War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[RKMBrown]

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

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?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

 

[Discombobulated]

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

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?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

Makes as much sense as Marxist Democrats. I wonder why so many capitalists contribute to Democrat election campaigns? Maybe they're Marxists too.

 

[jillian]

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

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?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

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.

 

[Andylusion]

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

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?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

Makes as much sense as Marxist Democrats. I wonder why so many capitalists contribute to Democrat election campaigns? Maybe they're Marxists too.

Everyone is a Capitalist. Do you own... anything? That's capital. You are a Capitalist. By definition, you owning capital, makes you a Capitalist. I'm a Capitalist. I own a car. I own my home. I own stock. I have money in the bank. I have capital. I'm a Capitalist. My $20K a year salary, and I'm still a Capitalist. I was Capitalist back when I worked for minimum wage too.

When Marx wrote his book Das Kapital, he was a Capitalist. He openly said he hoped to become wealthy off of it. When he worked for the New York Tribune, he was a Capitalist.

And even during that time, who was his primary source of funds for his Communist activities? Friedrich Engels, a wealthy textile industry leader.

This is what you socialists have never seemed to grasp. The primary supporters of leftist socialists dogma, have always been the rich and wealthy elite. When you read Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged, who are the big supporters of the socialists view points in the book? All the elite wealthy people. That wasn't a random accident in writing a novel. That was based on historic, and even current day fact.

We don't have royal dynasties like some countries do, but we do have some long running super wealthy families that have been around for decades.

Like for example... Rockafellers. Which are Democrat Socialists. Kennedys. Which are Democrat Socialists. Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and the list goes on and on.

If you look at the top individual donations list from Open Secrets
2014 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups OpenSecrets

You'll find the majority of them are Democrat. You can count them yourself. You'll also notice that the top 3 donations were all democrat. And the top 3 donated more money than the next 10 donations combined. Not only were there far more super wealthy donating to Democrats, but they donated far more in total dollars to Democrats.

Left-wing socialists are full of Capitalists.

I actually have a theory about that. I think that the super elite wealthy, love socialist ideology because when you eliminate the ability of people to engage in free enterprise, and remove the free-market, who do you think the socialist government will come to... to operate the socialized government run industry? Well of course their friends and backers. Except now those rich elite, have no competition. They can successfully do nothing at all, and still live in luxury.

Just my theory. Moving on....

 

[Andylusion]

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?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

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.

 

[jillian]

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

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.

 

[Dad2three]

A 90% tax that only applies to 1% of the gross yields less than a 10% that hits 90% of it.

You might think that but a 90% tax on the top one percent of the population will yield significantly more than a 10% tax on the lower 90% but you would be wrong

Actually, a 10% tax on the wealthy would yield more

You democrats sell tax exemptions that shield 99% of the income of the wealth of the 1%

It's all about corruption - it always was.

Tax credits and exemptions are the currency of the democratic party. Take away direct taxation, and you take away most of the democrats sell in return for bribes.

democrats sell tax exemptions? wow... .that's a new one. the exemptions are rightwingnut gimmes'.
who is suggesting a 90% tax on the top 1%. i think most of us would be pretty ok if the top 1% paid the same PERCENTAGE of their annual earnings, whether by income or earnings on investments, as the middle class.

i've never seen a justification for taxing stock market earnings at a lower rate than employment income.

Stock market earnings are dividends and ARE taxed at normal income rates. These are short-term capital gains... 39.6% baby! What is not taxed at normal income rates is income on long-term investments. There is a lower rate there because we are encouraging rich people to take money out of security investments and do things with it, like fund capitalist ventures. They don't HAVE to do this, you see? We WANT them to do this because it means there is money available for banks to lend to upstart businesses and such. Raise the rates on that and you eliminate it almost entirely because the wealthy are no longer motivated to do it. So is it better to have 15% of something substantial while having the money available to fund economic growth, or is it better to have 39.6% of virtually nothing and no money available?

You show you don't have a pot to piss in Bubba

Cap gains is 20% today

How are capital gains and dividends taxed differently?


A: The U.S. tax code gives similar treatment to dividends and capital gains, although this will change slightly in 2013.

Currently, ordinary dividends and short-term capital gains those on assets held less than a year are subject to one's income tax rate. However, "qualified dividends" and long-term capital gains benefit from a lower rate. Qualified dividends are those paid by domestic or qualifying foreign companies that have been held for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period beginning 60 days prior to the ex-dividend date.

In the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

How are capital gains and dividends taxed differently


Dividend Taxation in the United States: 2003 + [

Qualified dividend - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth or not - Forbes

You need to go look at a calender, bud... it's NOT 2013!

The ignorant tool doesn't understand it's going forward from 2013. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

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.
[propaganda link removed]

So fucking what???? I've already explained, it doesn't matter how many wealthy people have wealth. That's the nature of being a wealthy person, you fucking HAVE WEALTH! You're running around with your hair on fire, waving your arms like a crazy person because wealthy people have wealth! Do you expect wealthy people to NOT have wealth? Do you think poor people should have wealth instead? Is there something wrong with your brain that you can't comprehend the word "wealth" and what it means? Of course wealthy people are wealthy... duh! Is it surprising they have MOST of the wealth? That IS why they are called "wealthy!"

