The Flat Tax

[Wry Catcher]

Not a good link friend. His argument are so full of holes it's no wonder yours are so stupid. Where to start..... First he wants Us all to buy into the class envy argument that we should be upset that the rich don't pay more in income taxes and that they've actually had to pay a little less over the years. Second he tries to continue to sell his unfairness argument by comparing our progressive tax rates to other countries. That argument doesn't fly because he hasn't established why a progressive income tax is fair in the first place. Next implying that capitals gains should be taxed on unrealized income; taxing money you don't actually have, yeah, sorry you might want to get your tax theory from smarter people at some point. Lastly he doesn't ever even touch on the concept of a flat tax. So make your own argument instead of using the argument of someone....or not the argument of someone else in this case.

The problem is people like you look at the tax system completely backwards. You look at it as a means of punishing this group or that group. That's wrong. The purpose of taxes is to fund the government's obligations. So step one in coming up with a system to do that should first be to determine how much money the government actually needs. That alone renders most of your argument irrellavent. The next question is simply what is a fair method of distributing that tax burden. Most of us derive equal benefit from that which our tax dollars fund. Defense of the country, our education system, roads and highways, social programs, etc. So it seems to me the fairest way to collect that would be to tax everyone's income the same amount. I would go higher than 10% admittedly. Historically the U.S. government has always collected around 18% of GDP in tax revenue. GDP can essentially also be thought of the entire countries gross income. It has always been around 18% give or take a couple percentage points despite politicians messing with the tax code over the decades. So since that's all they're ever likely to get anyway I would say an 18% flat tax on any and all income, elimination of most, if not all, tax credits, loopholes, deductions, etc. Would be a rather fair system for funding the government's obligations.

Lastly, you liberals really need to stop pretending what you want is fair tax code. In every tax debate I've had about this liberals prove they wouldn't know the definition of the word 'fair' if it bit them on the ass. A progressive tax system meets no defintion of the word fair that I know of. That the rich should pay more in taxes for no other reason than they have more meets no defintion of the word fair I am aware of. Make any other argument you want for whatever tax system you want, but please stop lieing and telling us it's because you want the system to be more fair.

There is so much BS flying about on this thread that I don't know whether to respond, or wipe down my monitor with a strong solution of bleach. Seeing as you have made an effort though, here's an answer.

You have set aside the pragmatic, and waxed towards the philosophical here. Fair enough. Underneath every viewpoint is an underlying set of beliefs. The implicit belief you state here is that the market functions pretty much perfectly, while government bureaucracy is not only inefficient, but something alien and to be feared. If a worker makes a dollar, under this paradigm, then that means he was added exactly a dollars worth of value to society. He "earned" it. If another worker made a dollar fifty, then he added fifty percent more value to society, and earned that money. I suspect there are some young boys and girls in private schools somewhere, who have led an affluent and cloistered existence, that earnestly believe this, but it is hard to imagine anyone else who does.

Here it is bluntly Bern: there is very little fairness in the market place, or in the universe generally. What fairness there is, is for the most part what has been hard won by those motivated to make the human condition better; social activists, labour leaders, intellectuals, reformers, and yes even politicians at times. They have done this for the most part by influencing the political process, not by opening a McDonalds, or a Wal Mart. The magic invisible guiding hand of the market, favored by demented movie stars, voracious industrialists, and greedy entrepreneurs is just that: magic. Magic is great for stage shows and hollywood movies. But it is not real. Those that insist it is invariably have ulterior motives, or are individuals who should have spent more time reading economics, than watching shows.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Whether self-employed entrepreneur or employee, all are constrained by factors far from their control in our modern world, as I have outlined above. Davy Crockett may have made his own way, but today he would have many additional things to think about. Why do you think corporations spend billions on lobbyists? It's because they know that making money is not merely a matter of a well functioning marketplace, but is inextricably embedded in political and social functioning, and is to a great extent a matter of subjectivity.

