Capital gains & income averaging.

[Supposn]

Capital gains & income averaging.

Long term capital gains are not economically more or less beneficial than incomes derived from entrepreneurs’ steadily nurturing and reinvesting into their enterprises.

I am not opposed to speculators but I’m opposed to using tax policy to favor any business model over others. Unlike the proponents of the long term capital gains tax loopholes, I prefer our government promote transparent open markets that we all may be able to trust.

There was an “income averaging” provision within our income tax regulations that mitigated progressive tax rate’s excesses when applied to the filing’s year’s taxable income.

This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Rationalist]

The argument against raising the capital gains tax (or for eliminating it altogether) is that the profit has already been taxed at the corporate level. This position is understandable. Personally, I feel eliminating the corporate tax would solve this dilemma rather quickly. The corporate income tax gives credence to the idea that a corporation is a "person," and taxing the shareholders directly makes a ton more sense anyway. Eliminate the corporate tax, raise the capital gains tax to 20%, and replace the income tax code with a simple 20% flat tax with an exemption of, say, $35,000. Not only would such a reform be very popular, it would also likely give the economy a much needed shot in the arm...

There should also probably be a 10% surtax on incomes over a million, at least until we can get the deficit/debt situation under control.

 

[Supposn]

A sale's taxed twice?

The argument against raising the capital gains tax (or for eliminating it altogether) is that the profit has already been taxed at the corporate level. This position is understandable.

Personally, I feel eliminating the corporate tax would solve this dilemma rather quickly.
The corporate income tax gives credence to the idea that a corporation is a "person," and taxing the shareholders directly makes a ton more sense anyway.
Eliminate the corporate tax, raise the capital gains tax to 20%, and replace the income tax code with a simple 20% flat tax with an exemption of, say, $35,000. Not only would such a reform be very popular, it would also likely give the economy a much needed shot in the arm...

There should also probably be a 10% surtax on incomes over a million, at least until we can get the deficit/debt situation under control.

General Burnside, capital gains income is a tax upon the profit due from the sale of something.

You can rent or lease something multiple times. You can provide the same type of service many times.
You cannot legally sell any individual item more than once unless you repurchase that item prior to each additional sale.

Can anyone explain how it’s possible to have paid taxes upon the profit due to the sale of an item prior to the sale of that item, unless the seller had first repurchased the item?

General Burnside, you have not completely explained your position and it’s not clearly understandable. The only dilemma I detect within your message is the false contention that taxing capital gains is taxing the same profit twice.

General Burnside I sinscerely regret there’s nothing within your message #2 that I can agree with.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Rationalist]

General Burnside, capital gains income is a tax upon the profit due from the sale of something.

You can rent or lease something multiple times. You can provide the same type of service many times.
You cannot legally sell any individual item more than once unless you repurchase that item prior to each additional sale.

Can anyone explain how it’s possible to have paid taxes upon the profit due to the sale of an item prior to the sale of that item, unless the seller had first repurchased the item?

General Burnside, you have not completely explained your position and it’s not clearly understandable. The only dilemma I detect within your message is the false contention that taxing capital gains is taxing the same profit twice.

General Burnside I sinscerely regret there’s nothing within your message #2 that I can agree with.
Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn my point is that corporate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. I'm too lazy to explain it, so read this.

http://www.the-richmonder.com/2010/05/what-is-double-taxation-of-corporate.html

The ACME Corporation is a C corporation. Let's say that after taking all applicable deductions and credits the ACME Corporation has net taxable income of $100,000. The federal corporate income tax is 34%, so ACME owes $34,000 to the federal government. ACME cuts a check and sends it to the U.S. Treasury along with its corporate tax return. ACME now has $66,000 left.