Wealth is NOT FINITE! We create more and more wealthy people every single day! Tomorrow, there will be more wealth than there was today, and more people will become wealthy. Trying in vain to punish wealthy people is never going to create a single wealthy person. It's never going to lift anyone out of poverty or do anything for the middle class. All it is doing is discouraging wealthy people from investing, using their wealth to stimulate the economy and create new jobs, and promote a stupid class warfare ideology that has no place in our free society. It is the DUMBEST idea in the history of man!

Wonder why conservatives ONLY claim it's class warfare when the bottom 90% fight back?

`There’s been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won’ Warren Buffet

BUFFETT: Actually, there’s been class warfare going on for the last 20 years, and my class has won. We’re the ones that have gotten our tax rates reduced dramatically.

If you look at the 400 highest taxpayers in the United States in 1992, the first year for figures, they averaged about $40 million of [income] per person. In the most recent year, they were $227 million per person — five for one. During that period, their taxes went down from 29 percent to 21 percent of income. So, if there’s class warfare, the rich class has won.


There rsquo s been class warfare for the last 20 years and my class has won rsquo - The Plum Line - The Washington Post​

 

[Dad2three]

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!

Bruce Bartlett? lol Left wing?

And no, the money mag says the support the fair tax but a CONSUMPTION tax.

Tell you what dummy, PLEASE give me 3 CREDIBLE economists who think the math works for the FAIR tax? lol

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Source?

You mean in our Founders time, there was no way to collect it? AND most didn't have one?



Our Founders who gave US the BIG FEDERAL Gov't Constitution over the small states rights Articles of Confederation?

The Founders on Taxation, Redistribution, and Property


Noah Webster, the same Webster who compiled the first American dictionary, was an ardent champion of the Constitution. In the fall of 1787, he published a pamphlet titled “Leading Principles of the Constitution” in which he provides a detailed discussion of the proposed document. Interspersed in that discussion is an argument about the merits—nay, the essential nature—of property in a republic. As Webster puts it, real power consists in nothing other than the ownership of property. In fact, the history of England is largely a story of the struggle of the people against the nobility, and “we observe that the power of the people has increased in an exact proportion to their acquisitions of property.” In fact, “a general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the whole basis of national freedom.”


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.” T Jefferson

The Founders on Taxation Redistribution and Property

 

[Dad2three]

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.

So...you don't try to get blood from a turnip

You tax where the money is not by shaking down poor people. Care to name a successful nation on earth that has a flat tax? Why not start with Russia?

Actually some eastern European countries have done very well with a flat tax and it has worked very well in Hong kong

You named HK? Which is a state (built ONLY on unsustainable wall street BS)AND almost 40% of the housing is subsidized? lol

So can you name the European nations or not? lol



Weird

Why do we only consider european nations ideas worth trying?

As usual you sheep are illustrating your close mindedness.

A flat tax would bring in more money and allow us to shrink the bloated government and save billions more.

But we can't have that now can we?

So NO, despite YOUR assertion there were European nations with a flat tax, you can't provide a list.

NEXT'

 

[Dad2three]

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.

They did believe in tariffs but modern conservatives feel that tariffs and protectionism are evil incarnate, explain that one.

Why should I?

I do not count myself among the ranks of conservatives.

Libertarians believe that the most. YOU? LOL

WING NUTTER LIARS.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

They did believe in tariffs but modern conservatives feel that tariffs and protectionism are evil incarnate, explain that one.

There is a massive difference between tariffs and protectionism. I have no problem with a flat level tax on all imported goods. But a flat level tariff, is no more protectionism, than a domestic sales tax. 1% tax on all imported goods wouldn't be protectionism, anymore than a 1% sales tax on Cheerios is protectionist.

Protectionism, is a tariff high enough to cause imports to be harmed, and harmed intentionally to "protect" domestic companies.

That's what we're against. It doesn't work. It didn't work for the founding fathers, and it didn't work in the great depression, and it didn't work for China, India, Jamaica, Venezuela, or any other country anywhere in the world, that has tried it.

Protectionism kills the economy of the country that engages in it. Always has, always will.

But yes, if you want a flat level tariff on all imports, that doesn't bother me one bit. And since you are now citing the founding fathers, let's go back to that, and have the entire government funded only by tariffs, and repeal the income tax, and cut spending down to what tariffs can afford. Eliminate all entitlements, and all government programs, not explicitly listed as a duty of the Federal government in the Constitution.

I vote for that plan.

Weird, your economic 'plan' has NEVER been used ANYWHERE, ever?

Libertarians 'believe in' myths and fairy tales


BTW, Protectionism worked for the nearly 200 years the US used it, UNTIL we listened to the conservatives in the early 1970's, and their 'think tanks'

 

[Dad2three]

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

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

I'd like to know how treating everyone exactly the same favors anybody but taxing some people at a higher rate than others is fair.

Like ALL things conservative/libertarian, the 'FAIR' tax is a myth, it's based on faulty numbers to sell the dream. NO FUKKKING way the numbers come close to actually working!!!

 

[Dad2three]

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?

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

 

[Dad2three]

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.

.

Northern aggression? Those scumbag Southerners seceded from the Union, whee is that in the Constitutions you conservatives love so much?


WHO fired on Ft Sumter again?

Gaaawdddamm conservatives have ALWAYS been traitorous!

 

[Dad2three]

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

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.).

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

 

[Dad2three]

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

.

Simple minded, yes. Stop living in a dream world

 

[Contumacious]

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.

I prosed instead the CONSTITUTIONAL TAX , ie, paying for those activities SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION ----SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED


.