The problem with taxing the rich

[edthecynic]

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

We are adding 100k new workers to the workforce while 300k Boomers are reaching retirement are and 200K are leaving the workforce causing the workforce to population ratio to decline. We are not adding enough workers to replace the retiring Boomers, let alone fill the new jobs created.

 

[RKMBrown]

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

I didn't address your little anti-right tirade above, because you're full of shit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Ronald Reagan's policies sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history, and that is just a plain old fact. The results of his policies lasted through Bush I (who was opposed to Reaganomics... called it "voodoo economics" ...did everything he could to dismantle those policies as president), lasted through (Clinton, who was ironically the closest to Reagan in economic policy since Reagan.) and through another Bush, (who's 'compassionate conservatism' was the diametric opposite of Reaganomics). When the Reagan magic finally began to wear off at the end of Bush II's 2nd term, the libtards began claiming it didn't work, and demanding to know where the jobs and prosperity were. Now we have morons like you, who have revised history in your minds, and filled up the Internet with trumped up bogus propaganda that is mostly untrue, running around besmirching Reagan. You're a ******* idiot. You don't have any "facts" to back up your stupidity, it's all a bunch of manipulated, hyped-up mumbo jumbo, prepared by totalitarian Marxists, and designed to appeal to stupid people like yourself.

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

Reganomics worked because we changed up a considerable amount low paid production jobs for high paid tech jobs while significantly reducing the number of folks on welfare. That worked right up until the tech and dot com bubbles popped, the h1b visas and offshoring resulted in moving the tech jobs offshore, and the socialists brought back welfare as the number one job in America.

 

[RKMBrown]

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

We are adding 100k new workers to the workforce while 300k Boomers are reaching retirement are and 200K are leaving the workforce causing the workforce to population ratio to decline. We are not adding enough workers to replace the retiring Boomers, let alone fill the new jobs created.

We have plenty of workers the problem is the corporations would rather pay someone in china pennies on the dollar or a fresh-out or h1b dimes on the dollar rather hire an American with Experience. Well that and the government is paying people to stay at home and watch tv. Why work when life on welfare is so dang easy?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

I didn't address your little anti-right tirade above, because you're full of shit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Ronald Reagan's policies sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history, and that is just a plain old fact. The results of his policies lasted through Bush I (who was opposed to Reaganomics... called it "voodoo economics" ...did everything he could to dismantle those policies as president), lasted through (Clinton, who was ironically the closest to Reagan in economic policy since Reagan.) and through another Bush, (who's 'compassionate conservatism' was the diametric opposite of Reaganomics). When the Reagan magic finally began to wear off at the end of Bush II's 2nd term, the libtards began claiming it didn't work, and demanding to know where the jobs and prosperity were. Now we have morons like you, who have revised history in your minds, and filled up the Internet with trumped up bogus propaganda that is mostly untrue, running around besmirching Reagan. You're a ******* idiot. You don't have any "facts" to back up your stupidity, it's all a bunch of manipulated, hyped-up mumbo jumbo, prepared by totalitarian Marxists, and designed to appeal to stupid people like yourself.

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

Here is what halfwit white trash doen't seem to get: I am to your fiscal right. A ******* moron like you accusing me of dancing in the street because of what the stupidest president since Junebug did is pretty rich. White trash elected Obama in 2004, yet almost all have no idea what that means.

People that lost in party politics can't be helped - and deserve every bit of the ******* Obama is giving them. But don't put it on me and be clear I understood what was coming before he took the oath when he announced Geithner and Holder. It embarrasses me that halfwit white trash loathe Clinton for aping Reagan and loathe Obama for aping Bush. I want no part of the corporatist scum in or running the nutball party.

Now either address my points - which are fiscally well to the right of your ignorant rant, or admit your keyboard spreads more stinking shit than a hippo's tail.

Your move.

 

[Boss]

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

You are a bit confused. I'm for eliminating income tax and replacing it with sales tax.

