, if they want to play, have to make loans based on assets on hand, not create money out of thin air.

    Step 3, if we can't afford something, we don't buy it. If not being able to borrow money means we can no longer pay for millionaires (congress) to be paraded around the country in limousines and reside in some of the nicest offices ever constructed... maybe those millionaires can sustain themselves. If it means we can't have billions and billions in subsidies to companies that are billions and billions in the black... sorry, not sad. Expense needs to be at least 1 cent lower than adjusted revenue or we're failing.

    Step 3B, serious consideration and thought leadership needs to be devoted to the concept of a sustainable optimization of available resources. Our current strategy seems to be to pray that we're hit by a meteor that ends all life prior to everything collapsing because we run out of some critical resources which we could easily replace if we stopped wasting all of our money further entrenching the industries that restrict progress.

    Step 4, if we fail at step 3, if the nation is not profitable, congress does not get paid (elected members), nor reimbursed for expenses. In addition, contracts will be awarded based on economically sustainable value optimization formulas, not on, "Bill's brother", "cheapest", whatever. Favoritism is cancer.

    Step 5, if we are going to have an income or sales tax, it will be fully accountable and, in the case of income tax withholding, interest will be paid to citizens who loan money to the government.


    /end rant

    nevermind, I'm starting my own country and there will be no taxes except sin taxes (based on the whims of the emperor).

    ​Obvious statement: Why, I am an assassin 'droid, Master.
    May the Force Be With You

    Community Rules & Guidelines​
    (Formerly "NothingIsTrue")

  18. #43  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    Ok, now your lack of comprehension on the subject is just laughable to me. It's clear you didn't actually read what I wrote, as the answer was given about if it's regressive. Hint: it's the next to the last paragraph.


    Enacting a similar plan lead to the complex tax regulations we have today.


    There's no other place that has anything like this on a large scale. So I highly doubt existing models can be trusted to accurately predict spending habits under a Fair Tax plan.
    Sorry you got it backwards. It is laughable that you think it is great and not a sales tax. It is laughable that you buy all the "complex" part.
    It is laughable that you bought the bs in the fair tax hook line and sinker.

    This is not the first time I have look at the fair tax. I followed it pretty deeply. End of the day it is a sales tax and very regressive.
    It is crystal clear, you want the tax burden shifted to people earning less.

    Fundamentally the fair tax is a sales tax.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  19. #44  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    I'm still waiting for you to explain where I'm wrong other than to simply say it's a regressive sales tax. Base denial doesn't work with me, you have to explain yourself. Until then, you have no sway in the debate.

    At least NIS has brought an example, which I doubt would actually come to fruition and then I demonstrated the offset and how it's up to the tax payer in the end to decide how regressive/progressive the plan is for them.

    And again, no one is hiding that this involves a sales tax. But as is typical of most opponents, you purposely leave out the equalizing factor to bastardize the plan and then claim it wouldn't work, isn't fair, etc. It's a sales tax, fancy or not, but it's not *just* a sales tax.
  20. #45  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooncatt View Post
    I'm still waiting for you to explain where I'm wrong other than to simply say it's a regressive sales tax. Base denial doesn't work with me, you have to explain yourself. Until then, you have no sway in the debate.

    At least NIS has brought an example, which I doubt would actually come to fruition and then I demonstrated the offset and how it's up to the tax payer in the end to decide how regressive/progressive the plan is for them.

    And again, no one is hiding that this involves a sales tax. But as is typical of most opponents, you purposely leave out the equalizing factor to bastardize the plan and then claim it wouldn't work, isn't fair, etc. It's a sales tax, fancy or not, but it's not *just* a sales tax.

    Ok lets first agree on some thing.

    You agree it is basically a fancy sales tax.
    It has a prebat based on poverty line and since this is a flat number no matter how much you make it has a point that it will quickly turn into the fact more you make the less of your income you pay in taxes. This translate it is a regressive tax.

    Since we have established it is a regressive tax, fundamentally I have a massive issue with a regressive tax. I am a fan of taxing disposable income at a flat rate. Now if you can come up with a good way to tax disposable income at a flat rate I am all ears. To tax disposable income close to flat it requires a progress tax as cost of living goes up in a logarithmic function.

    Some it up I have fundamental problem with regressive tax. It boils down to it is a fancy sales tax. it is tax based on consumption. That is a sales tax. The only so called equalizer factor is the probate but that does not address the fact it is regressive no matter how you cut it. It will have a point where it flips no matter how you cut it.
    NIS explain how it regressive and you did the famous head in the sand defense.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  21. Thread Author  Thread Author    #46  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,032 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    Ok lets first agree on some thing.

    You agree it is basically a fancy sales tax.
    It has a prebat based on poverty line and since this is a flat number no matter how much you make it has a point that it will quickly turn into the fact more you make the less of your income you pay in taxes. This translate it is a regressive tax.

    Since we have established it is a regressive tax, fundamentally I have a massive issue with a regressive tax. I am a fan of taxing disposable income at a flat rate. Now if you can come up with a good way to tax disposable income at a flat rate I am all ears. To tax disposable income close to flat it requires a progress tax as cost of living goes up in a logarithmic function.