Now let's say that ACME has two shareholders--Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones--and each owns 50% of the company's stock. ACME's shareholders require the corporation to distribute all of its after tax income to the shareholders. Mrs. Smith is quite wealthy and pays taxes at an effective rate of 38.6%, the top rate for individuals. Mrs. Jones is less affluent and pays income taxes at an effective rate of 28%. Congress lowered the tax on dividends to 15% for those in tax brackets above 25% and to 5% for those in brackets below 25% (as Vivian Paige kindly reminded me). Both Smith and Jones will pay 15% additional tax on their dividends; a total of $4,950 each.

Now let's add up all those taxes: $34,000 in corporate income taxes, $4,950 in personal income taxes from Smith, and $4,950 in personal incomes taxes from Jones: a total of $43,900. That means a combined effective rate of tax on the original $100,000 of nearly 44%. That's a pretty high rate of taxation, especially when you compare it to the 15% rate paid on long term capital gains. Think about it: if Smith and Jones could restructure the way they receive income so that it is in the form of a long term capital gain, they could avoid 29% in taxes.

The long term capital gains rate and the double taxation of distributed corporate earnings work together to exercise an extremely perverse and destructive effect on our economy. Together they work to discourage real productivity and the creation of real value and work to encourage speculation. Why would anyone want to own a share of stock in a corporation that earned money when nearly a half of that money will be taken in taxes and when you can speculate in stocks and only pay 15%?

Supposn it makes no difference whether you agree with me or not.

Respectfully, General Burnside

 

[Supposn]

Accounting for corporate dividends.

Supposn my point is that corporate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. I'm too lazy to explain it, so read this.

http://www.the-richmonder.com/2010/05/what-is-double-taxation-of-corporate.html

The ACME Corporation is a C corporation. Let's say that after taking all applicable deductions and credits the ACME Corporation has net taxable income of $100,000. The federal corporate income tax is 34%, so ACME owes $34,000 to the federal government. ACME cuts a check and sends it to the U.S. Treasury along with its corporate tax return. ACME now has $66,000 left.

Now let's say that ACME has two shareholders--Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Jones--and each owns 50% of the company's stock. ACME's shareholders require the corporation to distribute all of its after tax income to the shareholders. Mrs. Smith is quite wealthy and pays taxes at an effective rate of 38.6%, the top rate for individuals. Mrs. Jones is less affluent and pays income taxes at an effective rate of 28%. Congress lowered the tax on dividends to 15% for those in tax brackets above 25% and to 5% for those in brackets below 25% (as Vivian Paige kindly reminded me). Both Smith and Jones will pay 15% additional tax on their dividends; a total of $4,950 each.

Now let's add up all those taxes: $34,000 in corporate income taxes, $4,950 in personal income taxes from Smith, and $4,950 in personal incomes taxes from Jones: a total of $43,900. That means a combined effective rate of tax on the original $100,000 of nearly 44%. That's a pretty high rate of taxation, especially when you compare it to the 15% rate paid on long term capital gains. Think about it: if Smith and Jones could restructure the way they receive income so that it is in the form of a long term capital gain, they could avoid 29% in taxes.

The long term capital gains rate and the double taxation of distributed corporate earnings work together to exercise an extremely perverse and destructive effect on our economy. Together they work to discourage real productivity and the creation of real value and work to encourage speculation. Why would anyone want to own a share of stock in a corporation that earned money when nearly a half of that money will be taken in taxes and when you can speculate in stocks and only pay 15%?

Supposn it makes no difference whether you agree with me or not.

Respectfully, General Burnside

General Burnside, the topic I wrote of was long term capital gains. Within the scenario you presented, there’s no mention of any capital gain transaction. I’m also certain that since capital gains incomes are due to the profits derived from the sale of something. Capital gain incomes cannot be taxed twice.

I share your disagreement of the accounting and tax procedures with regard to corporate dividends; but the remedy I advocate is quite different than yours.

In my opinion:
Distributed dividends should be paid with pretax dollars similar to any other corporate expense; distributed dividend should reduce corporate’s taxable incomes.

