Why not tax the rich 100%?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Spending among upper-income Americans (those making $90,000 or more annually) averaged $108 per day in March -- down from $117 in February, but up slightly from the $102 of January and $99 in March a year ago. These Americans have the disposable income to spend more freely when they choose. During the first three months of 2011, however, they kept their spending within the 2009-2010 upper-income "new normal" range of $98 to $123.

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]http://www.gallup.com/poll/146963/Consumer-Spending-Slightly-March.aspx[/FONT]

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's like trying to raise revenue from black people by raising their tax on suntan products. They don't need suntan products, for the most part, they can live without them. Now I am sure, somewhere, some pinhead is going to chime in and tell me that black people DO buy some suntan products, but if you increased the tax on black people buying suntan products, what do you suppose their behavior would likely be? You are trying to raise revenue by taxing the one thing rich people don't need... income. Of all the assorted groups and sets of people in the world, rich people need incomes less than anyone. Being they are wealthy, they can live off their fortunes and never have to worry about earning an income. They won't stop spending money, they don't have to.. they don't need to.. they have plenty of wealth, and they can earn enough income to 'break even' each year, so they will continually maintain that wealth status.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The argument we always hear is, the wealthy have more than they need... Well, if that is true, why don't we tax the wealthy 100% on their income? They don't need an income, they are wealthy... so wouldn't it make just as much sense as taxing them at increasingly higher rates than anyone else, based on that premise, to just go ahead and take it all? I mean, they don't really need that money, right?

I want to hear some pinheads tell me why we shouldn't tax the wealthy at 100%.... present your case for NOT doing that!

Because you'd get no money from doing so. It would be a maximum wage policy more than anything else, and I don't think a maximum wage policy is wise.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Corporations too! We should tax them 100% as well... greedy sons of bitches making all that profit off the backs of poor American workers... I'm sure they have PLENTY of money in the coffers, they wouldn't miss it one little bit! We should raise their taxes to 100% ...just think of all the money that would bring in?

Are you having fun Dixie? I really wouldn't want to spoil it, if so.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the rich don't deserve it and need to be taxed more?

I remember my arguments being somewhat more nuanced than that, but I don't know why you'd lie about such things, so I must apologize for my stupidity in saying that.

Corporations make huge profits and need to pay more tax?

Again, I remember saying that these corporations should have their special privileges removed so that they pay the same taxes as anyone else, but again, sorry for not saying that, and instead saying this. It was quite unintelligent of me.

I've heard you people make this argument often, pinhead.... so why not raise it to 100%?

Well, Dixie, since taxes are so bad, clearly you'd support lowering all of them to 0%?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Debt as a % of GDP is a better metric:

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It's like trying to raise revenue from black people by raising their tax on suntan products. They don't need suntan products, for the most part, they can live without them. Now I am sure, somewhere, some pinhead is going to chime in and tell me that black people DO buy some suntan products, but if you increased the tax on black people buying suntan products, what do you suppose their behavior would likely be? You are trying to raise revenue by taxing the one thing rich people don't need... income. Of all the assorted groups and sets of people in the world, rich people need incomes less than anyone. Being they are wealthy, they can live off their fortunes and never have to worry about earning an income. They won't stop spending money, they don't have to.. they don't need to.. they have plenty of wealth, and they can earn enough income to 'break even' each year, so they will continually maintain that wealth status.

Dixie, we all understand this concept. There is a revenue-optimizing tax rate, but we are not currently at it, and raising the marginal income tax rate by 3% will not cause us to hit it. It's not even like I necessarily want taxes to be as high as the revenue-optimizing rate.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How does it shift more burden anywhere specific? We will all pay the same taxes through consumption. Poor and middle class people don't generally consume more than rich and wealthy people do.... do they? I would say, as a general rule, people with lots of money probably tend to spend more of it... wouldn't you think? So how is taxing consumption 'regressive' in your opinion? More importantly, do you have anything at all to base this idiotic opinion on? The ONLY contentious point I've seen made, is that rich people would tend to "invest" more of their earnings... but they "invest" because they want to avoid income taxes, which would no longer exist. They MAY invest, if the reward outweighs the risk, but so what? We don't care how much they invest or how much they earn, we only care about rich people spending their wealth... taxing consumption relies on something entirely different than class envy. Regardless of how much you despise rich people, there is one FACT you simply can't escape, they DO spend money, and they do this whether they earn incomes or whether you tax them 40% or 100%... that doesn't matter to them... they don't NEED an income anymore.... they are RICH, you see?