The uber-right likes to toss around the term "social engineering". It's a code phrase meaning: less tax, regulation, and government functioning means more profit for us- bring those pork chops over here! "Social engineering" happens every day of the week. If it's not done by the people, through there accepted institutions, then it will be done by someone else. That someone else today is usually those at the apex of the corporate world, and the engineered results are usually take the form of structures beneficial to them. Fairness for them is often not fairness for us. I don't think many Americans voted for massive redistribution of wealth to the top half a percent or so of the population. I don't think they voted for being bankrupted by medical expenses, when they see those in other countries easily accessing these sort of medical necessities. Those to whom materialism is supreme attempt their social engineering every day. Often this is counterbalanced by those with deeper social values in mind. Fortunately, the latter can (sometimes) use taxes as a positive, pro-social instrument.

I got your link to work and it was a fairly well written article focusing on class envy. The thing the writer did not address:

1. Why it is unfair for the rich to have the same tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits that are available to everybody else who qualifies for them in order to reduce their tax burden. . . and. . .

2. How a flat tax on all earned income that would eliminate most or all of those tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits so that the rich would be paying the same percentage on all their income as everybody else would be somehow unfair.

1. Let's see now. Joe, if he has enough to save and invest usually goes to a broker or insurance agent; Mitt goes to the Country Club or Yacht Harbor. Joe is told he must pony up $5,000 to get into this really great fund and have at least $200. a month directly deposited. Mitt speaks to his buddies in the par and decides to put $50,000 into ABC which he has been told will soon be purchased by Microsoft and triple in value.

2. CEO Mitt Whiplash earns $1.00 a year in salary but receives stock valued at $5,000,000. in ABC which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. BTW I've been to Georgetown and saw the corporate offices, it's in a four unit, two story, apt. house (built circa 1940) and has dozens of tenants, most fortune 500 companies.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is so much BS flying about on this thread that I don't know whether to respond, or wipe down my monitor with a strong solution of bleach. Seeing as you have made an effort though, here's an answer.

You have set aside the pragmatic, and waxed towards the philosophical here. Fair enough. Underneath every viewpoint is an underlying set of beliefs. The implicit belief you state here is that the market functions pretty much perfectly, while government bureaucracy is not only inefficient, but something alien and to be feared. If a worker makes a dollar, under this paradigm, then that means he was added exactly a dollars worth of value to society. He "earned" it. If another worker made a dollar fifty, then he added fifty percent more value to society, and earned that money. I suspect there are some young boys and girls in private schools somewhere, who have led an affluent and cloistered existence, that earnestly believe this, but it is hard to imagine anyone else who does.

Here it is bluntly Bern: there is very little fairness in the market place, or in the universe generally. What fairness there is, is for the most part what has been hard won by those motivated to make the human condition better; social activists, labour leaders, intellectuals, reformers, and yes even politicians at times. They have done this for the most part by influencing the political process, not by opening a McDonalds, or a Wal Mart. The magic invisible guiding hand of the market, favored by demented movie stars, voracious industrialists, and greedy entrepreneurs is just that: magic. Magic is great for stage shows and hollywood movies. But it is not real. Those that insist it is invariably have ulterior motives, or are individuals who should have spent more time reading economics, than watching shows.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Whether self-employed entrepreneur or employee, all are constrained by factors far from their control in our modern world, as I have outlined above. Davy Crockett may have made his own way, but today he would have many additional things to think about. Why do you think corporations spend billions on lobbyists? It's because they know that making money is not merely a matter of a well functioning marketplace, but is inextricably embedded in political and social functioning, and is to a great extent a matter of subjectivity.

The uber-right likes to toss around the term "social engineering". It's a code phrase meaning: less tax, regulation, and government functioning means more profit for us- bring those pork chops over here! "Social engineering" happens every day of the week. If it's not done by the people, through there accepted institutions, then it will be done by someone else. That someone else today is usually those at the apex of the corporate world, and the engineered results are usually take the form of structures beneficial to them. Fairness for them is often not fairness for us. I don't think many Americans voted for massive redistribution of wealth to the top half a percent or so of the population. I don't think they voted for being bankrupted by medical expenses, when they see those in other countries easily accessing these sort of medical necessities. Those to whom materialism is supreme attempt their social engineering every day. Often this is counterbalanced by those with deeper social values in mind. Fortunately, the latter can (sometimes) use taxes as a positive, pro-social instrument.

