80% OF PEOPLE GETTING PUBLIC HOUSING BENEFITS VOTE DEMOCRAT

[g5000]

I think the Fair Tax would work, but only if there were no exemptions. None. Not even for milk for blind cripples. Once you open the door even a tiny crack, the corruption seeps in and soon takes on a momentum impossible to stop.

A tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

The Fair Tax has a built-in prebate. The prebate is the exact same dollar figure for everyone, no matter what their income. This mitigates the regressiveness of "sales tax".

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

We have a progressive income tax. The tax rates are as high as they are mostly because of tax expenditures.

If we banned tax expenditures once and for all, I could live with a progressive income tax since such a ban would allow for much lower tax brackets.

But I prefer the Fair Tax. Because the best thing about the Fair Tax is that if the majority voted for free puppies for hookers, than everyone would have to pay for it in the form of a Fair Tax hike. No more "make that guy over there pay for it".

Lower tax brackets for who? The rich or the poor?

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

See, the thing is, the rich benefit more then anyone else from a "flat tax" unless there's something I'm unaware of. The tax rates are low compared to other countries here...

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

 

[g5000]

The Trouble with the FairTax

A huge flaw in that analysis.

The problem is that very high-income households spend only a fraction of their income

Really? You think that income just sits there collecting dust for all time?

It eventually gets spent.


I will tell you the one real problem with the Fair Tax.

The transition from income tax to Fair Tax means that savings accumulated prior to the enactment of a Fair Tax would be doubly taxed. First, when it was earned it was federally income taxed. Then after the transition, it gets federally sales taxed again when it is spent.

There are workarounds for this, but some of that pain will be unavoidable.

 

[Dad2three]

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

We have a progressive income tax. The tax rates are as high as they are mostly because of tax expenditures.

If we banned tax expenditures once and for all, I could live with a progressive income tax since such a ban would allow for much lower tax brackets.

But I prefer the Fair Tax. Because the best thing about the Fair Tax is that if the majority voted for free puppies for hookers, than everyone would have to pay for it in the form of a Fair Tax hike. No more "make that guy over there pay for it".

Lower tax brackets for who? The rich or the poor?

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

See, the thing is, the rich benefit more then anyone else from a "flat tax" unless there's something I'm unaware of. The tax rates are low compared to other countries here...

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

Unspinning the FairTax
We look at the numbers behind the numbers.


How to Make 30 Look Like 23



But 30 Is Not 34 Either

Americans for Fair Taxation, however, has complained that H.R. 25 calls for a 23 percent inclusive (or 30 percent exclusive) rate, not a 34 percent rate. Our number came from the President’s Advisory Panel on Tax Reform (scroll to chapter 9 for the panel’s discussion of the FairTax), which calculated that a 34 percent rate on the actual price of consumer goods would be necessary to make the program revenue-neutral. Americans for Fair Taxation has said that the Advisory Panel did not use the FairTax as detailed in the legislation but instead made up its own plan. This complaint is disingenuous.



Who Really Pays?

With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, “someone else” is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase.

Americans for Fair Taxation rejects the Treasury Department analysis, objecting that Treasury considers only the income tax. By leaving out payroll taxes (which are actually regressive) Treasury’s chart makes the FairTax look worse by comparison. We found that including all the taxes that the FairTax would replace (income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes), those earning less than $24,156 per year would benefit. AFT’s Burton agreed that those earning more than $200,000 would see their share of the overall tax burden decrease, admitting that “probably those earning between $40[thousand] and $100,000” would see their percentage of the tax burden rise.

Unspinning the FairTax



YES, THE "JOB CREATORS" NEED MORE MONEY *SHAKING HEAD*

 

[Dad2three]

The Trouble with the FairTax

A huge flaw in that analysis.

The problem is that very high-income households spend only a fraction of their income

Really? You think that income just sits there collecting dust for all time?

It eventually gets spent.


I will tell you the one real problem with the Fair Tax.

