Taxing those who make money

[The Rabbi]

Some day when you have nothing better to do you should get off your mental ass and go look at how much revenue loss from Obama tax cuts that the CBO included in its estimate of the cost of the stimulus package.

Qhy would I want to do that? The CBO is notoriously untrustworthy, having scored the Bush dividend cuts as costing the gov't money when in fact it brought in far more than the old tax had.
But what does that have to do with the claim that Obama's tax cuts are worthless?

Bush's tax cuts resulted in lower revenues.

Facts aren't your friend, cocksucker.

 

[DiamondDave]

But does that flat tax include SS obligation too Dave? and taking away all the other taxes out there that are regressive such as gas taxes and liquor taxes and cigarette taxes....all to pay the federal spending?

Funny.. you did not have me stating that there should be no excise taxes on gas or whatever... but those are voluntary taxes on consumption... at flat rate no matter if you earn $5 an hour or $5K an hour... I think improving the federal income tax system in an effort to eliminate 'other taxes' would be a whole other conversation

As for SS.. I wish there were an easier way out of the bastard of a system... and that is a whole other can of worms on what it would take to get our retirement investment out of government's hands..


But in terms of income taxes... as stated so many times, I am for equal % taxation.. I.E. equal treatment under the law by government

Then I disagree with your proposal....because it would put more obligation as a percentage of income on those who have the least.

I would agree to a flat tax, IF all federal taxes were included in it and excise taxes were killed...

And if all federal taxes collected, such as social security and medicare were also included in the flat tax, and they were dropped as payroll tax....otherwise, as said, federal taxes as a percentage would be higher on those with less income than those with the most income....

How about capital gains and dividend taxes....will those be separated as well and at a lower rate than what you propose with a flat income tax?

This is MUCH more complicated.....dave, than one would think....imo.

In my opinion, even though it would benefit me with my investments if I had lower taxes on investment returns, I consider all income to be income... and would support a system where there are not differences for capital gains

As for excise taxes... as stated, those are voluntary taxes.. you don't wish to pay a gas tax, don't use gas... you don't wish to pay a federal tobacco tax, don't smoke... and as stated, the rate of those excise taxes is no higher on someone making $5 an hour than it is on someone making $5K an hour... which is why you do not see me arguing against those types of taxes based on the grounds of being unequal or 'unfair'

Simply then... I am for 1 rate on every dollar earned for every citizen (no more of this 47% of the population not paying income taxes and no more different rates based on income)... 1 rate for ever dollar earned by every company or corporation... I am still for tariffs as income for the fed on trade with foreign nations... and I am OK with equal % excise taxation at the federal level... and I am open for suggestions on how to get us out of social security, without cutting off those who contributed and are drawing from it currently (hell, fund it with a federal lottery for all I care)

 

[Care4all]

Qhy would I want to do that? The CBO is notoriously untrustworthy, having scored the Bush dividend cuts as costing the gov't money when in fact it brought in far more than the old tax had.
But what does that have to do with the claim that Obama's tax cuts are worthless?

Bush's tax cuts resulted in lower revenues.

Facts aren't your friend, cocksucker.

ACTUALLY, it was NOT until 2005, where we brought in more taxes than in 2000....

And under normal circumstances, as our economy grows, we have an increase in revenues....even if NO TAX cuts are given....

 

[uscitizen]

Qhy would I want to do that? The CBO is notoriously untrustworthy, having scored the Bush dividend cuts as costing the gov't money when in fact it brought in far more than the old tax had.
But what does that have to do with the claim that Obama's tax cuts are worthless?

Bush's tax cuts resulted in lower revenues.

Facts aren't your friend, cocksucker.

Ohh I don't know a negative GDP kinda lowers revenues.

 

[Liability]

Didja ever hear of that guy Hobin Rood and his band of surly men?

He tried that whole "rob from the poor to give to the rich" gambit.

Never made much of a dent.

Some say he was a slacker. I say he was just libtarded.

 

[uscitizen]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

 

[Liability]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

I'm almost certain USshitizen can back up that contention with actual facts and links.

Yes. I'm practically sure of it.

 

[uscitizen]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

I'm almost certain USshitizen can back up that contention with actual facts and links.

Yes. I'm practically sure of it.

DUHHH! Those living check to check spend it all. Those making the big bucks actually save some. Well excluding some fool Actors and such.

 

[DiamondDave]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

What you spend is your choice... I know plenty of lower income people who save a higher % than I do too... they are some of the poorer parts of my family that earn more but live off of less, stretch the dollar farther... some people garden and raise food, some spend on it in stores... some make clothing, some buy the finished product... etc

And please remember that not all things are taxed by the fed with excise taxes.. and those excise taxes are 'supposed' to go towards funding the entities that regulate and maintain the things revolving around the tax.. I.E. gas tax going towards federal road infrastructure, tobacco tax going towards the ATF, etc

 

[Care4all]

You can look at that list and see the problem right there. Tax cuts that last for one year. Tax cuts that are nothing more than transfer payments. Tax cuts that sap future demand for present demand.
And you should bother reading what you post because there's a big ole tax increase in the second to last paragraph.

Some day when you have nothing better to do you should get off your mental ass and go look at how much revenue loss from Obama tax cuts that the CBO included in its estimate of the cost of the stimulus package.