I got your link to work and it was a fairly well written article focusing on class envy. The thing the writer did not address:

1. Why it is unfair for the rich to have the same tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits that are available to everybody else who qualifies for them in order to reduce their tax burden. . . and. . .

2. How a flat tax on all earned income that would eliminate most or all of those tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits so that the rich would be paying the same percentage on all their income as everybody else would be somehow unfair.

1. Let's see now. Joe, if he has enough to save and invest usually goes to a broker or insurance agent; Mitt goes to the Country Club or Yacht Harbor. Joe is told he must pony up $5,000 to get into this really great fund and have at least $200. a month directly deposited. Mitt speaks to his buddies in the par and decides to put $50,000 into ABC which he has been told will soon be purchased by Microsoft and triple in value.

2. CEO Mitt Whiplash earns $1.00 a year in salary but receives stock valued at $5,000,000. in ABC which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. BTW I've been to Georgetown and saw the corporate offices, it's in a four unit, two story, apt. house (built circa 1940) and has dozens of tenants, most fortune 500 companies.

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

 

[Auteur]

I got your link to work and it was a fairly well written article focusing on class envy. The thing the writer did not address:

Joseph Stiglitz is a former head of the World Bank, a Nobel Prize winner, a widely published author, and a tenured professor. He probably needs a wheelbarrow to do his banking. Fame and notoriety are hardly an issue. And so he is envious of what exactly?

Wouldn't make more sense to surmise that, as someone who has spent his life studying economics, he is just writing about what he knows here?

1. Why it is unfair for the rich to have the same tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits that are available to everybody else who qualifies for them in order to reduce their tax burden. . . and. . .

I'm not at all sure that is what he said. He was making a pitch for a progressive tax system, one that is best overall for society. The US system if famous for it's unneeded complexity, and so reduction of unnecessary policy- across the board- would be helpful. Policy involves language, and so can lead to complexity. Computers can crunch numbers in nanoseconds however, so various rates are not an issue.

2. How a flat tax on all earned income that would eliminate most or all of those tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits so that the rich would be paying the same percentage on all their income as everybody else would be somehow unfair.

Again, stating that progressive taxes are "unfair", presumes that the unbridled market is inherently fair, and needs no human intervention. To believe that all economic transactions, indeed all human endeavors in this field magically right themselves, in the manner of a benevolent God watching out for each daisy and sparrow, is, to put it mildly, naive. History is littered with examples of how "market forces" have caused no end of trouble, from the great depression to the derivatives scams of the last few years.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I got your link to work and it was a fairly well written article focusing on class envy. The thing the writer did not address:

1. Why it is unfair for the rich to have the same tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits that are available to everybody else who qualifies for them in order to reduce their tax burden. . . and. . .

2. How a flat tax on all earned income that would eliminate most or all of those tax shelters and exemptions and tax credits so that the rich would be paying the same percentage on all their income as everybody else would be somehow unfair.

1. Let's see now. Joe, if he has enough to save and invest usually goes to a broker or insurance agent; Mitt goes to the Country Club or Yacht Harbor. Joe is told he must pony up $5,000 to get into this really great fund and have at least $200. a month directly deposited. Mitt speaks to his buddies in the par and decides to put $50,000 into ABC which he has been told will soon be purchased by Microsoft and triple in value.

2. CEO Mitt Whiplash earns $1.00 a year in salary but receives stock valued at $5,000,000. in ABC which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. BTW I've been to Georgetown and saw the corporate offices, it's in a four unit, two story, apt. house (built circa 1940) and has dozens of tenants, most fortune 500 companies.

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

 

[RKMBrown]

1. Let's see now. Joe, if he has enough to save and invest usually goes to a broker or insurance agent; Mitt goes to the Country Club or Yacht Harbor. Joe is told he must pony up $5,000 to get into this really great fund and have at least $200. a month directly deposited. Mitt speaks to his buddies in the par and decides to put $50,000 into ABC which he has been told will soon be purchased by Microsoft and triple in value.