USA enterprises’ generally have tax IDs. Taxes should be deducted from all dividends paid to individuals and foreign enterprises. They can apply for refunds when file their income taxes.

Dividends received should be taxed at regular income tax rates.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here is the problem with the debate over Capital Gains... We have allowed the perception to exist, that some arbitrary amount of taxation needs to apply to capital gains, in order for things to be "fair" or whatever. This is where we have dropped the ball as conservatives, in explaining and articulating the conservative point of view, and allowed the liberal progressives to frame the debate by their own parameters. We must first roll back the debate, and consider if we even need to be taxing capital gains at all.... not to what degree.

Capital gains are simply put, income gains produced as the result of some capital, (which was already taxed.) It mostly applies to investments, because this is how capital is used to produce gains. We know for a fact (or should know) that whenever we apply a "tax" of any kind, on anything, it always results in less of that activity. It is common sense, there is less incentive if there is a tax. This being said, what sense does it make to increase (or even have) a capital gains tax, in an economic time where we desperately need people to invest capital? In terms of jobs, new manufacturing, economic growth and expansion, increasing (or even having) a capital gains tax, is just plain dumb.

 

[Rationalist]

Supposn, I now see my mistake; thanks for explaining.

Would you agree that capital gains should be indexed for inflation?

 

[Supposn]

Here is the problem with the debate over Capital Gains... We have allowed the perception to exist, that some arbitrary amount of taxation needs to apply to capital gains, in order for things to be "fair" or whatever. This is where we have dropped the ball as conservatives, in explaining and articulating the conservative point of view, and allowed the liberal progressives to frame the debate by their own parameters. We must first roll back the debate, and consider if we even need to be taxing capital gains at all.... not to what degree..........................

Dixie,the term “capital gains tax” is a misnomer that affects peoples’ perceptions.

The conventional language WE ALL employ supports those misconceptions (and I believe that Conservatives wouldn’t want to have it any other way).

“Capital gains tax” does not tax capital; it taxes the profits due to a sales profit. I believe IRS regulations still explicitly require that the sold item was NOT an item of the seller’s “stock in trade”.

Long term “capital gains tax” is not an additional tax; it’s a reduction of regular tax rates applied to the sale of something the seller has continuously owned for a year or more.

The contention that a “Capital gains tax” is an additional tax upon the sold item’s similar or related to a previously taxed transaction is a false contention; it’s a “fairy tale” that serves the convenience and purposes of Conservatives.

I agree the problem is we have allowed the perception to exist that capital gains income needs some “special” regulations
IMO that’s an illogical; ALL capital gains should be taxed as regular income because incomes are incomes.

I believe Conservatives have succeeded to articulate the Conservative point of view. They’ve framed the debate to their own advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Income averaging

Supposn, I now see my mistake; thanks for explaining.

Would you agree that capital gains should be indexed for inflation?

General Burnside, income averaging would do it all and do it better than the long term capital gains.

Excerpted from this thread’s first message:

There was an “income averaging” provision within our income tax regulations that mitigated progressive tax rate’s excesses when applied to the filing’s year’s taxable income.

This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I Googled “ income averaging “,

Excerpted from:

“ http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/income+averaging ”.

Income Averaging
A former method of spreading out one's tax liability by averaging one's income over 10 years. Income averaging was particularly beneficial to farmers and ranchers, as well as members of other professions with significant variations in annual income. Income averaging was eliminated in President Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2011 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

In my opinion the 1986 tax reform threw out the baby and kept the dirty water.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie,the term “capital gains tax” is a misnomer that affects peoples’ perceptions.

The conventional language WE ALL employ supports those misconceptions (and I believe that Conservatives wouldn’t want to have it any other way).

“Capital gains tax” does not tax capital; it taxes the profits due to a sales profit. I believe IRS regulations still explicitly require that the sold item was NOT an item of the seller’s “stock in trade”.

