Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In other words - disregard the indisputable IRS data. D2T here on USMB called it "bogus" so it must be.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.).
LMAOROG
REALLY? PLEASE tell me ANYTIME conservative economics has EVER worked? ANYWHERE?
You false premise and myth are bullshit
UNCLE MILITIE HAD HIS LAB TEST WITH CHILE, IT FAILED, MISERABLY
THE KLOWN IN WISCONSIN'S TRYING ANOTHER ONE TODAY, IT'S EQUALLY AS BAD AND FAILING, lol
Conservative economics have a 100% success rate through out history. Literally. And liberal economics has had a 100% failure rate through out history. Literally.
Success: Ronald Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind the Great Depression) and created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics.
Failure: Jimmy Carter collapsed the U.S. economy using failed liberal ideological economics.
Success: Texas has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (increasing revenue by $22 billion over the past 15 years by fostering a business-friendly environment causing business and thus jobs to flock to Texas).
Failure: California has about $70 billion in debt using failed liberal ideological economics (decreasing revenue by a staggering $31.7 billion because their ignorants left-wing "punish success and reward failure to keep everyone beholden to the government plantation" policies have caused business - and thus jobs - to flee California).
High Tax States Are Losing Taxpayers - US News
Success: North Dakota has created an economic tidal wave with conservative economics (at the forefront of energy production).
Failure: After 60 years of complete Dumbocrat control (Dem mayors, Dem city council) and liberal utopia (ground zero for the most powerful unions in the world - like the UAW at work in GM, Ford, and Chrysler), Detroit was forced to file bankruptcy earlier this year.
Bonus Failure: Hugo Chavez collapsed Venezuela by implementing unadulterated failed liberal ideological economics (everything relevant was nationalized and then rationed - and as is always the case with liberal policy, this caused people to stop making an effort and thus production has plummeted).
I could literally go on all day but this is more than enough to prove you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no credibility left. Best of luck to you my friend.
Lived in Cali my entire life, which means for 40+ years I've heard the 'fleeing' Cali BS, it is bogus. Largest US state economy by 50%? lol
As Robert Tannenwald, Jon Shure, and Nicholas Johnson put it in their 2011 paper, Tax Flight Is a Myth, “raising taxes won’t spark a large wave of out-migration, and cutting taxes won’t spark a large wave of in-migration.”
Several studies have shown that nearly as many companies and jobs move into California each year as leave it. A 2005 study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that from 1993 to 2002 — when the question of jobs leaving California figured prominently in gubernatorial campaigns — the net job losses from relocation were tiny; never higher than 0.1 percent of the state’s total jobs.
Little has changed in the years since, with minimal leakage of jobs in a given year as companies move into and out of California, according to Donald Walls, who assembles the data PPIC used for its study.
Sorry my friend, cold-hard data from IRS taxes trumps your "it's bogus simply because I say it's bogus and I'm saying it because the facts are beating me in this debate" position.
We can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.And that's your opinion.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.
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.
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.
we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.
and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?
Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
I didn't see an answer to my question in that cut and pasteAnd that's your opinion.Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.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.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!
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
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.
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?
Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison argues that inequalities can be remedied “by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
MORE HERE:
In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.
The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?
Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
I didn't see an answer to my question in that cut and pasteAnd that's your opinion.Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.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:
more at link:
Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud
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.
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?
Thomas Jefferson:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Madison argues that inequalities can be remedied “by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.”
MORE HERE:
In short, leading figures of the Revolutionary generation, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike, were convinced that a republic can only exist if property is broadly distributed throughout the citizenry and that great inequalities were dangerous.
The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property
We can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.And that's your opinion.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.
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.
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.
we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.
and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.
It makes no sense to tax some dollars more than others.
And a flat tax would treat all dollars the same so that investment income would be taxed just like earned income.
I don't understand why people think a flat tax on income is unfair when every other tax we have are flat taxes.
In fact most state income taxes are flat taxes. So it's not unfair for a state to have a flat income tax but it is for the feds?
All of themName one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.Libertarians are anarchistsAnd Republicans are all fascistsThe democrats are all marxists.I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?
Easy isn't it?
That's why i'm libertarian.
Why would we do that when we can do so much more?I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDHe 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.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!
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.
.
We can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.And that's your opinion.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.
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.
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.
we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.
and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.
It makes no sense to tax some dollars more than others.
And a flat tax would treat all dollars the same so that investment income would be taxed just like earned income.
I don't understand why people think a flat tax on income is unfair when every other tax we have are flat taxes.
In fact most state income taxes are flat taxes. So it's not unfair for a state to have a flat income tax but it is for the feds?
I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDHe 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.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!
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.
.
I beg to differ.A massive bloody revolution is unavoidable.
These low life motherfuckers believe that they have a right to enslave taxpayers/their neighbors.
.
Ultimately, I think you might be correct... BUT... Never underestimate the politics of future generations. We're currently dealing with the misfits who were raised by the acid-tripping hippy generation through the Prozac-popping ME generation. The next generation will deal with facing the mess they've left behind. Left-right politics have always swung like a pendulum, and they will continue to do so.
I think we're due for a generation ready to LEAD instead of following Socialists around with their noses stuck up their butts like they hung the moon and stars. It all comes in cycles and the cycle is due to change. Young "hip and cool" people will pontificate on Rand and Hayek instead of Chomsky and Marx. Those who promote today's Neo-Marxism will be viewed as "out of touch" old-timers who can't relate.
In order to determine if a law is Constitutional the individual must be familiar with the US Constitution and free from conflict of interests.I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDHe 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.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!
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.
.
there is nothing unconstitutional about the income tax... no matter how many capital letters you use.
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?
Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
Libertarians are anarchistsAnd Republicans are all fascists
Easy isn't it?
That's why i'm libertarian.
the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.
Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.
luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.
oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.
Libertarians are anarchistsThat's why i'm libertarian.
the people who call themselves libertarians now are NOT libertarians. libertarians don't interfere with matters of reproductive choice and sexuality. what passes for libertarians today are a bunch of spoiled brats who don't want anyone telling them they have to do anything they don't want to do.
Yeah Libertarians support murder. I don't. That's why I'm a conservative and not a libertarian.
luckily we're supposed to be protected from theocrats. as much as this group of libertarians is full of it, i'd rather be around a real libertarian than a theocrat any day of the week.
oh.. and "murder" requires a specific statutory definition. termination of a pregnancy isn't it.
Yeah, because if you simply redefine what murder is, then it wouldn't be murder anymore, because it requires that man define what murder is, and if we change the definition so that me stabbing you to death, isn't murder, then it's not. Right?
Is it human? Yes. Do a DNA test. It's human.
Is it alive? Yes. It consumes oxygen, and it grows. It's alive.
Are we killing it? Yes. Clearly it's dead after this action.
Is killing it justified? No. It has broken no laws, no regulations, violated no persons.
What do you call killing a human which has broken no laws, and committed no crime? Murder.
You throw around definitions, without cause or substance, thinking that you can will meanings to change simply from desire. You don't know what you are even saying, let along what ideology others hold.
Let's see , by "we" you mean the parasites and warmongersWhy would we do that when we can do so much more?I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATEDHe 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.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!
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.
.
Federal "judges" have ruled that way even though the evidence shows that it was NEVER ratified.The Sixteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.
The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.
Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm
Oh it's opposite world today???
No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.
I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.