My argument is that you are wrong when you keep saying that fewer people are buying houses today than 30 years ago. You seem to think that people stop buying things with price inflation. But that is not true. People stop buying things when they don't have any money to spend. If I get 15% more money in my pocket due to elimination of the income tax, I'll spend it. If the cost of goods goes up 15% as sale tax I'll spend my extra income on sales tax. The change in tax system won't change what I buy. It won't change what I buy because I'm a worker, a tax payer, and a consumer.

To the welfare hounds above... stop crippling people with welfare checks and rebate checks, let people earn a living and be responsible for themselves for a change. That will bring this country out of the ditch, not paying people to stay in the ditch.

I'll have to see some statistics to support this, I don't believe there are more people buying houses today than 30 years ago. I have not said that people stop buying with inflation, although some people do indeed stop buying, or they buy less. When gas went over $4 a gallon, people bought less gas, made fewer trips, altered their lifestyles. As prices increase, a certain number of people will reconsider their purchase. A couple willing to pay $80k for a home, might not be willing to pay $120k for a home, they may opt to buy a manufactured home at a much lower price, or rent a while longer in hopes the prices will drop. As the price of groceries continue to climb, more and more people are growing home gardens. This is simple economics, the higher prices go, the fewer people who are compelled to buy. Some things are still in demand, some things are unavoidable necessities, so people will continue to buy and spend, but as price increases, more people opt out, make other choices, find other solutions.

This has, as you point out, nothing to do with consumption tax vs. income tax, because while they are paying more, they have more money in their pockets. It offsets itself, so the same dynamic doesn't apply, as with inflation. The argument Ed introduced, was taxing production instead of consumption, which is totally ignorant of economics. The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions. Therefore, if we tax production, we'll get less production. Less production means less supply, and since demand isn't going to change, that means increased price. On the other hand, taxing consumption will cause less consumption, which means supply outweighs demand, which in turn, results in lower prices.

As for government spending, regardless of our tax plan, that needs to be reduced by $1.6 trillion per year, so that we can stop borrowing money from China to pay the bills. We can't get there by gutting defense spending or increasing taxes on high incomes and corporations. It's going to take some revamping and streamlining of government, elimination of programs and services that aren't working, and a Constitutional Amendment that Congress HAS TO balance the budget. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road, and liberals will continue to clamor for more and more spending.

It's high time America dismiss the children in the room, who have no clue of what they are doing, and don't care. It's time to stop attacking the only people with the resources and capability to revive the economic prosperity of this once great nation. It's time to expose the left as the Socialist-Communist-Marxist-Maoists they are, and stop listening to what they spew, which is nothing more than repackaged propaganda from the 19th century.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

You are a bit confused. I'm for eliminating income tax and replacing it with sales tax.

My argument is that you are wrong when you keep saying that fewer people are buying houses today than 30 years ago. You seem to think that people stop buying things with price inflation. But that is not true. People stop buying things when they don't have any money to spend. If I get 15% more money in my pocket due to elimination of the income tax, I'll spend it. If the cost of goods goes up 15% as sale tax I'll spend my extra income on sales tax. The change in tax system won't change what I buy. It won't change what I buy because I'm a worker, a tax payer, and a consumer.

To the welfare hounds above... stop crippling people with welfare checks and rebate checks, let people earn a living and be responsible for themselves for a change. That will bring this country out of the ditch, not paying people to stay in the ditch.

I'll have to see some statistics to support this, I don't believe there are more people buying houses today than 30 years ago. I have not said that people stop buying with inflation, although some people do indeed stop buying, or they buy less. When gas went over $4 a gallon, people bought less gas, made fewer trips, altered their lifestyles. As prices increase, a certain number of people will reconsider their purchase. A couple willing to pay $80k for a home, might not be willing to pay $120k for a home, they may opt to buy a manufactured home at a much lower price, or rent a while longer in hopes the prices will drop. As the price of groceries continue to climb, more and more people are growing home gardens. This is simple economics, the higher prices go, the fewer people who are compelled to buy. Some things are still in demand, some things are unavoidable necessities, so people will continue to buy and spend, but as price increases, more people opt out, make other choices, find other solutions.