2. CEO Mitt Whiplash earns $1.00 a year in salary but receives stock valued at $5,000,000. in ABC which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. BTW I've been to Georgetown and saw the corporate offices, it's in a four unit, two story, apt. house (built circa 1940) and has dozens of tenants, most fortune 500 companies.

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

retard

 

[Rshermr]

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

retard

Another profound post by RKM. I suspect he is just learning his own description. Nice, though. Everyone should know who they are. Even when they are retards, like rkm.
And keep posting that profound stuff, me boy. It is good for the retarded. Maybe you can move on to cut and paste one day.

 

[RKMBrown]

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

retard

Another profound post by RKM. I suspect he is just learning his own description. Nice, though. Everyone should know who they are. Even when they are retards, like rkm.
And keep posting that profound stuff, me boy. It is good for the retarded. Maybe you can move on to cut and paste one day.

I was cutting and pasting before anyone else in windows. (I wrote the code.)

What sort of response would you expect to see to post that says a change to our tax system would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America?

He misspelled Kool-Aid. We are a republic not a democracy. He claims elections are "bought" yet ignores the fact that his party continues to win elections. He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

 

[Rshermr]

retard

Another profound post by RKM. I suspect he is just learning his own description. Nice, though. Everyone should know who they are. Even when they are retards, like rkm.
And keep posting that profound stuff, me boy. It is good for the retarded. Maybe you can move on to cut and paste one day.

I was cutting and pasting before anyone else in windows. (I wrote the code.)

What sort of response would you expect to see to post that says a change to our tax system would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America?

He misspelled Kool-Aid. We are a republic not a democracy. He claims elections are "bought" yet ignores the fact that his party continues to win elections. He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

So, RKM sais:

What sort of response would you expect to see to post that says a change to our tax system would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America?

I would suggest it depends on the change, of course, But then, my lying con, that is not what he said. He said a flat tax would be. And that could well be true.

He misspelled Kool-Aid.

NO!!! What can we possibly do. MIS-SPELLED koolaid. That is unforgivable. To hell with the flat tax. We should spend some time on this.

We are a republic not a democracy.

We are, me boy, a representative republic with major democratic principles. Did you have a point???

He claims elections are "bought" yet ignores the fact that his party continues to win elections.

Well, the point is, they do a much better job with less corporate money. But that fight is not over. Corporations are being careful, but they will fully own us before they are done. And the repubs like it.

He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Right. And it is just a coincidence that the laws favor those with the money. And those paid most by them. You see, me boy, corporations give much more to repubs than dems. And you really do not want to have a dual at 15 yards over that issue.

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

Nah. Every argument of yours is fundamentally wrong. That is my opinion. And you have yours. Both, by the way, would sell for less than a nickle.

So you are larry tesler, eh.

 

[Bern80]

Life isn't fair; that said, a just society makes rules which do no harm. Taxing the poor does harm; making the cost for food, clothing or shelter too expensive does harm; not providing reasonable priced health and dental care does harm.

Such an obtuse position ignores why people got where they are in the first place. You can't just give people stuff and ignore the reasons someone must provide for these people what most others are able to provide for themselves. Doing so actually harms these people more than it helps them because to continue to give to people in these situations without an expectation of behavior modification is called enabling. It is people with your view that do the greatest harm to these people, because you enable their bad behavior.

Someone working PT at McDonalds cannot afford health care so local government and local taxpayers bear the brunt of providing ER care to the uninsured at a great cost, and in fact subsidize corporate McDonalds (McDonald Corp. can well afford to provide health care to all their employees). This is the type of bullshit the faux conservatives on the far right perpetuate with their "personal responsibility" rhetoric.

The points out yet another problem with liberals. You are unwilling to allow people to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions. You take it as a given that government must provide certain things for people they can't afford, like healthcare. Well the fact is no, the government does not need to do that. Neccesity is the mother of invention as they say. When people who need find they can't get healthcare working part time at McDonalds many will improve themselves and get a job that does. And yes, some will not, but it is not the government's responsible to help those who won't help themselves.

