War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Skull Pilot]

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

 

[jillian]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

 

[Moonglow]

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

 

[Contumacious]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

I have yet to see a flat tax proposal that does not result in a significant cut in taxes for the wealthy

SO?

All that illustrates is that some people pay far beyond their fair share.

Why should anyone pay a higher share than anyone else.

It creates an Aristocracy? Something our Founders wanted to get away from?

Our founders didn't believe in an income tax.

Correct.

The first GRADUATED income tax was imposed by scumbag Ape Lincoln in order to pay for the War of Northern Aggression.

.

 

[Moonglow]

And before income taxes you had levies on goods produced, so you still payed a tax every time something was purchased...

 

[Contumacious]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists .

According to Ms Jillian a "legitimate economist" is one who acts as an apologist for government supremacy, ie, the welfare/warfare state.


.Big government shows its appreciation by providing numerous grants to whatever university the "legitimate economist" is affiliated with.

.

 

[P@triot]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

One problem though Jillian - the "right-wing" view of economics is based on what actually occurred through out history. Proven, real-world results.

Meanwhile, the so-called "economists" that you point to when building your view are giving opinion based solely on what they wish would happen (ie an immature view of a utopia where everyone has everything, where resources are infinite, and where everybody works really hard because they care about each other). The problem is, that immature model has failed 100% of the time it has been tried world wide (including right here in the U.S.).

 

[Boss]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

 

[Boss]

No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

 

[Discombobulated]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

We can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.

But it is not an "unfair" tax by any stretch.

If you want to address regressive taxes try the payroll tax or the fact that the government is screwing people by taxing all the gains in their retirement plans as regular income and not capital gains.

There are a lot more egregious things going on in our current tax codes that are actually harmful that no one from either side ever address.

And I do not align myself with any political party so I cannot really be partisan. In fact there are things from both parties that I support and don't support.

I'd rather take that approach than a 2 dimensional either or right or wrong point of view that so many of you seem to hold here.

I'd rather see every person treated exactly the same than have the government make special rules for some and not others.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

And therein lies the fallacy in your thinking if we can call what you are doing thinking that is.

Who is stopping you from increasing your net worth (your wealth)?

 

[Moonglow]

Really, blue chip stocks are held by low income workers?

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

And therein lies the fallacy in your thinking if we can call what you are doing thinking that is.

Who is stopping you from increasing your net worth (your wealth)?

minimalism

 

[Moonglow]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If they have a 401k they likely have some blue chip stocks.

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

And therein lies the fallacy in your thinking if we can call what you are doing thinking that is.

Who is stopping you from increasing your net worth (your wealth)?

minimalism

realism.

it is unrealistic to think you cannot increase your net worth.

Wealth is nothing but your net worth that you think it's something like a skyscraper is moronic.

 

[Discombobulated]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

So that's what Marxism looks like. I always thought it looked more like this......

 

[Moonglow]

IF?

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

And therein lies the fallacy in your thinking if we can call what you are doing thinking that is.

Who is stopping you from increasing your net worth (your wealth)?

minimalism

realism.

it is unrealistic to think you cannot increase your net worth.

Wealth is nothing but your net worth that you think it's something like a skyscraper is moronic.

So a skyscraper if owned will not increase you net worth? If net worth was measured in shyts and giggles it would be a better world...

 

[Moonglow]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

I was reserving that one for you...

 

[The Rabbi]

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

You assume and make an ass out U.

 

[Contumacious]

67 pages and you have failed to convince anyone that the rich are our natural masters and should be treated like unaccountable royalty. If anything you have strengthened resolve with your horrible attitude and derisive attitude towards everyone who isn't rich. With few exceptions the rich do not act like you do and have no need for such a mean-ass hostile cheerleader as you.

Screwing with a person's livelihood is going to bring some negative blow-back. Many of them think we are screwing with their livelihood by taxation and regulation while many of the non-wealthy think they are screwing with our livelihood because the recovery seems to be very one-sided and all of the income growth seems to be for the 1% alone. Hostility on your part does not help their case, if they are indeed blameless in the crash or overtaxed or over-regulated or whatever then attitudes such as yours does them a great disservice.

If you really want to help out your aristocratic masters than quit presenting them as people who will kill any or all of us if we get uppity and go to any length to protect their profit margins because that only confirms my feelings that such dangerous people should be opposed.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, ass clown. I'm not here to be nice to you or court your approval of my attitude. My objective wasn't to convince you or anyone else that wealthy people are our masters, or whatever mindless drivel you imagined. It was simply to point out that your War on The Rich is the Dumbest Idea in the History of Man.

I think I did that, and I think I supported my claim well because none of it has been refuted. All we get from you is whining and name calling, along with the usual barrage of Marxist propaganda copy-n-paste that everyone has seen a thousand times. Now you want to scold me like a school marm, as if you have some sort of integrity and authority over me. It's enough to make me LOL.

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

Rule of thumb

If the government is the regulatory entity you have fascism.


If the government owns the means of production then you have socialism

Plain and simple

Over and out

.