This has, as you point out, nothing to do with consumption tax vs. income tax, because while they are paying more, they have more money in their pockets. It offsets itself, so the same dynamic doesn't apply, as with inflation. The argument Ed introduced, was taxing production instead of consumption, which is totally ignorant of economics. The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions. Therefore, if we tax production, we'll get less production. Less production means less supply, and since demand isn't going to change, that means increased price. On the other hand, taxing consumption will cause less consumption, which means supply outweighs demand, which in turn, results in lower prices.

As for government spending, regardless of our tax plan, that needs to be reduced by $1.6 trillion per year, so that we can stop borrowing money from China to pay the bills. We can't get there by gutting defense spending or increasing taxes on high incomes and corporations. It's going to take some revamping and streamlining of government, elimination of programs and services that aren't working, and a Constitutional Amendment that Congress HAS TO balance the budget. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road, and liberals will continue to clamor for more and more spending.

It's high time America dismiss the children in the room, who have no clue of what they are doing, and don't care. It's time to stop attacking the only people with the resources and capability to revive the economic prosperity of this once great nation. It's time to expose the left as the Socialist-Communist-Marxist-Maoists they are, and stop listening to what they spew, which is nothing more than repackaged propaganda from the 19th century.

>>> The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions.

Never is a small number. I could provide many examples where you would be proven wrong. For example, give a charity gathering where the cost of tickets for the show are doubled but everyone knows the money is going to a good cause. As another example, war bonds. As another example taxes that are wisely spent by a community to provide incentives to increase the size and/or income for the community.

All taxes don't have to be a negative on society.

I do, however, agree that the vast majority of all federal taxes are basically being pissed away.

 

[Boss]

You are a bit confused. I'm for eliminating income tax and replacing it with sales tax.

My argument is that you are wrong when you keep saying that fewer people are buying houses today than 30 years ago. You seem to think that people stop buying things with price inflation. But that is not true. People stop buying things when they don't have any money to spend. If I get 15% more money in my pocket due to elimination of the income tax, I'll spend it. If the cost of goods goes up 15% as sale tax I'll spend my extra income on sales tax. The change in tax system won't change what I buy. It won't change what I buy because I'm a worker, a tax payer, and a consumer.

To the welfare hounds above... stop crippling people with welfare checks and rebate checks, let people earn a living and be responsible for themselves for a change. That will bring this country out of the ditch, not paying people to stay in the ditch.

I'll have to see some statistics to support this, I don't believe there are more people buying houses today than 30 years ago. I have not said that people stop buying with inflation, although some people do indeed stop buying, or they buy less. When gas went over $4 a gallon, people bought less gas, made fewer trips, altered their lifestyles. As prices increase, a certain number of people will reconsider their purchase. A couple willing to pay $80k for a home, might not be willing to pay $120k for a home, they may opt to buy a manufactured home at a much lower price, or rent a while longer in hopes the prices will drop. As the price of groceries continue to climb, more and more people are growing home gardens. This is simple economics, the higher prices go, the fewer people who are compelled to buy. Some things are still in demand, some things are unavoidable necessities, so people will continue to buy and spend, but as price increases, more people opt out, make other choices, find other solutions.

This has, as you point out, nothing to do with consumption tax vs. income tax, because while they are paying more, they have more money in their pockets. It offsets itself, so the same dynamic doesn't apply, as with inflation. The argument Ed introduced, was taxing production instead of consumption, which is totally ignorant of economics. The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions. Therefore, if we tax production, we'll get less production. Less production means less supply, and since demand isn't going to change, that means increased price. On the other hand, taxing consumption will cause less consumption, which means supply outweighs demand, which in turn, results in lower prices.

As for government spending, regardless of our tax plan, that needs to be reduced by $1.6 trillion per year, so that we can stop borrowing money from China to pay the bills. We can't get there by gutting defense spending or increasing taxes on high incomes and corporations. It's going to take some revamping and streamlining of government, elimination of programs and services that aren't working, and a Constitutional Amendment that Congress HAS TO balance the budget. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road, and liberals will continue to clamor for more and more spending.