Long term “capital gains tax” is not an additional tax; it’s a reduction of regular tax rates applied to the sale of something the seller has continuously owned for a year or more.

The contention that a “Capital gains tax” is an additional tax upon the sold item’s similar or related to a previously taxed transaction is a false contention; it’s a “fairy tale” that serves the convenience and purposes of Conservatives.

I agree the problem is we have allowed the perception to exist that capital gains income needs some “special” regulations
IMO that’s an illogical; ALL capital gains should be taxed as regular income because incomes are incomes.

I believe Conservatives have succeeded to articulate the Conservative point of view. They’ve framed the debate to their own advantage.

Respectfully, Supposn

There is no misnomer, capital gains tax is a tax on capital gains... gains made through use of capital. This could be due to a sale of property, investments, any number of things, but it is not the same as income because the capital was already earned and taxed as income.

While it sounds fair to you for us to tax capital gains the same as income, there is a tenable reason we don't want to do that. I'm trying to think of a good analogy, there just aren't many.... but here's a pretty good one... Let's say your group has chartered a bus to take you to New York. Each person going on the trip is supposed to pay $50 (their fair share). Everyone has paid except for the bus driver, he says he is exempt... but the bus driver is going to New York too, he is no different than the passengers, he should have to pitch in his $50 too, right? He's going to get to see the same things, have the same experience, why should he get a "free ride?"

While it is true, the bus driver is also going to New York, he is pretty much a requirement for the bus to get to New York, so it's not unreasonable to say the bus driver shouldn't be mandated to pay the $50 fee like the passengers. Capital investors provide an "essential service" which we need if we want to grow the economy and create jobs. Like the bus driver doesn't have or need to go to New York, the capital investor doesn't have or need to invest in things, they can put their money in securities and trusts, and we can all go suck an egg. Which is exactly what your charter bus driver would tell you to do, if you demanded he pay the $50 ticket price.

If we want to discourage investment and risk taking financial ventures, raise the capital gains tax rate! But is that really what we want to be doing at this time?

 

[The Dude]

I'm so tired of poor people crying.

 

[Supposn]

Income averaging

Dixie, when enterprises or their owners sell shares of their enterprises or accept loans upon their enterprises’ credit or their own credit, for the financial benefits of the enterprises, that is all investment into the enterprise.
On the corporate level that’s described as the sale of initial public offerings, (IPOs) providing investment revenue to the enterprises. (If the sales revenue was distributed to share holders as dividends, than rather than “investments” those net transactions would be considered as “transfers of wealth”).

When economists precisely use the word ”investment” they are explicitly describing the purchase of, or the dedication of goods or service products for the benefit of enterprises that will hopefully produce additionally more wealth, goods or service products.

Other lesser economic transactions are described as “transfers of wealth”. Although there is benefit to the liquidity enabled by the transfers of wealth within financial markets, such transactions cannot produce anything. Transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculations of gross domestic products, (GDPs).

The vast majority of transactions that benefit from the highly reduced tax rates granted to long term capital gains are not due to “investments” but to “transfers of wealth” which contribute nothing to the nation’s GDP.
I do not argue that incomes of those who continuously reinvest into and strive to nurture their enterprises are MORE worthy but they are CERTAINLY NOT LESS economically worthy than those who choose to “take the money and run”.

Due to the reduced rates for long term capital gains we’ve unjustifiably reduced our tax revenues and increased our budget’s deficits. The tax reduction favoring one business model discourages innovation and investment for other models. An axiom of both the business community and politically conservative factions has been that such favoritism, (i.e. government choosing winners and losers without clearly determined advantages) is generally undesirable.

Income averaging mitigates progressive tax rates and U.S. dollar’s changing purchasing power affects upon the investment community. This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, when enterprises or their owners sell shares of their enterprises or accept loans upon their enterprises’ credit or their own credit, for the financial benefits of the enterprises, that is all investment into the enterprise.
On the corporate level that’s described as the sale of initial public offerings, (IPOs) providing investment revenue to the enterprises. (If the sales revenue was distributed to share holders as dividends, than rather than “investments” those net transactions would be considered as “transfers of wealth”).