 

[RKMBrown]

Another profound post by RKM. I suspect he is just learning his own description. Nice, though. Everyone should know who they are. Even when they are retards, like rkm.
And keep posting that profound stuff, me boy. It is good for the retarded. Maybe you can move on to cut and paste one day.

I was cutting and pasting before anyone else in windows. (I wrote the code.)

What sort of response would you expect to see to post that says a change to our tax system would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America?

He misspelled Kool-Aid. We are a republic not a democracy. He claims elections are "bought" yet ignores the fact that his party continues to win elections. He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

So, RKM sais:

I would suggest it depends on the change, of course, But then, my lying con, that is not what he said. He said a flat tax would be. And that could well be true.



NO!!! What can we possibly do. MIS-SPELLED koolaid. That is unforgivable. To hell with the flat tax. We should spend some time on this.



We are, me boy, a representative republic with major democratic principles. Did you have a point???
Well, the point is, they do a much better job with less corporate money. But that fight is not over. Corporations are being careful, but they will fully own us before they are done. And the repubs like it.

He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Right. And it is just a coincidence that the laws favor those with the money. And those paid most by them. You see, me boy, corporations give much more to repubs than dems. And you really do not want to have a dual at 15 yards over that issue.

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

Nah. Every argument of yours is fundamentally wrong. That is my opinion. And you have yours. Both, by the way, would sell for less than a nickle.

So you are larry tesler, eh.

Just a coincidence that the laws favor democrat fat cats? Democrats don't own corporations? WTF are you talking about? Corporations are republican? WTF are you smoking?

 

[Bern80]

Again, stating that progressive taxes are "unfair", presumes that the unbridled market is inherently fair, and needs no human intervention. To believe that all economic transactions, indeed all human endeavors in this field magically right themselves, in the manner of a benevolent God watching out for each daisy and sparrow, is, to put it mildly, naive. History is littered with examples of how "market forces" have caused no end of trouble, from the great depression to the derivatives scams of the last few years.

The structure of the tax system has nothing to do with the form of our economy. You are right, there is no magical force that rights transactions between people. It is the people themeselves that engage in the transaction that do that. By the fact that the transaction occurs, which it could not have if both parties didn't agree to it, inherently means it is fair.

What that has to do with how taxes are collected, I'm not sure. The only thing I can figure is that since you believe (without evidence) that the little is getting screwed right and left, that is treated UNfairly, we must then scew the tax code unfairly the other way to make up for it. That is the first rationale of that type I've ever heard. Essentially that progressive tax systems are used to right the wrongs of the free market.

 

[Rshermr]

I was cutting and pasting before anyone else in windows. (I wrote the code.)

What sort of response would you expect to see to post that says a change to our tax system would be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America?

He misspelled Kool-Aid. We are a republic not a democracy. He claims elections are "bought" yet ignores the fact that his party continues to win elections. He laments about the rich writing laws while ignoring the fact that the laws are written by government and the richest in government are "democrats."

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

So, RKM sais:

I would suggest it depends on the change, of course, But then, my lying con, that is not what he said. He said a flat tax would be. And that could well be true.



NO!!! What can we possibly do. MIS-SPELLED koolaid. That is unforgivable. To hell with the flat tax. We should spend some time on this.



We are, me boy, a representative republic with major democratic principles. Did you have a point???
Well, the point is, they do a much better job with less corporate money. But that fight is not over. Corporations are being careful, but they will fully own us before they are done. And the repubs like it.



Right. And it is just a coincidence that the laws favor those with the money. And those paid most by them. You see, me boy, corporations give much more to repubs than dems. And you really do not want to have a dual at 15 yards over that issue.

Every part of his post was ... fundamentally wrong.

Nah. Every argument of yours is fundamentally wrong. That is my opinion. And you have yours. Both, by the way, would sell for less than a nickle.

So you are larry tesler, eh.