It's high time America dismiss the children in the room, who have no clue of what they are doing, and don't care. It's time to stop attacking the only people with the resources and capability to revive the economic prosperity of this once great nation. It's time to expose the left as the Socialist-Communist-Marxist-Maoists they are, and stop listening to what they spew, which is nothing more than repackaged propaganda from the 19th century.

>>> The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions.

Never is a small number. I could provide many examples where you would be proven wrong. For example, give a charity gathering where the cost of tickets for the show are doubled but everyone knows the money is going to a good cause. As another example, war bonds. As another example taxes that are wisely spent by a community to provide incentives to increase the size and/or income for the community.

All taxes don't have to be a negative on society.

I do, however, agree that the vast majority of all federal taxes are basically being pissed away.

You can provide NO examples where I would be wrong, because I'm not wrong. Your examples stated, are not TAXES. Tickets for a charity show are not mandatory. War Bonds are not mandatory. You make the choice to contribute to a cause, that isn't taxation and you know it. That is not what I am talking about.

I never said ANY taxes were a "negative" or "positive" on society, I merely stated that when you increase taxation on something, you will get less of it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'll have to see some statistics to support this, I don't believe there are more people buying houses today than 30 years ago. I have not said that people stop buying with inflation, although some people do indeed stop buying, or they buy less. When gas went over $4 a gallon, people bought less gas, made fewer trips, altered their lifestyles. As prices increase, a certain number of people will reconsider their purchase. A couple willing to pay $80k for a home, might not be willing to pay $120k for a home, they may opt to buy a manufactured home at a much lower price, or rent a while longer in hopes the prices will drop. As the price of groceries continue to climb, more and more people are growing home gardens. This is simple economics, the higher prices go, the fewer people who are compelled to buy. Some things are still in demand, some things are unavoidable necessities, so people will continue to buy and spend, but as price increases, more people opt out, make other choices, find other solutions.

This has, as you point out, nothing to do with consumption tax vs. income tax, because while they are paying more, they have more money in their pockets. It offsets itself, so the same dynamic doesn't apply, as with inflation. The argument Ed introduced, was taxing production instead of consumption, which is totally ignorant of economics. The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions. Therefore, if we tax production, we'll get less production. Less production means less supply, and since demand isn't going to change, that means increased price. On the other hand, taxing consumption will cause less consumption, which means supply outweighs demand, which in turn, results in lower prices.

As for government spending, regardless of our tax plan, that needs to be reduced by $1.6 trillion per year, so that we can stop borrowing money from China to pay the bills. We can't get there by gutting defense spending or increasing taxes on high incomes and corporations. It's going to take some revamping and streamlining of government, elimination of programs and services that aren't working, and a Constitutional Amendment that Congress HAS TO balance the budget. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to kick the can down the road, and liberals will continue to clamor for more and more spending.

It's high time America dismiss the children in the room, who have no clue of what they are doing, and don't care. It's time to stop attacking the only people with the resources and capability to revive the economic prosperity of this once great nation. It's time to expose the left as the Socialist-Communist-Marxist-Maoists they are, and stop listening to what they spew, which is nothing more than repackaged propaganda from the 19th century.

>>> The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions.

Never is a small number. I could provide many examples where you would be proven wrong. For example, give a charity gathering where the cost of tickets for the show are doubled but everyone knows the money is going to a good cause. As another example, war bonds. As another example taxes that are wisely spent by a community to provide incentives to increase the size and/or income for the community.

All taxes don't have to be a negative on society.

I do, however, agree that the vast majority of all federal taxes are basically being pissed away.

You can provide NO examples where I would be wrong, because I'm not wrong. Your examples stated, are not TAXES. Tickets for a charity show are not mandatory. War Bonds are not mandatory. You make the choice to contribute to a cause, that isn't taxation and you know it. That is not what I am talking about.

I never said ANY taxes were a "negative" or "positive" on society, I merely stated that when you increase taxation on something, you will get less of it.

Your strawman argument is that all taxation results in less of the item being taxed. I've provided you cases where that would not be the case. In response you say those are not taxes. You agree not all taxation results in the negative but you maintain your strawman. Just because most taxation results in negative pressure on that which is being taxed does not make it true that all taxation must for all time result in negative pressure.