The transition from income tax to Fair Tax means that savings accumulated prior to the enactment of a Fair Tax would be doubly taxed. First, when it was earned it was federally income taxed. Then after the transition, it gets federally sales taxed again when it is spent.

There are workarounds for this, but some of that pain will be unavoidable.

LOL, Weird how NO CREDIBLE economist can say the FAIR tax is revenue neutral, much less bring in more money. NONE


REALLY? It gets spent??? LOL

Upon Further Review

We stand behind our earlier analysis of the FairTax. The proposal to which Gov. Huckabee referred is not a 23 percent tax, but rather a 30 percent tax. And it is revenue-neutral only through an accounting trick. It will collect more money from those earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year and less from those earning more than $200,000 per year


Unspinning the FairTax

 

[g5000]

We have a progressive income tax. The tax rates are as high as they are mostly because of tax expenditures.

If we banned tax expenditures once and for all, I could live with a progressive income tax since such a ban would allow for much lower tax brackets.

But I prefer the Fair Tax. Because the best thing about the Fair Tax is that if the majority voted for free puppies for hookers, than everyone would have to pay for it in the form of a Fair Tax hike. No more "make that guy over there pay for it".

Lower tax brackets for who? The rich or the poor?

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

See, the thing is, the rich benefit more then anyone else from a "flat tax" unless there's something I'm unaware of. The tax rates are low compared to other countries here...

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

You are still confused. That post was about the current tax scheme, and is entirely accurate.

JCT Identifies $1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year

Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

 

[Dad2three]

Lower tax brackets for who? The rich or the poor?

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

See, the thing is, the rich benefit more then anyone else from a "flat tax" unless there's something I'm unaware of. The tax rates are low compared to other countries here...

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

You are still confused. That post was about the current tax scheme, and is entirely accurate.

JCT Identifies $1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year

Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

Nope, NOT confused by MORE right wing voodoo BS,



YOU CAN'T CUT OFF EXPENDITURES, THEN COUNT IT AS REVENUE NEUTRAL TAX PROPOSAL, THEN SAY YOU'LL GET $1.2+ TRILLION MORE. Stop the nonsense!







Rejecting all the tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly ... professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%.

A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the ... rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a ... rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. ...

Economist's View: The Deceptive Presentation of the FairTax Proposal

 

[g5000]

LOL, Weird how NO CREDIBLE economist can say the FAIR tax is revenue neutral, much less bring in more money. NONE

They say it isn't revenue neutral at 23 percent, which serves to amplify my point about the advantages of the Fair Tax.

The best thing about the Fair Tax is that the more federal spending you vote for, the more you feel it personally. No more "gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

You want free puppies for hookers? Fine. We will hike the Fair Tax to pay for it. When you vote for more spending, you are voting for a tax hike on yourself, and that is sahhhhhh-weet!

You will see some real movement toward a lower Fair Tax and less spending after that, and damned fast, too.

 

[g5000]

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

You are still confused. That post was about the current tax scheme, and is entirely accurate.

JCT Identifies $1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year

Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

Nope, NOT confused by MORE right wing voodoo BS,



YOU CAN'T CUT OFF EXPENDITURES, THEN COUNT IT AS REVENUE NEUTRAL TAX PROPOSAL, THEN SAY YOU'LL GET $1.2+ TRILLION MORE. Stop the nonsense!

Wow. You are really not hearing me. This is a serious mental block you have.

I am talking about two separate things, and you are conflating them. I am walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time, and you are not.


Take a deep breath. Go back. Re-read.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

EVERYBODY takes. Then whines about the other guy taking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't dragging the whole country under.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

That's the way a civilized society works, if a minority start controlling most taxable income/and the wealth, they're expected to give back to society and the majority, it's been this way for a long time.. Republicans think a "flat tax" would actually work.. LOL.