Qhy would I want to do that? The CBO is notoriously untrustworthy, having scored the Bush dividend cuts as costing the gov't money when in fact it brought in far more than the old tax had.
But what does that have to do with the claim that Obama's tax cuts are worthless?

yah yah yah....how's that capital gains working out for ya now Rabbi...you think we are pulling in more taxes due to capital gains and dividend taxes the past few years?

 

[Liability]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

I'm almost certain USshitizen can back up that contention with actual facts and links.

Yes. I'm practically sure of it.

DUHHH! Those living check to check spend it all. Those making the big bucks actually save some. Well excluding some fool Actors and such.

The issue is not the percentage. That's obvious, dumbass.

The issue is whether (or not) it amounts to "growing [the economy] [more?] than high incomes ones do."

 

[uscitizen]

That very same ATF that is a subdept of the Treasury?

 

[uscitizen]

I'm almost certain USshitizen can back up that contention with actual facts and links.

Yes. I'm practically sure of it.

DUHHH! Those living check to check spend it all. Those making the big bucks actually save some. Well excluding some fool Actors and such.

The issue is not the percentage. That's obvious, dumbass.

The issue is whether (or not) it amounts to "growing [the economy] [more?] than high incomes ones do."

The percentage was what I stated/posted and you disputed. A double dumbass back atcha.



but then on pure $ amt I suspect it is true as well. Figure in All Welfare. Food stamps, Medicaid,medicare, etc and I think you will find that the poor are responsible for quite likely spending Well over 200% of "their" income.

A double dumbass back atcha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! that's pretty funny uscit!

though, i will NEVER understand why any of the name calling needs to take place in the FIRST place.....but funny none the less! thanks for the chuckle!

 

[Liability]

DUHHH! Those living check to check spend it all. Those making the big bucks actually save some. Well excluding some fool Actors and such.

The issue is not the percentage. That's obvious, dumbass.

The issue is whether (or not) it amounts to "growing [the economy] [more?] than high incomes ones do."

The percentage was what I stated/posted and you disputed. A double dumbass back atcha.

Wrong as always jerkwad. YOu posted TWO contentions. ONE, moron, was that the poorer folks in society spend a higher PERCENTAGE of their funds. THAT first contention is the one that's obvious and not disputed.

The SECOND contention made by YOU, you blithering imbecile, was that their higher percentage constituted the most significant part of the growing of our economy. THAT is the one I challenged you to provide facts and figures for, you tool. (Note: it was a challenge, not really formally disputed.)

You can't even keep track of your own idiot contentions.

 

[uscitizen]

The issue is not the percentage. That's obvious, dumbass.

The issue is whether (or not) it amounts to "growing [the economy] [more?] than high incomes ones do."

The percentage was what I stated/posted and you disputed. A double dumbass back atcha.

Wrong as always jerkwad. YOu posted TWO contentions. ONE, moron, was that the poorer folks in society spend a higher PERCENTAGE of their funds. THAT first contention is the one that's obvious and not disputed.

The SECOND contention made by YOU, you blithering imbecile, was that their higher percentage constituted the most significant part of the growing of our economy. THAT is the one I challenged you to provide facts and figures for, you tool. (Note: it was a challenge, not really formally disputed.)

You can't even keep track of your own idiot contentions.

was that their higher percentage constituted the most significant part of the growing of our economy
//

Now where the heck did I say that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Some day when you have nothing better to do you should get off your mental ass and go look at how much revenue loss from Obama tax cuts that the CBO included in its estimate of the cost of the stimulus package.

Qhy would I want to do that? The CBO is notoriously untrustworthy, having scored the Bush dividend cuts as costing the gov't money when in fact it brought in far more than the old tax had.
But what does that have to do with the claim that Obama's tax cuts are worthless?

yah yah yah....how's that capital gains working out for ya now Rabbi...you think we are pulling in more taxes due to capital gains and dividend taxes the past few years?

Dumbshit.
Tax revenue from the lower cap gains and div tax produced higher revenue than what CBO projected when it was proposed. That is a fact. That is what I wrote. Go ahead and dispute it if you like. But post links and stories to back up your claim or STFU.

 

[The Rabbi]

The poor and lower middle class spoend a far higher percentage of their income back into the economy thus growing it than high incomes ones do.

Yet another dumbshit who thinks the economy grows by consumer spending. Newsflash: It doesnt.

This was debunked right after WW2 by Hazlett in Economics in One Lesson. I'd recommend looking at the book before you post again.
He presents the case of two brothers. Their father dies and leaves each one a huge amount of money.
Brother #1 goes on a spending spree. He takes lavish vacations, buys expensive cars every two years, gives big tips everywhere he goes.
Brother #2 is frugal. He invests his money. He buys real estate. He lives not like a pauper but frugally enough.
So which one is responsible for stimulating the economy? Brother #1, right? Wrong.
After 20 years Brother #1 is bankrupt. All his tipping and new cars are gone.
Brother #2 continues with his investments, hiring people to manage them, hiring people to maintain his properties, etc.
So Brother #2 is the one stimulating the economy. Brother #1 is stimulating nothing in the long run.

 

[uscitizen]

This dumpshut knows that our economy is based around 70% on consumer spending.
When the price of gas goes up so does the GDP. when the price of food goes up so does the GDP.

 

[uscitizen]

Cut off all thoe welfare types of programs to the poor and see what the economy does.

Can you say make an all time new low?

 

[Care4all]

jmminnee cricket Rabbi...do you believe the crap out of your mouth? So you do not believe consumer spending has anything to do with our economic growth????