As stated if taxation is spent correctly it can actually increase production of that which is being taxed. For example, the US Government is supposed to break up monopolies. If they would do that job then we'd have more startups and less offshoring and more jobs. Thus if they spent less on paying people not to work and more on items that reflected in a better job market then perhaps our tax investments would result in another regan like tech boom.. No?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

Hate to break it to you, but he is correct with regards to raising cost of a product effects consumer spending. Why do you think the production sales of the Chevy Volt has been failing? The consumer market is driving people to stay with their gas cars and trucks, rather than place their extra hard earned money towards an electric car that comes with limitations, as well as battery safety concerns (no one wants a electric hybrid version of a Ford "Pinto"). When you factor in cost, and the consumer sees a Volt hybrid that is inferior in travel and recharging capabilities, compared to that of a conventional vehicle, the extra costs and future maintenance becomes a HUGE factor to many customers. The two key issues consumers look at in a product are (1) overall affordability (initial costs as well as maintain and repair) (2) the ability to meet a need.

When the cost of everything goes up, that doesn't mean people will buy more. Look at inflation during the Carter administration with it's gas rationing (odd and even license plates), and try to convince me of that.

 

[RKMBrown]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

Hate to break it to you, but he is correct with regards to raising cost of a product effects consumer spending. Why do you think the production sales of the Chevy Volt has been failing? The consumer market is driving people to stay with their gas cars and trucks, rather than place their extra hard earned money towards an electric car that comes with limitations, as well as battery safety concerns (no one wants a electric hybrid version of a Ford "Pinto"). When you factor in cost, and the consumer sees a Volt hybrid that is inferior in travel and recharging capabilities, compared to that of a conventional vehicle, the extra costs and future maintenance becomes a HUGE factor to many customers. The two key issues consumers look at in a product are (1) overall affordability (initial costs as well as maintain and repair) (2) the ability to meet a need.

When the cost of everything goes up, that doesn't mean people will buy more. Look at inflation during the Carter administration with it's gas rationing (odd and even license plates), and try to convince me of that.

You are talking about apples. I was talking about oranges.

Yes folks will trend to more desirable purchases over less desirable purchases. However, given that we are not all driving used honda civics, one would also agree that price / value is not the only factor in making a purchase.

What I said is the opposite of what you said. What I said was that when the cost of everything goes up, such as by inflation, and also when income goes up with inflation, then because folks have more money to spend they are likely to buy the same amount of product they bought before. In this case there is no change in desire or spending pattern due to price inflation because wage inflation makes the difference in price a wash. You took that to mean that I said people don't care about price. That's not what I said.

 

[RKMBrown]

For your typical consumer the difference between income tax and sales tax is choice. Since there is more choice with sales tax, it should be preferable over income tax.

When I chose to move to TX it was because of choice. My choice was based on picking a state that did not have income tax.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

Bullshit! The poor and middle class spend everything they earn plus what they put on their credit card. The Wealthy spend only a tiny fraction of their wealth. A consumption tax is by far and away one of the most regressive taxes ever dreamed up by the wealthy for avoiding taxes.

So you are suggesting the rich are more financially responsible when it comes to spending?

A flat tax percentage that's placed upon what you buy IS a fair tax. Take 15% Federal Tax and place that towards a purchase of a multimillion dollar home or yacht, now compare that to a 15% Federal tax and place that on a $40,000 car .... what makes you actually think the rich are somehow avoiding paying their fair share of taxes? This is not advanced calculus ... it's basic math. Should unions be penalized with a much higher tax percentage placed on their total wage package, simply because their benefits and pay is not fair to the hard working non-union employee? They DO earn more, so they can afford it.

 

[RKMBrown]

I like the idea of exempting from flat tax/sales tax basic food, shelter stuff. Things like homes, rent, groceries, utilities, gas, school, farm, basic phone, pump shotguns, and homeowner supplies.

Sales tax should be for luxury items like, fancy cars, restaurants, non-necessary electronics, such as flat panel TVs, yachts, AR-15s, etc.