I think the Fair Tax would work, but only if there were no exemptions. None. Not even for milk for blind cripples. Once you open the door even a tiny crack, the corruption seeps in and soon takes on a momentum impossible to stop.

A tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

The Fair Tax has a built-in prebate. The prebate is the exact same dollar figure for everyone, no matter what their income. This mitigates the regressiveness of "sales tax".

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

I cant be sold on half the country not paying any tax

 

[David_42]

Lower tax brackets for who? The rich or the poor?

Everyone. Imagine how low tax rates could be lowered for everyone if revenues were $1.2 trillion higher every year.

See, the thing is, the rich benefit more then anyone else from a "flat tax" unless there's something I'm unaware of. The tax rates are low compared to other countries here...

Like I said, the Fair Tax has a built-in prebate to mitigate the regressive nature of a "flat tax". The prebate is a monthly check from the government which, in effect, rebates the sales tax you would pay for the necessities of life. And everyone receives the same sized check.

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

You are still confused. That post was about the current tax scheme, and is entirely accurate.

JCT Identifies $1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year

Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

Interesting to hear your view point, it does seem nice, but I don't see it working, unless I'm understanding wrong. If someone made 5 million in income and someone made $75,000, would they both pay the same percentage? I don't see that working, unless we're still bracketing.

 

[David_42]

EVERYBODY takes. Then whines about the other guy taking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't dragging the whole country under.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

That's the way a civilized society works, if a minority start controlling most taxable income/and the wealth, they're expected to give back to society and the majority, it's been this way for a long time.. Republicans think a "flat tax" would actually work.. LOL.

I think the Fair Tax would work, but only if there were no exemptions. None. Not even for milk for blind cripples. Once you open the door even a tiny crack, the corruption seeps in and soon takes on a momentum impossible to stop.

A tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

The Fair Tax has a built-in prebate. The prebate is the exact same dollar figure for everyone, no matter what their income. This mitigates the regressiveness of "sales tax".

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

I cant be sold on half the country not paying any tax

Half the country Barely holds any of the wealth/income, even if they were taxed the way you want them to be, it would be Barely contributing to anything.

 

[Dad2three]

$1.2 TRILLION MORE? From the FAIR tax which is just MORE right wing "math"??? lol

No. You are confused.

Under the current system, we are shelling out $1.2 trillion annually in the form of tax expenditures. If we banned all tax deductions, exemptions, credits, etc, that would generate an extra $1.2 trillion in revenues.

That's how out of whack our system is right now. That $1.2 trillion in handouts is being paid for by higher tax rates and deficit spending.

So, by abolishing tax expenditures, we would no longer have a need for the higher tax rates we have now. We could lower tax rates for EVERYONE. And people earning identical incomes would be paying identical taxes.

I said if we did not go with the Fair Tax, then I could live with the current income tax as long as we abolished tax expenditures and lowered tax rates. That would be SECOND best.

The Fair Tax is a different animal, and a separate discussion.

ONLY if you believe right wing "math"

You are still confused. That post was about the current tax scheme, and is entirely accurate.

JCT Identifies $1.2 Trillion in Tax Breaks This Year

Adding up the individual costs of tax expenditures shows a total of $1.2 trillion for 2014, more than two-thirds of total projected income tax revenue this year.

The Distribution of Major Tax Expenditures in the Individual Income Tax System

Although the 10 major tax expenditures listed here represent a small fraction of the more than 200 tax expenditures in the individual and corporate income tax systems, they will account for roughly two-thirds of the total budgetary effects of all tax expenditures in fiscal year 2013, CBO estimates. Together, those 10 tax expenditures are estimated to total more than $900 billion, or 5.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), in fiscal year 2013 and are projected to amount to nearly $12 trillion, or 5.4 percent of GDP, over the 2014–2023 period.

Nope, NOT confused by MORE right wing voodoo BS,



YOU CAN'T CUT OFF EXPENDITURES, THEN COUNT IT AS REVENUE NEUTRAL TAX PROPOSAL, THEN SAY YOU'LL GET $1.2+ TRILLION MORE. Stop the nonsense!