When economists precisely use the word ”investment” they are explicitly describing the purchase of, or the dedication of goods or service products for the benefit of enterprises that will hopefully produce additionally more wealth, goods or service products.

Other lesser economic transactions are described as “transfers of wealth”. Although there is benefit to the liquidity enabled by the transfers of wealth within financial markets, such transactions cannot produce anything. Transfers of wealth are not factors within the calculations of gross domestic products, (GDPs).

The vast majority of transactions that benefit from the highly reduced tax rates granted to long term capital gains are not due to “investments” but to “transfers of wealth” which contribute nothing to the nation’s GDP.
I do not argue that incomes of those who continuously reinvest into and strive to nurture their enterprises are MORE worthy but they are CERTAINLY NOT LESS economically worthy than those who choose to “take the money and run”.

Due to the reduced rates for long term capital gains we’ve unjustifiably reduced our tax revenues and increased our budget’s deficits. The tax reduction favoring one business model discourages innovation and investment for other models. An axiom of both the business community and politically conservative factions has been that such favoritism, (i.e. government choosing winners and losers without clearly determined advantages) is generally undesirable.

Income averaging mitigates progressive tax rates and U.S. dollar’s changing purchasing power affects upon the investment community. This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging,

Respectfully, Supposn

It's a bit difficult to follow your post, it sounds like Greenspan-speak. I understand how stocks and IPOs work, I understand how "investments" work, and I know that many start-up ventures require investment. People out there who have the wealth to invest, weigh the options, consider the risks, and factor in the rates of taxation, or possibility of increased taxation in the near future, and they make a decision whether to use their money as venture capital, or keep it invested in securities. When you say you'd like to raise the cap gains tax to the same as the income tax rates for top marginal rates, you are effectively killing any and all start-up capital investments. The reason is, there is always a risk with investment, this is why it's not the same as income, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Income averaging is of absolutely no use to a capital investor. Most projects will take 5-10 years to turn a profit, and a return on investment, so when you started gaining return, your tax rate would not allow you to recoup the gains for the 5-10 years your money was used, you just start paying a tax, and tax codes aren't going to allow anything close to 10 year averaging. But furthermore, this still applies a tax to something that we shouldn't tax. You need to decide, do we NEED a bus driver to take us to New York? If so, stop trying to charge him the same as a passenger, and encourage him to do the job!

 

[Supposn]

Capital Gain Income

Dixie, we agree upon
“People out there who have the wealth to invest, weigh the options, consider the risks, and factor in the rates of taxation, or possibility of increased taxation in the near future, and they make a decision whether to use their money as venture capital, or keep it invested in securities”.

Before the government put its fat thumb on the scale, final rate of investment returns were generally determined by open competitive markets. I’m opposed to government intervention that is of no particular advantage to our nation. You don’t share my confidence in competitive open markets?

If the tax rate reductions granted for long term capital gain, (LTCG) incomes were eliminated, financial markets rates of return would adjust themselves as open competitive markets generally adjust to any changes of germane factors. It would certainly not kill start-up capital investments.

Almost all LTCG transaction tax benefits are due to transfers of wealth rather than to investments. Due to the extent of start-up ventures’ risks, the LTCG tax reductions do extremely little to increase actual investments.

Only when the decision “hangs on thread” does the LTCG tax reduction induce any start up investment. Within all other of such questions the other aggregate factors determined the final decision.
LTCG tax discounts induce extremely few investments and not significant numbers of wealth transfers. It does decrease tax revenues and increase our budget deficits.