 

[Boss]

>>> The more you tax anything, the less you'll have of that behavior... every single time, no exceptions.

Never is a small number. I could provide many examples where you would be proven wrong. For example, give a charity gathering where the cost of tickets for the show are doubled but everyone knows the money is going to a good cause. As another example, war bonds. As another example taxes that are wisely spent by a community to provide incentives to increase the size and/or income for the community.

All taxes don't have to be a negative on society.

I do, however, agree that the vast majority of all federal taxes are basically being pissed away.

You can provide NO examples where I would be wrong, because I'm not wrong. Your examples stated, are not TAXES. Tickets for a charity show are not mandatory. War Bonds are not mandatory. You make the choice to contribute to a cause, that isn't taxation and you know it. That is not what I am talking about.

I never said ANY taxes were a "negative" or "positive" on society, I merely stated that when you increase taxation on something, you will get less of it.

Your strawman argument is that all taxation results in less of the item being taxed. I've provided you cases where that would not be the case. In response you say those are not taxes. You agree not all taxation results in the negative but you maintain your strawman. Just because most taxation results in negative pressure on that which is being taxed does not make it true that all taxation must for all time result in negative pressure.

As stated if taxation is spent correctly it can actually increase production of that which is being taxed. For example, the US Government is supposed to break up monopolies. If they would do that job then we'd have more startups and less offshoring and more jobs. Thus if they spent less on paying people not to work and more on items that reflected in a better job market then perhaps our tax investments would result in another regan like tech boom.. No?

There is no strawman argument. It's a simple fact, if you tax something, you'll have less of it. You've not given a valid example of where this is wrong. You gave two examples of charitable contribution and patriotic contribution, and then you changed the argument to whether a tax is "good" or "bad" for the community. (I have not argued that all taxes are bad.) Then you start talking about monopolies and production, startups and offshoring, none of which are taxation. So you keep trying to call stuff tax that isn't tax, just to avoid the correct point I made.

It does not matter how taxes are spent, that isn't related to my statement. If you tax production, in every instance, you will have less production. Now perhaps it's something like cigarettes you are taxing, where it is desirable to have less of it? Maybe the tax revenue realized outweighs the consequence of less whatever? I have not argued that. All I said was, if you tax something, you'll get less of it. That statement stands, it's not a strawman, it is a valid and legitimate point that you have to go to great lengths to deny.

As for what would result in a boon... Eliminate corporate taxation and capital gains taxes. This would result in millions and millions of new jobs, new industry, new manufacturing, and a boon like none we've ever seen before. You want to kill jobs and industry further? Tax production, tax corporations more, raise cap gains taxes... it will result in less every time, never fails. This is why, every time we've lowered the top marginal tax rate, it has resulted in greater revenues, and every time we've raised them, the revenues have been less as a result.

 

[Boss]

Bullshit! The poor and middle class spend everything they earn plus what they put on their credit card. The Wealthy spend only a tiny fraction of their wealth. A consumption tax is by far and away one of the most regressive taxes ever dreamed up by the wealthy for avoiding taxes.

It doesn't matter how much of their incomes are spent and how much are not, this will vary by individual. As I've already pointed out, the Fair Tax plan suggested in 2008, would have issued a "prebate" check for the amount of taxes paid on basic needs. So the poor, who can't afford to spend much more than basic needs, wouldn't be paying tax. In some cases, if they were frugal or say, lived on a farm where they could be self-sufficient, they might even come out ahead with the prebate. The consumption tax would mostly apply to the wealthy, who are the ones spending on luxury items. I don't know why you think this plan would benefit the rich, it wouldn't. In fact, most rich people I know, would pay far more in taxes on their consumption.

 

[RKMBrown]

You can provide NO examples where I would be wrong, because I'm not wrong. Your examples stated, are not TAXES. Tickets for a charity show are not mandatory. War Bonds are not mandatory. You make the choice to contribute to a cause, that isn't taxation and you know it. That is not what I am talking about.

I never said ANY taxes were a "negative" or "positive" on society, I merely stated that when you increase taxation on something, you will get less of it.