Wow. You are really not hearing me. This is a serious mental block you have.

I am talking about two separate things, and you are conflating them. I am walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time, and you are not.


Take a deep breath. Go back. Re-read.

I understand, your premise is the TAX DEDUCTIONS equal $1.2 trillion, AND the FAIR tax gets rid of them, BUT uses conservative "math" to come to the conclusion that 23% will be revenue neutral, DESPITE not a single CREDIBLE economist agrees!

 

[Maryland Patriot]

EVERYBODY takes. Then whines about the other guy taking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't dragging the whole country under.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

That's the way a civilized society works, if a minority start controlling most taxable income/and the wealth, they're expected to give back to society and the majority, it's been this way for a long time.. Republicans think a "flat tax" would actually work.. LOL.

I think the Fair Tax would work, but only if there were no exemptions. None. Not even for milk for blind cripples. Once you open the door even a tiny crack, the corruption seeps in and soon takes on a momentum impossible to stop.

A tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

The Fair Tax has a built-in prebate. The prebate is the exact same dollar figure for everyone, no matter what their income. This mitigates the regressiveness of "sales tax".

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

I cant be sold on half the country not paying any tax

Half the country Barely holds any of the wealth/income, even if they were taxed the way you want them to be, it would be Barely contributing to anything.

at least they would be contributing something, right now its a totally free ride, anything they vote for will cost others, not them.
I wonder how many new spending bills would get passed if it meant that the guy making 40k was going to have to pay an extra % in taxes.
and the rich still pay more.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, Weird how NO CREDIBLE economist can say the FAIR tax is revenue neutral, much less bring in more money. NONE

They say it isn't revenue neutral at 23 percent, which serves to amplify my point about the advantages of the Fair Tax.

The best thing about the Fair Tax is that the more federal spending you vote for, the more you feel it personally. No more "gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

You want free puppies for hookers? Fine. We will hike the Fair Tax to pay for it. When you vote for more spending, you are voting for a tax hike on yourself, and that is sahhhhhh-weet!

You will see some real movement toward a lower Fair Tax and less spending after that, and damned fast, too.

lol, MORE right wing garbage. Hint NO CREDIBLE ECONOMISTS thinks the 23% FAIR tax (reality 30%) IS revenue neutral, much less bring in more revenues. NONE


I understand you WANTING it to do that, but FAIR tax requires even Gov't to pay the tax (getting more revenues to count in their figures). Just MORE voodoo economics by the right. Shocking you don't get it!

Taxes going lower? lol

 

[Dad2three]

EVERYBODY takes. Then whines about the other guy taking. It would be hilarious if it wasn't dragging the whole country under.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

That's the way a civilized society works, if a minority start controlling most taxable income/and the wealth, they're expected to give back to society and the majority, it's been this way for a long time.. Republicans think a "flat tax" would actually work.. LOL.

I think the Fair Tax would work, but only if there were no exemptions. None. Not even for milk for blind cripples. Once you open the door even a tiny crack, the corruption seeps in and soon takes on a momentum impossible to stop.

A tax on consumption is superior to a tax on production.

The Fair Tax has a built-in prebate. The prebate is the exact same dollar figure for everyone, no matter what their income. This mitigates the regressiveness of "sales tax".

Heavily enforced progressive tax. I can't be sold on the flat tax.

I cant be sold on half the country not paying any tax

Good thing that is ONLY a right wing meme, NOT based in reality

 

[amrchaos]

The Trouble with the FairTax

A huge flaw in that analysis.

The problem is that very high-income households spend only a fraction of their income

Really? You think that income just sits there collecting dust for all time?

It eventually gets spent.


I will tell you the one real problem with the Fair Tax.

The transition from income tax to Fair Tax means that savings accumulated prior to the enactment of a Fair Tax would be doubly taxed. First, when it was earned it was federally income taxed. Then after the transition, it gets federally sales taxed again when it is spent.