It's regressive because poor people consume more of their money than rich people, so they'll effectively pay a higher rate.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It would be easier and better just to take it all at once, wouldn't it?

No.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

First the top rate was 70% under Reagan, not 50%.

Second, I certainly did not mean to imply you meant to take it all the way to 100% as that is obviously taking the issue to the level of absurdity. I was simply trying to point out that just yesterday the article you posted and seemed to support suggested taking the top rate back to 70%.... which would be in line with ditzie's comments.... just not taken to the completely absurd level he did. Sorry if it seemed I implied otherwise, it was not my intent.

The top rate was 70% when Reagan first got in office, he later lowered it to 50%, and it was later lowered to 28%.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Now, I have a very rich friend who lives in upstate New York. Last year, he paid NO federal income tax... you wanna know why? Because he lost money on his investments due to the economy, and both of his businesses barely broke even last year. He has three kids, and he joked to me, he actually qualified for EIC... he didn't take it, but he could have. Of course, while he didn't earn much income last year, one thing he did do, was spend some money. He bought a 1924 Cadillac with 2600 miles on it, been in a museum the past 60 years... sweet ride! He loves his old cars, and he kept adding to his collection. So rich people will still spend money and consume, even when they don't earn incomes.

That's an outlier, not the general case. On average, a consumption tax would need to take more money out of a poor persons wallet to get the same level of revenue than an income tax would have to.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

A tax on inheritance is essentially a double tax. If your're taxing all forms income then the money that is inherited has already been taxed.

Well, at some point all money is taxed ad infinitum. For instance, you receive your paycheck (tax), then you consume it, which the corporation receives as income (tax), and then they pay the money back to their employees (tax), etc... etc...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Again, the Fair Tax is NOT REGRESSIVE because it pre-bates for all the taxes paid on basic needs. Please explain how the hell that hurts the poor and helps the rich? It doesn't matter what percentage of income is spent, up to a certain point, that consumption is completely tax-free.

The pre-bates on the fair tax do compensate for the regressiveness of the consumption tax, but I don't know if it completely eliminates it (haven't seen figures on this). It would probably, at best, be flat.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bottom line is, he paid $0 in federal income tax, and he would have paid considerably more than $0 in Fair Tax. You are taxing the INCOME of wealthy people, and wealthy people don't need an income because they are wealthy. Now we go back to the premise in the OP, why not tax them 100% on their income? They don't need the income because they are wealthy, so why don't we just take it all? I figured pinheads like you would be praising my brilliance at such a great idea.... but you're not... odd! Oh wait, maybe it has something to do with the fact that, even an idiot like you understands, the more you take of their income, the less incentive they have to bother with an income? Of course, spending money is a different story, rich people are going to spend money, it's kinda the whole point of being rich, isn't it?

Again, this is an outlier, not a representative case.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Whether it's a slight increase or an 'absurd' increase, the behavioral results are the same. The more you tax a person on income they don't have to make, the less of it they are inclined to make. The more you confiscate of their earnings, the less inspired they are to earn.

DIXIE, WE UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT.

Wealthy people have something you proles don't seem to understand, WEALTH! This means, they don't HAVE to earn an income at all. They can stop working, they can manipulate their portfolios, and they can literally stop earning any income to speak of....and you can't tax them. This doesn't stop them from spending money, they have more money than they could ever spend... they are WEALTHY! You are literally trying to get money from the rich by taking a portion of something they don't need. How smart is that?

Well, we could do a wealth tax. But that's difficult to collect, and it hurts retirees.

Again, it's not a representative case... even if they're no longer currently earning income, they've paid the income tax on all the income they have earned. Not so with the consumption tax. Your friend bought a car in a year in which he didn't earn any income? He would've already paid that much with an income tax, plus more.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

St. Albert, you are still on ignore, but I am sure you are adding wonderful insight to this subject.

Let's summarize. With a Fair Tax, we are no longer taxing incomes, we are taxing consumption. We can universally agree, wealthy people will spend far more than poor or middle class people on things other than basic necessities, which would be pre-bated (no tax paid). In addition to the pre-bate, there would be NO payroll tax and NO FICA tax taken out of anyone's paycheck. This would mean a substantial increase in take home pay for virtually everyone who works. Competition in the marketplace will work to ease price increases, things would not just automatically go up 23% across the board, some corporations would find ways to cut the production costs and 'absorb' the extra cost of the sales tax, because they want to remain competitive. Keep in mind, the corporation is no longer paying corporate taxes either, they are saving money there, and it will translate in the prices of their goods and services.

