War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[occupied]

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.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

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

IF?

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

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

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

No one that's who

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

 

[occupied]

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?

In the absence of wage growth a flat tax is an ever increasing burden on working people. People promise that it is the route to prosperity for all but the same kind of people said the same thing about supply-side economics.

 

[occupied]

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.

What a silly dodge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

In the absence of wage growth a flat tax is an ever increasing burden on working people. People promise that it is the route to prosperity for all but the same kind of people said the same thing about supply-side economics.

Conjecture nothing more.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

What a silly dodge.

You ask me to speak for so called conservatives. I can't do that.

If you want pros and cons of tariffs then look it up

 

[occupied]

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?

In the absence of wage growth a flat tax is an ever increasing burden on working people. People promise that it is the route to prosperity for all but the same kind of people said the same thing about supply-side economics.

Conjecture nothing more.

The proponents of a flat tax are engaging in conjecture so I am correct to dismiss their promise that it is not simply a much more regressive tax structure?

 

[occupied]

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.

What a silly dodge.

You ask me to speak for so called conservatives. I can't do that.

If you want pros and cons of tariffs then look it up

OK then, carry on having a conversation with no one.

 

[jillian]

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!

Qualified dividends, as well as capital gains, for individuals in the 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% income-tax brackets will continue to be taxed at 15%. Individuals with more than $400,000 in taxable income—and couples with more than $450,000—will see the rate rise to 20%. (People in the 10% and 15% brackets, as before, will have a zero tax rate on dividends and capital gains.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323689604578219952168695148

 

[zeke]

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.

What a silly dodge.

You ask me to speak for so called conservatives. I can't do that.

If you want pros and cons of tariffs then look it up

OK then, carry on having a conversation with no one.

Skull is pretty good with that. He has pretend employees also.

 

[jillian]

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

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

What a silly dodge.

You ask me to speak for so called conservatives. I can't do that.

If you want pros and cons of tariffs then look it up

OK then, carry on having a conversation with no one.

Skull is pretty good with that. He has pretend employees also.

Yes everyone is a liar but you

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

What a silly dodge.

You ask me to speak for so called conservatives. I can't do that.

If you want pros and cons of tariffs then look it up

OK then, carry on having a conversation with no one.

If you want to discuss the pros and cons of tariffs and protectionism then say so. Do not ask me to speak for other people.

I don't see what is so hard to understand about that

 

[jillian]

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.

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.