Just a coincidence that the laws favor democrat fat cats? Democrats don't own corporations? WTF are you talking about? Corporations are republican? WTF are you smoking?

I know. You are having a hard time concentrating. A simple statement for most. But as a congenital idiot, it was a bit complex for you to comprehend.
You need to see where contributions are going from corporations via superpac's. As a result of citizens united. The great majority of corporate money goes, me boy, to repubs. Bu while that is simple for most to understand, it is probably way to difficult for you.

 

[RKMBrown]

So, RKM sais:

I would suggest it depends on the change, of course, But then, my lying con, that is not what he said. He said a flat tax would be. And that could well be true.



NO!!! What can we possibly do. MIS-SPELLED koolaid. That is unforgivable. To hell with the flat tax. We should spend some time on this.



We are, me boy, a representative republic with major democratic principles. Did you have a point???
Well, the point is, they do a much better job with less corporate money. But that fight is not over. Corporations are being careful, but they will fully own us before they are done. And the repubs like it.



Right. And it is just a coincidence that the laws favor those with the money. And those paid most by them. You see, me boy, corporations give much more to repubs than dems. And you really do not want to have a dual at 15 yards over that issue.


Nah. Every argument of yours is fundamentally wrong. That is my opinion. And you have yours. Both, by the way, would sell for less than a nickle.

So you are larry tesler, eh.

Just a coincidence that the laws favor democrat fat cats? Democrats don't own corporations? WTF are you talking about? Corporations are republican? WTF are you smoking?

I know. You are having a hard time concentrating. A simple statement for most. But as a congenital idiot, it was a bit complex for you to comprehend.
You need to see where contributions are going from corporations via superpac's. As a result of citizens united. The great majority of corporate money goes, me boy, to repubs. Bu while that is simple for most to understand, it is probably way to difficult for you.

Lies.

 

[Bluedog]

Always supported a national retail sales tax. In my opinion, its better for workers to take home their entire paychecks.

 

[Bern80]

You have set aside the pragmatic, and waxed towards the philosophical here. Fair enough. Underneath every viewpoint is an underlying set of beliefs. The implicit belief you state here is that the market functions pretty much perfectly, while government bureaucracy is not only inefficient, but something alien and to be feared. If a worker makes a dollar, under this paradigm, then that means he was added exactly a dollars worth of value to society. He "earned" it. If another worker made a dollar fifty, then he added fifty percent more value to society, and earned that money. I suspect there are some young boys and girls in private schools somewhere, who have led an affluent and cloistered existence, that earnestly believe this, but it is hard to imagine anyone else who does.

Couple things here; As to pragmatism, the only real question there is how, pragmatically, do we get government the money it needs to conduct its business. As I said before with an national income tax of 18% with everybody contributing and elmination of credit, deductions, loopholes, etc., all you have to do is figure 18% of GDP which was 15.5 trillion in 2012. That's 2.79 trillion in income tax revenue which is almost a third more than what they took in last year in income tax revenue. How a liberal could argue with government having that much more money, I'm not sure. Secondly, the market system being fair has exactly zero to do with government tax policy.

Here it is bluntly Bern: there is very little fairness in the market place, or in the universe generally. What fairness there is, is for the most part what has been hard won by those motivated to make the human condition better; social activists, labour leaders, intellectuals, reformers, and yes even politicians at times. They have done this for the most part by influencing the political process, not by opening a McDonalds, or a Wal Mart. The magic invisible guiding hand of the market, favored by demented movie stars, voracious industrialists, and greedy entrepreneurs is just that: magic. Magic is great for stage shows and hollywood movies. But it is not real. Those that insist it is invariably have ulterior motives, or are individuals who should have spent more time reading economics, than watching shows.

