What are the pros of a flat tax over a proggessive tax?

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Mr. Swedish Guy, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mirror time.
    Such claims are false, stupid, and dishonest. Read and learn:

    "The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation." -- Adam Smith, "The Wealth of Nations"

    Got it? Equal taxation is taxation proportional to ownership interest in the country -- i.e., the value of all the land that you own within the nation's borders.
    More to the point, Mr. Buffet can also choose to do his consuming of luxuries in another country where it will not be taxed, thus paying no taxes anywhere, ever. The middle class working family cannot. That is the intended purpose of the "Fair"Tax: to shift the entire burden of taxation onto working people, thus enabling the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich to appropriate all the value government expenditures create, while not paying anything to fund those expenditures. It is one of the most unjust, dishonest, economically harmful, and evil tax proposals ever devised by the human mind.
    Right back atcha, pal.
    True. But it most certainly DOES have a right to recover the value its expenditures create in private hands, rather than giving it away to rich, greedy, privileged parasites in return for nothing.
    No, that's just a stupid, evil lie from you.
    Lie. It mainly protects the international interests of the corporations the rich own.
    Lie. Only landowners benefit from infrastructure expenditures, as they are privileged to charge everyone else full market value for access to that infrastructure.
    Lie. NIH research is almost all privatized for the unearned profit of pharmaceutical corporations that the rich own.

    As the Henry George Theorem shows, all government expenditures on services and infrastructure that are not wasted through incompetence or stolen through corruption go only to landowners. No one else benefits, as they must all pay landowners full market value for access to those services and infrastructure.
    True. But wealth is not measured by income. It is measured by wealth.
    No. The purpose of income tax is to shift the burden of taxation onto working people so that elected officials can pay off the rich, greedy, privileged parasites who pay for their election campaigns. The poor do not benefit at all, as they must pay landowners full market value for access to everything government does for them. Just ask yourself one simple question: when the welfare rates are increased, do the poor get more or better food, clothing or shelter? No. Their landlords just get more rent.
    Garbage. It would enshrine the system of government robbing productive working people to pay off rich, greedy, privileged parasites.
    Not when A is already paying B full market value for that service, it doesn't. Seems that's a little detail you "forgot."
    No, that would be your obscene "Fair"Tax, as proved above.
    That is nothing but a stupid lie, as proved above.
    No, the same publicly created value of land.
    Wrong. He would still be paying significant taxes through burden shifting. Google "tax incidence" and start reading.
    See Smith, above.
     
  2. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Says the guy who doesn't know how to use upper case letters or punctuation....
    HK got more of its public revenue from land than any other country. THAT's why it had one of the fastest economic growth rates ever.
    While it's nice to keep things simple, justice and economic efficiency are much more important. A flat-rate land value tax with a modest, universal personal exemption (to make it progressive) is far simpler than a consumption tax, far more just, and far more economically efficient.
    Why should someone who spent three times the money you did on consumption pay seven times the taxes?
    Look up "tax incidence" and read up.
     
  3. endfedthe

    endfedthe Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    simple rule: keep government sending and regulation low, everyone rich, worked for USA and hong kong and will work anywhere
     
  4. endfedthe

    endfedthe Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2012
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    simple rule: keep government spending and regulation low, everyone rich, worked for USA and hong kong and will work anywhere
     
  5. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Nonsense time :)

    Perhaps it is YOU who should try to comprehend Smith’s statement above. He declares that citizens of a nation should contribute in proportion to their “respective interests,” NOT in proportions to their income. Your quote from Adam Smith only serves to buttress my argument, rather than yours, so thank you for this.

    I’m okay with property tax, and I have not argued to abolish this. However, if you have read anything that I have written, it is clear that I am advocating for a Fair Tax, which taxes consumption.

    No. There will always be taxes and added expenses for purchasing items. It is also disingenuous to compare the “poor” to the second richest person in America. From now on, let’s use Obama’s and Romney’s definition of “rich”: A single person grossing more than $200,000or a family grossing more than $250,000.

    The overwhelming majority of “rich” people cannot either.

