20% retail VAT tax to replace ALL income taxes

[ihopehefails]

Its a VAT tax that the retailer pays and what is wrong with having a wealthy class?

There's nothing wrong with a wealthy class. There is something wrong with a system that is designed keep the wealthy wealthy, and the poor poor.

Yes.. because it is much better to have a system that is designated to make the wealthy poor and turn the wealth they had over to the poor

What you need is a system that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of my freedom to earn and keep what I earn... that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of Robin Hood dreams

Its always strange when they come up with some imaginary system that keeps the poor poor when there is no law that caps the income a person can earn that would keep a person at a certain economic level.

It also further proof that modern liberals are secret communist because a system that keeps the poor poor comes right out of marxist thinking about 'class warfare'.

 

[ihopehefails]

There's nothing wrong with a wealthy class. There is something wrong with a system that is designed keep the wealthy wealthy, and the poor poor.

Yes.. because it is much better to have a system that is designated to make the wealthy poor and turn the wealth they had over to the poor

What you need is a system that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of my freedom to earn and keep what I earn... that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of Robin Hood dreams

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

Interesting. I guess you can make a case that the wealthiest among us jumped over all those tax hurdles to become wealthy and then say that those taxes did not stop them from being wealthy but what about those who could not jump over those tax hurdles. You can definately make a case that those taxes stopped them from becoming wealthy. The next time we talk about the poor we can just blame the taxes that they pay and the fact tha the evil democrats are hurting the poor. We can also say that democrats are protecting the rich class by creating taxes and regulations that prevent the 'lower classes' from becoming rich.

Why are they so evil...

 

[DiamondDave]

There's nothing wrong with a wealthy class. There is something wrong with a system that is designed keep the wealthy wealthy, and the poor poor.

Yes.. because it is much better to have a system that is designated to make the wealthy poor and turn the wealth they had over to the poor

What you need is a system that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of my freedom to earn and keep what I earn... that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of Robin Hood dreams

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

So it's OK as long as it keeps the dirty 'rich' out of the poor house?... but ensures that you redistribute monies and entitlements at their expense to the 'poor'... ensuring you dangle enough of a carrot in front of each to keep them complacent

So it's ok for you to have your selective equality?... true equality when it benefits you... unequal treatment of those you deem evil or 'rich' when it also benefits you

FUCK THAT....

 

[ihopehefails]

They're passed on too. I'd imagine that when it comes to taxing businesses we'd be in agreement as to how well that works.

The more taxes a business pays like, property, income, and any other kind of tax always digs into the workers wages and keeps the poor poor?

See, I think we agree on how effective taxing a business is.

You should never create taxes that directly target a business without extremely good reasons. Those taxes just get passed on in lower wages and higher costs.

I can't figure out why a retail vat tax would have this effect but an income tax will not.

 

[xsited1]

What do you think of a 20% retail VAT tax to replace ALL income taxes?

You mean a Consumption Tax? I'm in. Alexander Hamilton favored consumption taxes in part because they are harder to raise to confiscatory levels than incomes taxes.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Federalist Paper - 21

 

[ihopehefails]

What do you think of a 20% retail VAT tax to replace ALL income taxes?

You mean a Consumption Tax? I'm in. Alexander Hamilton favored consumption taxes in part because they are harder to raise to confiscatory levels than incomes taxes.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Federalist Paper - 21

I got one vote so far! Yes!

I think it would be better because only about 10% of the population would directly pay this tax (although we all indirectly pay any tax) which would make it easier for people to have more money for themselves because it won't be taken out of their check.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes.. because it is much better to have a system that is designated to make the wealthy poor and turn the wealth they had over to the poor

What you need is a system that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of my freedom to earn and keep what I earn... that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of Robin Hood dreams

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

Interesting. I guess you can make a case that the wealthiest among us jumped over all those tax hurdles to become wealthy and then say that those taxes did not stop them from being wealthy but what about those who could not jump over those tax hurdles. You can definately make a case that those taxes stopped them from becoming wealthy. The next time we talk about the poor we can just blame the taxes that they pay and the fact tha the evil democrats are hurting the poor. We can also say that democrats are protecting the rich class by creating taxes and regulations that prevent the 'lower classes' from becoming rich.