Again you illustrate that you really don't know the meaning of fair. Fairness is built into the free market because it is comprised of all kinds of transactions between parties made freely. That is both sides have to agree to them. When they do and the transaction occurs it is then by definition fair because both parties agreed to it. Ironically the unfairness comes into play when government starts sticking it's nose in the system. When it does things like forcing me to buy someone's product. Or it helps out some corporation by setting policy that makes it harder for others to compete. Your so called fighters of fairness are anything but. They are entitlement junkies who think something isn't fair when they don't get exactly what they want. That is NOT the definition fair. Fair is not defined by you getting exactly what you want.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Compensation is quite in line for what they do. I'm not protected by a union in my job. Nor would I ever want to be. The reality you don't like is unions INFLATE the value of laborer's work. Unions are the enemy of progress. They protect mainly the laziest and stifle the productive. Again fair is not what you are happy with. The labor market is what determines what is fair. X amount of people with x skill agree to provide that skill for x amount of dollars all throughout the country. THAT is the definition of fair.

Whether self-employed entrepreneur or employee, all are constrained by factors far from their control in our modern world, as I have outlined above. Davy Crockett may have made his own way, but today he would have many additional things to think about. Why do you think corporations spend billions on lobbyists? It's because they know that making money is not merely a matter of a well functioning marketplace, but is inextricably embedded in political and social functioning, and is to a great extent a matter of subjectivity.

The uber-right likes to toss around the term "social engineering". It's a code phrase meaning: less tax, regulation, and government functioning means more profit for us- bring those pork chops over here! "Social engineering" happens every day of the week. If it's not done by the people, through there accepted institutions, then it will be done by someone else. That someone else today is usually those at the apex of the corporate world, and the engineered results are usually take the form of structures beneficial to them. Fairness for them is often not fairness for us. I don't think many Americans voted for massive redistribution of wealth to the top half a percent or so of the population. I don't think they voted for being bankrupted by medical expenses, when they see those in other countries easily accessing these sort of medical necessities. Those to whom materialism is supreme attempt their social engineering every day. Often this is counterbalanced by those with deeper social values in mind. Fortunately, the latter can (sometimes) use taxes as a positive, pro-social instrument.

It isn't code at all. That's what liberals think their job is. You've all but admitted it that you believe the purpose of government is to steer the economy, engineer outcomes for people, etc. And if you would take a step back and look you would see it is exactly that which is has so things so incredibly screwed up now. It is government's job to protect our freedoms and very little else. All of the above is simply an excuse by you for your failures. It's the most convenient excuse ever. "I'm not wealthy because I'm such a good person."? Give me a break.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just a coincidence that the laws favor democrat fat cats? Democrats don't own corporations? WTF are you talking about? Corporations are republican? WTF are you smoking?

I know. You are having a hard time concentrating. A simple statement for most. But as a congenital idiot, it was a bit complex for you to comprehend.
You need to see where contributions are going from corporations via superpac's. As a result of citizens united. The great majority of corporate money goes, me boy, to repubs. Bu while that is simple for most to understand, it is probably way to difficult for you.

Lies.

Prove the post you claim is a lie is not true.

 

[RKMBrown]

I know. You are having a hard time concentrating. A simple statement for most. But as a congenital idiot, it was a bit complex for you to comprehend.
You need to see where contributions are going from corporations via superpac's. As a result of citizens united. The great majority of corporate money goes, me boy, to repubs. Bu while that is simple for most to understand, it is probably way to difficult for you.

Lies.

Prove the post you claim is a lie is not true.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9anJWctHv4A]Sit On It - Nick at Nite Happy Days Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lies.

Prove the post you claim is a lie is not true.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9anJWctHv4A]Sit On It - Nick at Nite Happy Days Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

I'm so sorry you've proven to be one more mendacious asshole. What is it with the hoi polloi right wingers; are they too stupid to do the research or unable to post a concise and substantive message? Likely both.

 

[oldfart]

[W]ith an national income tax of 18% with everybody contributing and elmination of credit, deductions, loopholes, etc., all you have to do is figure 18% of GDP which was 15.5 trillion in 2012. That's 2.79 trillion in income tax revenue which is almost a third more than what they took in last year in income tax revenue.