There are workarounds for this, but some of that pain will be unavoidable.

Stop and re-evaluate how becomes/stays rich.

You become rich by drastically making more than you spend--not by keeping a balanced budget or maintaining a small surplus.

You keep from going broke by keeping a balanced budget or maintaining a small surplus.

What happens to most of their money? It is invested or saved, not spent! If it was spent in a short time, like for a person living hand to mouth, then they would not be rich.

The fair tax is a major tax break for people who can reduce their spending, an ability that can be supported by existing wealth, and assets through sound investing.

 

[Moonglow]

Supporting raising the minimum wage isn't help?

not really because businesses will fire, lay off and raise prices or close down altogether.

A complete myth

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

Lmao...

Those 600 economist don't own a business and what happened when we raised minimum wage the last time in 2007?

2007 unemployment rate 5.0%

unemploment rate 2007

2008 unemployment rate 6.0%

Unemployment rate reaches highest level in over 14 years (Jobs Picture, November 7, 2008)

Yes 2008, I wonder what happened that year to cause UE to rise? Did it rain funny that year?

Hey moon just playing the liberal card, like we have to hear from them constantly ignoring history, taking it out of context when we had a 90% tax bracket.

If they want to ignore history so can I.

So you know that makes you just as ignorant as they are, is that what you really want as an epitaph?

 

[Wyatt earp]

not really because businesses will fire, lay off and raise prices or close down altogether.

A complete myth

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

Lmao...

Those 600 economist don't own a business and what happened when we raised minimum wage the last time in 2007?

2007 unemployment rate 5.0%

unemploment rate 2007

2008 unemployment rate 6.0%

Unemployment rate reaches highest level in over 14 years (Jobs Picture, November 7, 2008)

Yes 2008, I wonder what happened that year to cause UE to rise? Did it rain funny that year?

Hey moon just playing the liberal card, like we have to hear from them constantly ignoring history, taking it out of context when we had a 90% tax bracket.

If they want to ignore history so can I.

So you know that makes you just as ignorant as they are, is that what you really want as an epitaph?

Ignorant?

This coming from a guy with a Simpson AV and he don't know the word sarcasm?

 

[Moonglow]

A complete myth

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Minimum Wage Mythbusters - U.S. Department of Labor

Lmao...

Those 600 economist don't own a business and what happened when we raised minimum wage the last time in 2007?

2007 unemployment rate 5.0%

unemploment rate 2007

2008 unemployment rate 6.0%

Unemployment rate reaches highest level in over 14 years (Jobs Picture, November 7, 2008)

Yes 2008, I wonder what happened that year to cause UE to rise? Did it rain funny that year?

Hey moon just playing the liberal card, like we have to hear from them constantly ignoring history, taking it out of context when we had a 90% tax bracket.

If they want to ignore history so can I.

So you know that makes you just as ignorant as they are, is that what you really want as an epitaph?

Ignorant?

This coming from a guy with a Simpson AV and he don't know the word sarcasm?

I am sure Bart knows about the word...I notice you don't...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Lmao...

Those 600 economist don't own a business and what happened when we raised minimum wage the last time in 2007?

2007 unemployment rate 5.0%

unemploment rate 2007

2008 unemployment rate 6.0%

Unemployment rate reaches highest level in over 14 years (Jobs Picture, November 7, 2008)

Yes 2008, I wonder what happened that year to cause UE to rise? Did it rain funny that year?

Hey moon just playing the liberal card, like we have to hear from them constantly ignoring history, taking it out of context when we had a 90% tax bracket.

If they want to ignore history so can I.

So you know that makes you just as ignorant as they are, is that what you really want as an epitaph?

Ignorant?

This coming from a guy with a Simpson AV and he don't know the word sarcasm?

I am sure Bart knows about the word...I notice you don't...

Dude you are off tonight, something wrong pal?