    Some it up I have fundamental problem with regressive tax. It boils down to it is a fancy sales tax. it is tax based on consumption. That is a sales tax. The only so called equalizer factor is the probate but that does not address the fact it is regressive no matter how you cut it. It will have a point where it flips no matter how you cut it.
    NIS explain how it regressive and you did the famous head in the sand defense.
    It has NOTHING to do with income. The more you spend, the more you are taxed. Period. People that buy expensive things will be taxed more. People that live minimal lifestyles will be taxed less. That is all that this plan accomplishes. Income is not a part of the equation past the probate.

    Regressive vs progressive is really not a logical debate for this system because no one is forced to pay taxes. They have to choose to make purchases in order to pay taxes.
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  22. #47  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NoYankees44 View Post
    It has NOTHING to do with income. The more you spend, the more you are taxed. Period. People that buy expensive things will be taxed more. People that live minimal lifestyles will be taxed less. That is all that this plan accomplishes. Income is not a part of the equation past the probate.

    Regressive vs progressive is really not a logical debate for this system because no one is forced to pay taxes. They have to choose to make purchases in order to pay taxes.
    And there we go. The classic head in the sand argument by people pushing it.
    Income matters in the sense of how much if your gross income is being paid in taxes.
    This is a sales tax. Something that is regressive.

    This is a sales tax. You have not gotten around that problem unless you do the head in the sands argument. It is logical in this debate. The entire defense is to remove that fundamental flaw in the system.

    They have to choose to make purchases in order to pay taxes. = SALES TAX.
    Sales tax is regressive end of story.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  23. Thread Author  Thread Author    #48  
    NoYankees44's Avatar

    Posts
    1,032 Posts
    ROM
    Viper

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by Timelessblur View Post
    And there we go. The classic head in the sand argument by people pushing it.
    Income matters in the sense of how much if your gross income is being paid in taxes.
    This is a sales tax. Something that is regressive.

    This is a sales tax. You have not gotten around that problem unless you do the head in the sands argument. It is logical in this debate. The entire defense is to remove that fundamental flaw in the system.

    They have to choose to make purchases in order to pay taxes. = SALES TAX.
    Sales tax is regressive end of story.
    Please show me where i said it was not a sales tax. No one is arguing that it is not. The point is that it is a sales tax.

    The fact that it is a sales tax says nothing about the validity or fairness of the system unless there is some reason that you believe that to be a fundamental flaw and have thus far refused to explain. All you have done is scream REGRESSIVE without a single example how or why.

    You continually claim others are putting their head in the sand while not refuting a single argument posted. I am completely convinced that you are just posting for reactions and have no intentions to actually discuss anything. I would say exactly what you are doing, but that is against the forum rules for some reason.

    Until you actually read and respond to posts instead of cluttering up threads content-less post that amount to "You wrong", I will not respond to you and suggest that others do the same.
    Galaxy S3(unlocked on whatever I feel like flashing) ---- Asus Tf300(unlocked on CROMI)
    Htc Rezound(s-off on ViperRez) -- Addicted to crack and retired
  24. #49  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Quote Originally Posted by NoYankees44 View Post
    Please show me where i said it was not a sales tax. No one is arguing that it is not. The point is that it is a sales tax.

    The fact that it is a sales tax says nothing about the validity or fairness of the system unless there is some reason that you believe that to be a fundamental flaw and have thus far refused to explain. All you have done is scream REGRESSIVE without a single example how or why.

    You continually claim others are putting their head in the sand while not refuting a single argument posted. I am completely convinced that you are just posting for reactions and have no intentions to actually discuss anything. I would say exactly what you are doing, but that is against the forum rules for some reason.

    Until you actually read and respond to posts instead of cluttering up threads content-less post that amount to "You wrong", I will not respond to you and suggest that others do the same.
    Ok first off sales tax is a regressive tax. There is no getting around that issue.

    Regressive tax means the less you make the more of your income goes to taxes.
    I am calling it unfair because I believe you should be tax on disposable income and would say it is fair if your disposable income is tax flat.
    A regressive tax it is impossible to do that as cost of living is not linear with income.

    You have not address that fact. How is it fair that the less you make the more of your total income goes to taxes. You have yet to address that issue.

    My issue with the so called "fair tax" is it is a regressive tax. A regressive tax is fundamentally unfair.

    A fair tax is taxing disposable income at a flat rate. Please provide a system in which that can be done.

    Every post defending the so fair tax has been trying to explain how it is not a fancy sales tax.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
  25. #50  

    Default Re: 2010 Federal Income Tax-Who Paid What

    Basic reading for why I call the "Fair tax" unfair. Since it is established that the fair tax is a sales tax.

    the article is on sales tax and its imbalance in tax rates on rich vs poor.
    Until proven otherwise the so called "Google Update Alliances" is dead and was just empty promises and words. One has to look no father than the pathetic and slow update process of ICS on all the manufactures and carriers. We should all be asking the question about updates and the so called Update Alliances ever chance we get.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who would like one?
    By Golfdriver97 in forum Sony Z Ultra Google Play edition
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 10:09 PM
  2. How to sync Pc outlook 2010 with Samsung Galaxy S4 without USB cable
    By Somepeoplearecool in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 09:21 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 05:09 AM
  4. What does Sync do?
    By 7ewis in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 06:42 PM
  5. Portability of Paid-for Apps
    By Labarum in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 04:09 AM

Posting Permissions

B