You have eliminated the standard deduction, itemized deductions, personal exemptions, earned income and child tax credits, and all deductions (except I presume for business expenses and rental expenses). Most Americans would be paying 18% on their FIRST DOLLAR of income. From your numbers it appears that Social Security taxes will remain the same, so workers are paying over 25% on the first dollar, self-employed over 30%. My back-of-the-envelope computation is that this makes everyone earning under $85,000 worse off than they are now. Guess who would be better off?

They are entitlement junkies who think something isn't fair when they don't get exactly what they want. That is NOT the definition fair. Fair is not defined by you getting exactly what you want.

Ignoring the unreality of what you wrote; this is a fair description of a corporate lobbyist![pun intended]

Apparently you believe that once political power is used to create an economic advantage for the wealthy and powerful, we call the advantage a product of the "free market" and thereafter no one is allowed to question it. Most corporate tax breaks come in the definition of income. Mom & pop's don't have transfer pricing opportunities available, but that's the loophole that corporations with zero tax liability on tens of billions of dollars of reported profits use. The folks you get your talking points from know this and there is an asterisk somewhere explaining that these loopholes will remain, as they "merely" define business net income.

Many tend to take what they can get, and for some, that's substantial. Wall Street traders can extract millions in fees for even dubious financial transactions (why do you think they wanted social security privatized?), corporate CEOs extract 10, 50, 100 million a year, as their companies lose money, or go bust. One would think society deified plumbers and dentists in our society, such is the rate of compensation for their modest efforts. For those without a voice- without a union or a professional association- compensation can be quite out of line for what they actually do.

Compensation is quite in line for what they do.

Really? Who is really worth $10 million a year?

The reality you don't like is unions INFLATE the value of laborer's work. Unions are the enemy of progress. They protect mainly the laziest and stifle the productive.

Boy you really have drunk the koolaid.

The labor market is what determines what is fair. X amount of people with x skill agree to provide that skill for x amount of dollars all throughout the country. THAT is the definition of fair.

Look up the definition of monopsony.

The saddest thing is that you have been deluded into voting against your own economic interests. You and your children will suffer a loss of all of your freedoms because in America you only have the rights you can pay an attorney to defend. You forge the chains of your own slavery, economic, political, and social. And you will be surprised when the people who fed you this line pit one group against the other in a race to the bottom, the lowest cost labor in the world.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Let's see now. Joe, if he has enough to save and invest usually goes to a broker or insurance agent; Mitt goes to the Country Club or Yacht Harbor. Joe is told he must pony up $5,000 to get into this really great fund and have at least $200. a month directly deposited. Mitt speaks to his buddies in the par and decides to put $50,000 into ABC which he has been told will soon be purchased by Microsoft and triple in value.

2. CEO Mitt Whiplash earns $1.00 a year in salary but receives stock valued at $5,000,000. in ABC which is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. BTW I've been to Georgetown and saw the corporate offices, it's in a four unit, two story, apt. house (built circa 1940) and has dozens of tenants, most fortune 500 companies.

And this is a problem how?

Does Joe have less right to educate himself and apply himself and become wealthy than Mitt had that right? If I did what I had to do to work my way through college--which I did--and qualified for a nice income, is it unfair that I make more than my classmate who chose to drop out of highschool?

But the topic here is the flat tax. And yes, those who were motivated enough and did what they had to do to achieve sufficient wealth that most of their income is from capital gains will pay a lower percentage on their earned income than will those who work strictly for wages but earn the same amount.

A flat tax would fix that by applying the same percentage equally across the board on all earned income regardless of how it is earned.

Do you miss the point intentionally or has the Kool-Ade addled your brain? Or worse. Yes, we are focused here on the flat tax and I have stated such a tax will put the last nail into the coffin of democracy in America. Election are bought, so are members of Congress and State Legislatures. Very soon we will reach the tipping point and the rule of law will be written by the rich, for the rich and enforced by the rich. In fact we're probably there now.

But your point made no sense whatsoever dear. It does not logically follow that a flat tax will allow anybody to buy elections more than does the progressive tax. I did my best to explain how a flat tax takes the politics out of the tax code far better than does any other system of taxation.

The flat tax would be an important first step in returning the power to the people.