    No. The Fair Tax does not shift the burden of taxation onto anyone. It merely creates equality in taxation. It forces people to live within their means, and it erases politicians’ ability to pay for the votes of poor people using hard-earned money confiscated from “rich” people via unjust taxation policies.

    If it is so “evil,” then why can’t you formulate a cogent argument explaining why it is so evil? It seems that you have irrational negative emotions towards folk that you deem to be rich, but you have nothing of substance to buttress your argument of why a Fair Tax is a poor idea.

    What haven’t I comprehended?

    No, it does not have the right to pay for the bribes of “poor” people and unnecessary expenditures using “rich” people as their piggybanks. And the government isn’t giving ANY money away to “rich” people, so your statement is entirely bogus. A Fair Tax system merely allows hardworking people of any socioeconomic class to keep much more of their hard-earned money, and it gives them the freedom to spend it as they see fit.

    This is nothing but more vapid nonsense coming from your keyboard with ANYTHING of substance to back it up. I’m beginning to see a trend in your ramblings.

    This is yet another absolutely absurd lie coming from YOU. The army protects the nation as a whole (that’s a fact), and the vast majority of “rich” people (as defined by both the current POTUS and the Republican nominee) do not even come close to having any controlling stake in any major corporation.

    The only lies here are coming from you: I stated a fact. If a poor person and a rich person purchase identical items that are transported via interstate roads from a distributor to a local retailer, then they are getting EQUAL benefit from those roads (i.e. the rich person is clearly not benefiting more). Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?

    As a physician who has interviewed at the NIH, I can, with 100% certainty, state that your statement yet another absurd lie. The NIH is funded by the government and the diseases that it researches benefits society as a whole.

    Theoreum was a 19th century economist who lived in a different time period (e.g. in an era without a federal income tax). Thus, the statements above have no relevance to our discussion.

    Please stay focused. I was discussing with Iremon the injustices of an INCOME tax. Income certainly is a major contributing factor to one’s wealth.

    To be continued…
     
  6. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is nothing but more of your angry, unjustified emotion against those that you deem to be “rich.” Since there is nothing of substance in your statement, I will not waste my time address it any further, since I would only be repeating myself.

    Absolutely bogus! The poor benefit from food stamps, Medicaid, government housing, and welfare, just to name a few programs. They also benefit from Medicare and Social Security, in the sense that they may very likely take out more than they put in.

    The only garbage is coming from you. The Fair Tax benefits all citizens who contribute to society. Like I said before, it forces citizens to live within their means, and it greatly curtails the power of scumbag politicians who would otherwise be more than willing to bribe citizens with promises of entitlements. And the “rich” aren’t “greedy, privileged, parasites:” Your phrase is more aptly attributed to the deadbeat poor in this country who thrive on entitlements (and contribute nothing to society but debt), and the scumbag politicians that bribe them with these entitlements, in exchange for their votes.

    What is G-d’s name are you talking about here?

    Nope, that will be your incredibly inequitable income tax, which acts to empower political corruption and creates class warfare. The “Fair Tax”, as the name states, is by far the most equitable of all taxation systems.

    Nope. That would be a fact, and you have proven absolutely nothing, other than your own ignorance and lack of ability to follow logical reasoning.

    Again, what in G-d’s name are you talking about here? Are you referring to local property taxes, because they already exist and have nothing to do with a federally enacted Fair Tax.

    Wrong. A Fair Tax would bring things to a natural order, because it merely allows people to keep the money that they earn (this was the way things were before the federal income tax in the early 1900s). It is the federal income tax that created unrealistic, unnatural burden shifting: A Fair Tax would merely reestablish the natural norm.

    You should take your own advice: Smith’s philosophy agrees with mine :)
     
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It worked for the 1%, not the 99%. Which is why the 1% want that route.
     
  8. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But I thought you were for equality? Now you're saying for taxing people in an equal fashion? Good idea, if your goal is to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Which it appears to be.


    I understand it fine.

    Why is it fair or equitable that a billionaire can choose how much taxes he pays and not a poor person who needs to spend all their income on basic necessities?