Why are they so evil...

By all means, attempt to make that case. And you'll fail just like your first post.

You really don't understand how taxes work, do you?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes.. because it is much better to have a system that is designated to make the wealthy poor and turn the wealth they had over to the poor

What you need is a system that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of my freedom to earn and keep what I earn... that keeps it's dirty fucking nose out of Robin Hood dreams

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

So it's OK as long as it keeps the dirty 'rich' out of the poor house?... but ensures that you redistribute monies and entitlements at their expense to the 'poor'... ensuring you dangle enough of a carrot in front of each to keep them complacent

So it's ok for you to have your selective equality?... true equality when it benefits you... unequal treatment of those you deem evil or 'rich' when it also benefits you

FUCK THAT....

I think you're reading what you want to from my post. Nowhere in it did I make a case for redistribution of wealth, nor did I call rich people "evil".

 

[ihopehefails]

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

Interesting. I guess you can make a case that the wealthiest among us jumped over all those tax hurdles to become wealthy and then say that those taxes did not stop them from being wealthy but what about those who could not jump over those tax hurdles. You can definately make a case that those taxes stopped them from becoming wealthy. The next time we talk about the poor we can just blame the taxes that they pay and the fact tha the evil democrats are hurting the poor. We can also say that democrats are protecting the rich class by creating taxes and regulations that prevent the 'lower classes' from becoming rich.

Why are they so evil...

By all means, attempt to make that case. And you'll fail just like your first post.

You really don't understand how taxes work, do you?

I understand that you think that taxing people makes them wealthier. This bit of logic might fly in 1984 but this is real life and in real life those people are not wealthy for some reason.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Interesting. I guess you can make a case that the wealthiest among us jumped over all those tax hurdles to become wealthy and then say that those taxes did not stop them from being wealthy but what about those who could not jump over those tax hurdles. You can definately make a case that those taxes stopped them from becoming wealthy. The next time we talk about the poor we can just blame the taxes that they pay and the fact tha the evil democrats are hurting the poor. We can also say that democrats are protecting the rich class by creating taxes and regulations that prevent the 'lower classes' from becoming rich.

Why are they so evil...

By all means, attempt to make that case. And you'll fail just like your first post.

You really don't understand how taxes work, do you?

I understand that you think that taxing people makes them wealthier. This bit of logic might fly in 1984 but this is real life.

So, you're another poster who doesn't know how to read? Maybe you should stop listening to what Rush says, and actually read my post.

 

[ihopehefails]

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

So it's OK as long as it keeps the dirty 'rich' out of the poor house?... but ensures that you redistribute monies and entitlements at their expense to the 'poor'... ensuring you dangle enough of a carrot in front of each to keep them complacent

So it's ok for you to have your selective equality?... true equality when it benefits you... unequal treatment of those you deem evil or 'rich' when it also benefits you

FUCK THAT....

I think you're reading what you want to from my post. Nowhere in it did I make a case for redistribution of wealth, nor did I call rich people "evil".

After a few back and forth post you probably would have said that the poor are poor because the rich are not getting taxed enough which does not make any sense at all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So it's OK as long as it keeps the dirty 'rich' out of the poor house?... but ensures that you redistribute monies and entitlements at their expense to the 'poor'... ensuring you dangle enough of a carrot in front of each to keep them complacent

So it's ok for you to have your selective equality?... true equality when it benefits you... unequal treatment of those you deem evil or 'rich' when it also benefits you

FUCK THAT....

I think you're reading what you want to from my post. Nowhere in it did I make a case for redistribution of wealth, nor did I call rich people "evil".

After a few back and forth post you probably would have said that the poor are poor because the rich are not getting taxed enough which does not make any sense at all.

Oh, so now you're a psychic? Tell me, what's my next post going to say?

 

[ihopehefails]

By all means, attempt to make that case. And you'll fail just like your first post.

You really don't understand how taxes work, do you?

I understand that you think that taxing people makes them wealthier. This bit of logic might fly in 1984 but this is real life.

So, you're another poster who doesn't know how to read? Maybe you should stop listening to what Rush says, and actually read my post.