Your strawman argument is that all taxation results in less of the item being taxed. I've provided you cases where that would not be the case. In response you say those are not taxes. You agree not all taxation results in the negative but you maintain your strawman. Just because most taxation results in negative pressure on that which is being taxed does not make it true that all taxation must for all time result in negative pressure.

As stated if taxation is spent correctly it can actually increase production of that which is being taxed. For example, the US Government is supposed to break up monopolies. If they would do that job then we'd have more startups and less offshoring and more jobs. Thus if they spent less on paying people not to work and more on items that reflected in a better job market then perhaps our tax investments would result in another regan like tech boom.. No?

There is no strawman argument. It's a simple fact, if you tax something, you'll have less of it. You've not given a valid example of where this is wrong. You gave two examples of charitable contribution and patriotic contribution, and then you changed the argument to whether a tax is "good" or "bad" for the community. (I have not argued that all taxes are bad.) Then you start talking about monopolies and production, startups and offshoring, none of which are taxation. So you keep trying to call stuff tax that isn't tax, just to avoid the correct point I made.

It does not matter how taxes are spent, that isn't related to my statement. If you tax production, in every instance, you will have less production. Now perhaps it's something like cigarettes you are taxing, where it is desirable to have less of it? Maybe the tax revenue realized outweighs the consequence of less whatever? I have not argued that. All I said was, if you tax something, you'll get less of it. That statement stands, it's not a strawman, it is a valid and legitimate point that you have to go to great lengths to deny.

As for what would result in a boon... Eliminate corporate taxation and capital gains taxes. This would result in millions and millions of new jobs, new industry, new manufacturing, and a boon like none we've ever seen before. You want to kill jobs and industry further? Tax production, tax corporations more, raise cap gains taxes... it will result in less every time, never fails. This is why, every time we've lowered the top marginal tax rate, it has resulted in greater revenues, and every time we've raised them, the revenues have been less as a result.

I'm gonna guess you don't know what a straw man is?

>>> There is no strawman argument. It's a simple fact, if you tax something, you'll have less of it. You've not given a valid example of where this is wrong.

That's three strawman arguments in three sentences. You can't make something a fact by stating that it is a fact. You can't prove something is not a strawman by stating it's not a strawman. You can't prove my examples are invalid by saying they are invalid.

>>> every time we've lowered the top marginal tax rate, it has resulted in greater revenues

You are making a case for causality. There are many factors to revenue.

My point was that if Government were to spend the money they receive from taxation on the things they were originally set forth to do, then the money would be spent wisely. Spending money wisely can actually result in "expansion" of that which is taxed. My example of breaking up monopolies is a valid example. It costs money to break up monopolies no? Who's going to have the rule of law to break up the monopolies if not a government entity approved by the people? How will that entity operate without funds?

Another example. No defense money, you are likely to get overrun by foreign conquers and then you will have no property or jobs.. nah you'll likely be dead. Dead men don't earn much income. Thus taxation of property to defend the property is better than having no property no?

 

[Boss]

I'm gonna guess you don't know what a straw man is?

>>> There is no strawman argument. It's a simple fact, if you tax something, you'll have less of it. You've not given a valid example of where this is wrong.

That's three strawman arguments in three sentences. You can't make something a fact by stating that it is a fact. You can't prove something is not a strawman by stating it's not a strawman. You can't prove my examples are invalid by saying they are invalid.

>>> every time we've lowered the top marginal tax rate, it has resulted in greater revenues

You are making a case for causality. There are many factors to revenue.

My point was that if Government were to spend the money they receive from taxation on the things they were originally set forth to do, then the money would be spent wisely. Spending money wisely can actually result in "expansion" of that which is taxed. My example of breaking up monopolies is a valid example. It costs money to break up monopolies no? Who's going to have the rule of law to break up the monopolies if not a government entity approved by the people? How will that entity operate without funds?

Another example. No defense money, you are likely to get overrun by foreign conquers and then you will have no property or jobs.. nah you'll likely be dead. Dead men don't earn much income. Thus taxation of property to defend the property is better than having no property no?