    Sure it does.

    A fair tax system would move the burden of tax upon those who have less ability to pay it. It is so unfair they had to add a rebate system just to make it even slightly palatable.



    I certainly disagree with that as an equitable standard for taxes.

    But I thought you were for equality. Is it "equality," or "equal fashion" or "equitable" you are for? You keep changing your definitions and the goals.

    If this is now the test (4th different one) then why do you propose a tax based on the amount of spending (on select items) as opposed to the amount of government services used?

    Which dictionary says that "equitable" is when a billionaire can choose how much taxes he pays and not a poor person who needs to spend all their income on basic necessities?

    You have restated yourself many time, and each time you come up with a different definition. Your proposal is not equality, and IMO it is certainly not equitable to tax lower income people at higher tax rates than billionaires so billionaires can buy bigger megayachts.
     
  9. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Time for you to lie. You will be doing that a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.
    Perhaps you should try to comprehend that you are addressing someone who knows incomparably more about this subject than you. I have read millions of words on economic theory and history, and millions more on the theory and history of taxation.
    So? I haven't advocated taxing income.
    No, you are just lying about what Smith plainly wrote. People's respective interests in the country are measured by land value owned within its borders, not value of goods and services consumed.
    Why should consumption be taxed? Production (earned income) and consumption (sales) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported.

    The sole purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption. To turn around and tax consumption is therefore contrary to all economic logic.
    No, many places have no sales or consumption tax. You are just trying to evade the fact that with your obscene "Fair"Tax, the rich can choose to avoid taxes by doing their consuming in other countries where consumpiton is not taxed, thus paying no taxes at all, anywhere, ever.
    No, it is entirely honest and informative. The poor can't go to other countries to do their consuming tax-free. The rich can.
    No, I'm not going to use that definition, because that is not an economically meaningful or relevant category of people, nor does it correspond to anything normal English speakers mean when they use the word, "rich." If you want a line in the sand, I'd say the rich are those whose net assets enable them to afford a notably affluent lifestyle, including at least one full-time servant, without working or liquidating capital assets. That's probably less than 1% of the population, but the top 1% in net worth (about $5M) is likely close enough.
    Why do you insist on calling people who aren't rich, "rich"? Are you trying to put something over on your readers?
    That's just a bald lie. It self-evidently and indisputably shifts it onto consumers.
    Lie, as the Smith quote proves.
    It does no such thing. It just makes it more expensive for them to consume beyond their means.
    If you had spent any time in political trenches, as I have, you would know that politicians pander to the rich, not the poor. Give your head a shake.
    I have. It's evil because it enables the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich to avoid paying any tax at all, anywhere, ever, by just living in countries where their consumption is not taxed. They can thus take all the value that government spending on services and infrastructure creates, while not contributing anything to fund that spending. That is just the pure, distilled essence of evil.
    No, you are lying. I have given entirely rational reasons for my negative view of the greedy, idle, privileged, parasitic rich.
    False. See above.
    The actual nature and purpose of the "Fair"Tax.
    It most certainly does have the right to recover from rich, greedy, privileged parasites the value that government spending creates for them.
    It most certainly and indisputably is. Virtually all the assets of the rich are based on government-issued and -enforced privileges such as land titles, bank debt money issuance, intellectual property monopolies, utility monopolies, limited corporate liability, etc., etc. There is no other way the rich could so rapidly get richer without lifting a productive finger.
    No, that's just another stupid lie from you. The "Fair"Tax enables rich, greedy, privileged parasites who DON'T do any work or earn their money to live and consume tax-free in other countries, and thus to take the value that government spending on services and infrastructure creates, and not repay any of it through taxation.
    No, I have identified the facts that prove your claim is a stupid, evil lie: the value of almost all the assets that make the rich rich -- land titles, IP monopolies, banks' debt money issuance, etc. -- is based on government-issued and -enforced privileges that enable their (mostly rich) owners to take for themselves the value that government spending on services and infrastructure creates. The productive are forced to pay for government twice so that rich, greedy parasites can pocket one of the payments in return for nothing.
    <yawn> I have demolished you with fact and logic, and will continue to do so.
    No, you are telling the very worst kind of lie: claiming that those who tell the truth are lying.
    No, you are just lying. And here is the proof:

    "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
    -- US Marine General Smedley Butler

    General Smedley Butler was, at the time of his death, the most decorated US marine in history.