I can't name a single rich person who is not rich for any reason such as taxes because its hard find a single rich person who is not rich.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think you're reading what you want to from my post. Nowhere in it did I make a case for redistribution of wealth, nor did I call rich people "evil".

After a few back and forth post you probably would have said that the poor are poor because the rich are not getting taxed enough which does not make any sense at all.

Oh, so now you're a psychic? Tell me, what's my next post going to say?

You would probably say something really stupid and I will rolfmao at it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I understand that you think that taxing people makes them wealthier. This bit of logic might fly in 1984 but this is real life.

So, you're another poster who doesn't know how to read? Maybe you should stop listening to what Rush says, and actually read my post.

I can't name a single rich person who is not rich for any reason such as taxes because its hard find a single rich person who is not rich.

Each post of yours seems to have nothing to do with the last.

You make no sense.

 

[ihopehefails]

So, you're another poster who doesn't know how to read? Maybe you should stop listening to what Rush says, and actually read my post.

I can't name a single rich person who is not rich for any reason such as taxes because its hard find a single rich person who is not rich.

Each post of yours seems to have nothing to do with the last.

You make no sense.

You make no sense because you asked us to find a single rich person who is not rich. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can't name a single rich person who is not rich for any reason such as taxes because its hard find a single rich person who is not rich.

Each post of yours seems to have nothing to do with the last.

You make no sense.

You make no sense because you asked us to find a single rich person who is not rich. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

Once again, you highlight your inability to read.

I asked you to find me someone who lost their riches because of taxes. Then you stated that you could make a case that people didn't get rich because of taxes.

So go ahead, make your case.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Don't you think a progressive income tax or any income tax for that matter keeps the poor poor considering when that person does acquire more wealth it is taxed away from them?

Congratulations, you have conceived of the most illogical argument ever.

 

[ihopehefails]

Each post of yours seems to have nothing to do with the last.

You make no sense.

You make no sense because you asked us to find a single rich person who is not rich. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

Once again, you highlight your inability to read.

I asked you to find me someone who lost their riches because of taxes. Then you stated that you could make a case that people didn't get rich because of taxes.

So go ahead, make your case.

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

IF they are wealthy then they are not in the poor house so it is a bad test group because it is like saying name me one wealth person who does not have money. You can't but lets take the entire crosssection of society and name people who have been put in the poorhouse by taxes. Since there are of unwealthy people and a lot of taxes you can say that those taxes might be keeping them down. The fact that when taxes were lowered on the wealthy we seen a greater percentage of people become millionaires than before so their some proof that high taxes on the wealth only serves to create an invisible ceiling that that keeps everyone out of that tax bracket.

Why do you guys hate the poor so much?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You make no sense because you asked us to find a single rich person who is not rich. That does not make any sense whatsoever.

Once again, you highlight your inability to read.

I asked you to find me someone who lost their riches because of taxes. Then you stated that you could make a case that people didn't get rich because of taxes.

So go ahead, make your case.

Your point fails. Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes.

IF they are wealthy then they are not in the poor house so it is a bad test group because it is like saying name me one wealth person who does not have money. You can't but lets take the entire crosssection of society and name people who have been put in the poorhouse by taxes. Since there are of unwealthy people and a lot of taxes you can say that those taxes might be keeping them down.

No, not without evidence. Correllation does not equal causation. For example - The rate of mutilation after a murder goes up at the same time as the rate of suntan lotion sales. Does that mean that mutilation is caused by sunscreen?

The fact that when taxes were lowered on the wealthy we seen a greater percentage of people become millionaires than before

Prove it. Show some evidence.

so their some proof that high taxes on the wealth only serves to create an invisible ceiling that that keeps everyone out of that tax bracket.

Why do you guys hate the poor so much?

Ok, I guess we have go back to literacy class.

When I said "Name a single "wealthy" person in history who was put in the poor house by taxes", the word put implies that the person in question was rich, and was made poor by taxes. Of course you can't give an example, because it doesn't happen that way.

Now, I go back to my question before. You claimed to be able to make a case for poor people being unable to get rich because of taxes. Make your case.