A LTCG sales transaction is a pretax transaction; (i.e. the profit from that sale were not previously taxed) there’s no logical reason that sales income should not be taxed and taxed at the regular rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The argument against raising the capital gains tax (or for eliminating it altogether) is that the profit has already been taxed at the corporate level. This position is understandable. Personally, I feel eliminating the corporate tax would solve this dilemma rather quickly. The corporate income tax gives credence to the idea that a corporation is a "person," and taxing the shareholders directly makes a ton more sense anyway. Eliminate the corporate tax, raise the capital gains tax to 20%, and replace the income tax code with a simple 20% flat tax with an exemption of, say, $35,000. Not only would such a reform be very popular, it would also likely give the economy a much needed shot in the arm...

There should also probably be a 10% surtax on incomes over a million, at least until we can get the deficit/debt situation under control.

Oh gawd, not another flat taxer. How many times must that garbage be discredited?!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

General Burnside, capital gains income is a tax upon the profit due from the sale of something.

You can rent or lease something multiple times. You can provide the same type of service many times.
You cannot legally sell any individual item more than once unless you repurchase that item prior to each additional sale.

Can anyone explain how it’s possible to have paid taxes upon the profit due to the sale of an item prior to the sale of that item, unless the seller had first repurchased the item?

General Burnside, you have not completely explained your position and it’s not clearly understandable. The only dilemma I detect within your message is the false contention that taxing capital gains is taxing the same profit twice.

General Burnside I sinscerely regret there’s nothing within your message #2 that I can agree with.
Respectfully, Supposn

Translation into Conservativeese "You fucking socialist Brent. Why do you hate America?"

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I'm so tired of poor people crying.

Well go buy some ear plugs!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, we agree upon
“People out there who have the wealth to invest, weigh the options, consider the risks, and factor in the rates of taxation, or possibility of increased taxation in the near future, and they make a decision whether to use their money as venture capital, or keep it invested in securities”.

Before the government put its fat thumb on the scale, final rate of investment returns were generally determined by open competitive markets. I’m opposed to government intervention that is of no particular advantage to our nation. You don’t share my confidence in competitive open markets?

If the tax rate reductions granted for long term capital gain, (LTCG) incomes were eliminated, financial markets rates of return would adjust themselves as open competitive markets generally adjust to any changes of germane factors. It would certainly not kill start-up capital investments.

Almost all LTCG transaction tax benefits are due to transfers of wealth rather than to investments. Due to the extent of start-up ventures’ risks, the LTCG tax reductions do extremely little to increase actual investments.

Only when the decision “hangs on thread” does the LTCG tax reduction induce any start up investment. Within all other of such questions the other aggregate factors determined the final decision.
LTCG tax discounts induce extremely few investments and not significant numbers of wealth transfers. It does decrease tax revenues and increase our budget deficits.

A LTCG sales transaction is a pretax transaction; (i.e. the profit from that sale were not previously taxed) there’s no logical reason that sales income should not be taxed and taxed at the regular rate.

Respectfully, Supposn

Now Sup....don't be offended if Dixie not only doesn't agree with you but calls you a pinhead and a socialist. He's from Alabama where all this logical talk just confuses him. Keep in mind where he's from they tried to pass a law rounding pi up to 3 to make things easier.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh gawd, not another flat taxer. How many times must that garbage be discredited?!

LMAO... you have NEVER, NOT ONCE discredited the flat tax. If you feel you have, either point us to the thread where you were previously embarrassed, or please by all means... DO TRY again.

The flat tax with standard deduction is the only true FAIR tax. It is the only true PROGRESSIVE taxation method.

So by all means, do try to counter...

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LMAO... you have NEVER, NOT ONCE discredited the flat tax. If you feel you have, either point us to the thread where you were previously embarrassed, or please by all means... DO TRY again.

The flat tax with standard deduction is the only true FAIR tax. It is the only true PROGRESSIVE taxation method.

So by all means, do try to counter...

Yea yea yea heard it before. You have never, ever been able to counter that the flat tax does not shift the burden of taxation from the wealthy and to the middle class.