    You need to stop typing and starting thinking.
    How could that possibly be relevant? You are just trying to divert attention from the fact that it is the rich who benefit from the military's "protection" of corporate interests, not the poor.
    No, you told a flat-out LIE. Stop lying.
    No, that's just another lie from you, because the rich person isn't just a consumer. He is also an owner. As a landowner, he charges the retailer and distributor full market value for access to the interstate road the government provided. The poor person doesn't, and can't.
    I understand it fine, which is how I know it is false and stupid. You see, unlike you, I actually know some economics.
     
  10. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My rhetorical question was an answer. Did you not understand the point?
     
  11. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We already have a progressive income tax for decades and income inequality keeps growing.
     
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Taxes overall are much less progressive than they used to be. One of several "trickle down" policies that IMO have helped redistribute more of the nation's wealth to the 1%.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ??? ROTFL!!!! An American physician, claiming he "earns" his income without government's help?

    BWAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!1!!

    You are making a prize fool of yourself. There are few people in the world more thoroughly parasitic, and more indebted to government-enforced monopoly privilege for their bloated incomes, than American physicians.
    It is FACT. You are LYING.
    Lie. NIH research is mostly privatized, given away to pharmaceutical companies, who then extract the entire benefit of the taxpayer-funded research as monopoly profits. No one but the pharmaceutical companies (i.e., their rich, greedy, parasitic owners) gets any significant benefit. Try to at least minimally inform yourself of the relevant facts:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...miner/2011/03/a_giant_pain_in_the_wallet.html

    And that is just one example of thousands.
    LOL! Your ignorance is showing. Again. The Henry George Theorem was only named for Henry George; it was developed in the 1970s by Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz and others.
    The facts prove me right and you wrong, so of course you have to claim they don't exist, have no relevance, etc.
    I am at all times more focused than you have ever been.
    And I was correcting your false claims about taxation, government spending, the rich, and the "Fair"Tax, not income tax. FTR, I do not advocate income tax -- although I have explained, elsewhere, why steeply progressive income taxes that fall mainly on very high incomes are far superior to idiotic and evil taxes like broad-based consumption taxes.
    Sure. Just as age is a major contributing factor to one's weight. That doesn't mean age and weight are the same thing. Hello?

    Please try to get focused.
    The control exercised by the rich over political processes is fact known to every politically aware person.
    No, they do not, as they must pay landowners full market value for access to those things (except the government housing, which is why government housing is such a shambles -- in other countries, government housing is quite good). Do the poor get food stamps, welfare and Medicaid? Sure, but in order to access and make use of them, they need to live near grocery stores, hospitals, etc., and they have to pay landowners full market value for the advantages of such locations.
    Medicare and SS both benefit landowners more than the recipients, as explained above.
    Lie. It takes from producers and consumers and gives to rich, idle, greedy, privileged parasites.
    Garbage. It just replaces all the thousands of small loopholes for the rich with one giant loophole.
    In most cases, yes, that is exactly what they are. I have known enough of them personally to know.
    Everything the poor get in entitlements, they have to pay landowners for access to those entitlements.

    THAT'S WHY THEY REMAIN POOR, WHILE THE LANDOWNERS GET RICH. HELLO???
    The Henry George Theorem: the productive must pay for government twice, so that landowners can pocket one of the payments in return for exactly nothing.
    I do not support or advocate income tax -- although a steeply progressive income tax that falls mainly on the highest incomes is at least better than a broad-based consumption tax, because it falls mostly on the rents of privilege.
    It is evil garbage, and its name is a deliberate lie, as already proved.
    No. Your claim that the rich benefit from government no more than the poor is a grotesquely dishonest and absurd lie. Even the father of liberty theory, John Locke, said your claim was an outrageous fabrication, and that the rich should pay more taxes precisely BECAUSE they benefit proportionally more from government:

    "The preservation of property is the end of government, and that for which men enter into society... It is true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government
    No, you're just makin' $#!+ up again. I have proved you wrong by fact and logic, and you have no answer but your dogged refusal to know the facts.
    What Adam Smith and I have tried to teach you, and you refuse to learn. The value of a luxury car, a mansion, or a famous painting does not come from government and the community. The value of land does. It is therefore the value of land, not of luxuries, that is rightly owed to government and the community it represents.
    Property taxes are two opposite taxes: a tax on improvement value, which measures what the owner contributes to the wealth of the community, and a tax on land value, which measures what the community contributes to the wealth of the landowner. I only advocate the latter, for reasons that should be obvious even to you.
    No, I am objectively correct. You are merely ignorant of the relevant economics, because you do not know any economics. Again, please Google "tax incidence" and start reading.
    Lie. The "Fair"Tax takes money that people earn when they choose to spend it.
    Garbage. There is nothing natural about consumption taxes. Only land value taxation is natural, because it is the only tax that can possibly recover the value government spending on services and infrastructure creates, in order to pay for that spending.
    Stop telling such stupid lies. Smith comes out roundly against taxing consumption, and favors taxing land value, as already proved.
     
  14. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The share of taxes paid for by the "rich" is highly progressive and has been for decades. They have always paid the majority of taxes.
     
  15. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Relative to their income, they pay less today. They are just paying more overall because so much more of the nation's income has been redistributed to them, as my graphs show.
     
  16. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Only in your mind was that question an answer. Please try again.
     
  17. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a flat tax only works if all income over the poverty limit is treated as income, the rich would never agree to it, thus republicans would not allow it
     
  18. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,185
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    when I go to the store if I spend more then you, I pay more taxes then you... but we both pay the same % for every dollar we spend, same should be true of all income earned over the poverty limit

    you seem to be saying if I spend more I should not have to pay as much taxes, or if the rich earn more they should not have to pay as much taxes for the dollars they earn
     
  19. drj90210

    drj90210 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Same exact thing. Taxing people in an equal fashion = equality. Stop arguing semantics.

    Nope. A Fair Tax will make everyone who pays taxes richer, by the very nature of the tax, since they will not automatically have money taken from they paycheck.

    You obviously STILL do not understand a thing. Let me restate myself yet again: ALL PEOPLE, regardless of wealth, have the power, under a Fair Tax, to choose what luxuries they can buy. If a poor person is truly spending all his income on necessities, then he will pay no tax under the Fair Tax system. Why should a billionaire be forced to pay more taxes to the government than a poor person, when the federal government provides both of them equal services (same army protects them, same interstate roads provide supplies to them, same NIH provides research against diseases that benefits them equally, etc)?

    No. Under the original Constitution, no such power was every granted to the federal government. The Federal Income Tax law is a merely another example of the government usurping power.

    How many times do I have to repeat mysel? ONLY LUXURIES ARE TAXED UNDER THE FAIR TAX LAW!!! Hence, the burden of tax is not shifted to the poor, as you have incorrectly stated above.

    A Fair Tax was never imposed, and thus your statement above is bogus. In reality, no such &#8220;rebate system&#8221; exists: Inherent in the proposition of a Fair Tax, necessities are not taxed, and thus the poor will not be affected.

    That&#8217;s not surprising, since you clearly do not care for equality at all.

    Stop arguing semantics. &#8220;Taxing people equally&#8221; is exactly the same as &#8220;taxing people in a equal fashion.&#8221;

    I know that your argument has no leg to stand on, and by arguing semantics to such an absurd level you clearly show how petty you have become.

    Because the federal government has expanded to include services that were not originally sanctioned by the Constitution, and such services (e.g. Medicaid, food stamps, government housing) will almost always benefit the poor. Since such people getting benefits from the aforementioned services are already poor, then they would be unable to pay increased taxes for such services. Hence, such a method of taxation would be illogical.
    By taxing luxury items, then such items are, by definition, not essential and anyone paying for them should be able to contribute to the government via added taxation. If not, then they should forgo the luxury item. Only under this system would all citizens would be taxed equally. No other taxation system provides a similar level of equality.