Well, a "strawman" is not simply some point you don't want to agree with. I'm sorry if you are confused about that. I did not invalidate your examples because I said so, I specified that you are not talking about taxation, and you weren't. Tickets to a show, are not a tax. War Bonds, are not a tax. I don't need to PROVE they aren't, they just ******* aren't! You can claim they are, but that is more akin to a strawman than anything I have said.

Monopolies and where tax money is spent, has absolutely nothing to do with the statement I made. Again, you can pretend they do, but that is more of a strawman than what I have stated. Whether a tax is beneficial or good, has nothing to do with my statement, it may very well be a good thing, it may very well be a beneficial thing, but taxation will always result in LESS of something. It doesn't matter how great it is, or how beneficial. You keep trying to change the argument here, to pretend that I have condemned all taxation as a bad thing, that we should never do... I have not made that statement. It is a strawman to continue trying to insist that is what the argument is.

Taxes are necessary in many cases, and there is almost always some 'benefit' realized, or we wouldn't do them. This does not change my point. Regardless of the "goodness" or necessity, whenever you increase or impose taxation, it will result in less of the activity you tax. I don't care what it is, as long as we're talking about taxation, this principle stands. You can create a "strawman" by calling a charity event or war bonds a "tax" but that isn't what the point was. You can create another "strawman" by trying to change the argument to whether the tax is good or bad, or beneficial to the community, it still doesn't negate my point.

Let me try this... let's take your earlier example of a charity event, where tickets are sold to raise money for a worthy cause. Let's say that tickets are $10 each, and all proceeds go to charity, and a certain number of people are inclined to purchase these tickets for the cause.... Now, what if... government comes along and imposes a 20% tax on these tickets? Will as many tickets be sold as before the tax? No. In every case, there will be fewer tickets sold with the tax than without. It doesn't matter about the cause or how the tax revenues are spent, the fact that a tax exists where it didn't before, lessens the incentive to purchase. You have given NO example of where an imposed tax or increased tax, results in MORE of the activity happening. You can't give me such an example, because it doesn't exist. You can stubbornly throw out strawmen while accusing me of strawmen, you can pretend we're having a different debate, you can pretend that I have not supported my argument, but you can't change something that is a fact of life.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

I didn't address your little anti-right tirade above, because you're full of shit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Ronald Reagan's policies sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history, and that is just a plain old fact. The results of his policies lasted through Bush I (who was opposed to Reaganomics... called it "voodoo economics" ...did everything he could to dismantle those policies as president), lasted through (Clinton, who was ironically the closest to Reagan in economic policy since Reagan.) and through another Bush, (who's 'compassionate conservatism' was the diametric opposite of Reaganomics). When the Reagan magic finally began to wear off at the end of Bush II's 2nd term, the libtards began claiming it didn't work, and demanding to know where the jobs and prosperity were. Now we have morons like you, who have revised history in your minds, and filled up the Internet with trumped up bogus propaganda that is mostly untrue, running around besmirching Reagan. You're a ******* idiot. You don't have any "facts" to back up your stupidity, it's all a bunch of manipulated, hyped-up mumbo jumbo, prepared by totalitarian Marxists, and designed to appeal to stupid people like yourself.

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

Reganomics worked because we changed up a considerable amount low paid production jobs for high paid tech jobs while significantly reducing the number of folks on welfare. That worked right up until the tech and dot com bubbles popped, the h1b visas and offshoring resulted in moving the tech jobs offshore, and the socialists brought back welfare as the number one job in America.

Have another hit. It must be pretty good stuff.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

Go ahead and raise taxes on the Rich, it doesn't bother me, instead of filing as an individual, I will file as a private contractor and claim about $11,000 a year, the rest of my possessions are business expenses that are tax deductible, cars, planes, massages, titty bars ............ you name it ................ and claiming only $11,000 qualifies me to receive food stamps.
The true profits are buried in business expenses so that my corporate taxes are kept very low, less than one of the sheeple pay.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Problem? Taking money away from Eon Musk=less innovation for America. We must have a balance that allows such men a chance to do what they do best. Of course they should be taxed.