    You still do not understand anything. Both the rich person and the poor person are given the equal ability of how much they spend in taxation, since they are both taxed on luxury items at the same rate. THAT is the definition of equality: Person A is taxed the same amount as Person B.
    If the poor person uses all of his money on necessities (as you state), then he will pay no taxes under the Fair Tax system.
    What you are advocating is an unjust degree of taxation that, for no reason, unfairly taxes those who have higher incomes. Such a system allows politicians to engage in class warfare, and steal money (via taxation) from those with wealth to pay for unnecessary entitlement programs for the poor, in exchange for their votes. Hence, a progressive tax system is nothing more that the optimal venue for political cronyism, corruption, and bribery.

    It&#8217;s the same answer. You merely have a difficultly in reading comprehending.

    Wrong. My proposal is the dictionary definition of equality: Person A is treated the same as Person B.

    Just because you repeat a lie a thousand times does not make it true. For the millionth time, the poor people you describe (who own ZERO luxuries) would pay no taxes under a Fair Tax system. And please stop with this nonsense of referring to all &#8220;rich&#8221; people as billionaires, inasmuch as this is disingenuous: Both Romney and Obama have defined &#8220;rich&#8221; as a single person grossing more than $200,000 per year or a married couple grossing more than $250,000 per year, and thus the vast majority of the &#8220;rich&#8221; cannot even come close to buying a yacht (let alone a &#8220;megayacht).
     
  20. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, you know that is a stupid lie that I have proved a stupid lie many times. The rich not only don't pay a majority of taxes, they pay far less than their rightful share by any credible measure.
     
  21. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BULL(*)(*)(*)(*). You haven't "proven" a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing Roy because you and I haven't even established what "rich" means, have we?
     
  22. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Such claims are self-evidently nonsensical.
    They have that power now.
    Garbage. He will still pay taxes through burden shifting.
    You know I have already proved that is a stupid lie.
    Repeating a lie does not make it true.
    True, it is shifted more to the middle class. The poor are too poor to bear much more of the tax burden.
    His statement was correct.
    That's absolute garbage. The "Fair"Tax taxes everything, but purports to remove taxation of "necessities" by means of the prebate. The prebate actually just gives people enough money to pay the tax on an amount of consumption deemed "necessary."
    But in fact, they don't. They benefit landowners. Which is why the poor stay poor, while landowners ride the escalator upwards, getting richer without lifting a productive finger.
    You are not talking about the "Fair"Tax.
    Already refuted.
    Garbage. the rich can go and do their consuming in countries where it isn't taxed.
    You know that Adam Smith already refuted you.
    "The worst form of inequality is trying to make unequals equal." -- Aristotle
    Mirror time.
    Who cares what those crooks say?
     
  23. Ethereal

    Ethereal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    40,617
    Likes Received:
    5,790
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Regardless, it is a progressive tax code and has existed in that way for decades. The top five percent of income earners are paying 58.7% of income taxes. We have gigantic welfare programs for the poor, children, the elderly, you name it. We have been using central banking for decades too. The centralized progressive state is failing to reduce poverty and income inequality.
     
  24. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fact.
    I've proved that the only way you can claim I haven't proved your claim a lie is by adopting a definition of "rich" that doesn't mean what honest people mean when they say someone is rich -- like defining it by income (and often such a low income that a double-digit percentage of people has been "rich" at one time or another). You have to claim that a majority of the people you define as "rich" in any given year weren't rich the year before, and aren't rich the year after, which clearly isn't what honest people mean by "rich."
     
  25. Roy L

    Roy L Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,345
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None of which means the rich are paying most of the taxes.
    Which operate strictly to the benefit of landowners, not the putative recipients, as proved by the fact that they have made landowners immensely rich, while raising up the poor not one whit.
    Which is simply a mechanism whereby banksters rob the rest of us.
    On that, we can agree.
     

Share This Page