From top to bottom, changing from an income tax to a consumption tax is markedly better. I am totally lost when one of you mutters some nonsense about it being regressive, or that rich people wouldn't pay their fair share. Rich people would pay MORE than their fair share, because rich people consume more extravagantly than anyone! The middle class and poor do not tend to spend extravagantly, above and beyond what they spend for basic needs, which wouldn't be taxed at all. Some middle class and poor would actually profit from a consumption tax, because they would get pre-bated for money they would never spend, if they were self-producers (i.e.; living on a farm, etc.) But across the board, a consumption tax would benefit us all, and it would create an economic boon the likes we've never seen before in America... Imagine... everyone gets an extra couple Ben Franklins added to the old paycheck... Everyone gets a nice little prebate check... No one has to pay income tax ever again... no corporate taxes... imagine how many international businesses will come here because there is no corporate tax? Imagine how many jobs will be created as a result of no income or corporate taxes? ...Through the roof!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How does it shift more burden anywhere specific? We will all pay the same taxes through consumption. Poor and middle class people don't generally consume more than rich and wealthy people do.... do they? I would say, as a general rule, people with lots of money probably tend to spend more of it... wouldn't you think?

You truly are a moron. Again dear ditzie.... the poor and middle class tend to SPEND the bulk of their earnings. The Fair Tax would protect the poorest, but it would shift the burden of overall revenue more onto the backs of the middle class. Currently the top 50% pay 97.3% of federal income taxes. If you shift to a consumption based tax, the second and third quartiles (from 25-75% of income earners) is going to see an increase in their overall tax burden and the top 10% (the wealthiest) will see a decrease. On a per capita basis, yes, the wealthy spend more. As a percentage of the economy it is not even close, the poor and middle class consume FAR MORE than the wealthy overall.

You are using the same stupid argument far left nuts use with regards to taxes. They proclaim that the 'wealthy' got the majority of Bush tax cuts, because on a per capita basis they got more dollars returned. But when you look at the extension of those cuts, over two thirds of the total dollars returned went to the lower and middle income classes. So are you going to use the same stupid 'logic' as the far left ditzie? Or are you going to wake up to economic REALITY?

So how is taxing consumption 'regressive' in your opinion? More importantly, do you have anything at all to base this idiotic opinion on?

I have already shown you the numbers moron on why it is regressive. I am beginning to think you don't comprehend the definition of 'Regressive'..... so let me help you out....

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[1][2][3][4][5] "Regressive" describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the rate progresses from high to low, where the average tax rate exceeds the marginal tax rate.[6][7] In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.

It can be applied to individual taxes or to a tax system as a whole; a year, multi-year, or lifetime. Regressive taxes tend to reduce the tax incidence of people with higher ability-to-pay, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with lower ability-to-pay. The opposite of a regressive tax is a progressive tax, where the marginal tax rate increases as the amount subject to taxation increases.[8][9][10][11] In between is a flat or proportional tax, where the tax rate is fixed as the amount subject to taxation increases.

The term is frequently applied in reference to fixed taxes, where every person has to pay the same amount of money. The regressivity of a particular tax often depends on the propensity of the tax payers to engage in the taxed activity relative to their income. In other words, if the activity being taxed is more likely to be carried out by the poor and less likely to be carried out by the rich, then the tax may be considered regressive. To determine whether a tax is regressive, the income-elasticity of the good being taxed as well as the income-substitution effect must be considered.

The ONLY contentious point I've seen made, is that rich people would tend to "invest" more of their earnings... but they "invest" because they want to avoid income taxes, which would no longer exist. They MAY invest, if the reward outweighs the risk, but so what? We don't care how much they invest or how much they earn, we only care about rich people spending their wealth... taxing consumption relies on something entirely different than class envy. Regardless of how much you despise rich people, there is one FACT you simply can't escape, they DO spend money, and they do this whether they earn incomes or whether you tax them 40% or 100%... that doesn't matter to them... they don't NEED an income anymore.... they are RICH, you see?

You truly are an idiot. "the rich invest because they want to avoid taxes"???? ROFLMAO.... They invest because they want to make money you moron. While they will try to shelter their investments where they can, they invest heavily in areas where they will pay taxes on cap gains and dividends as well.

I do not despise the rich you idiot. I want a system that is fair and the fair tax is anything but. Your continued comments on 'they don't NEED income anymore' is nothing short of moronic. Again, I have never stated they don't spend money or that they spend less per capita than the poor or middle class, that is just a stupid straw man on your part. The point ditzie is that as a GROUP, they SPEND less as a PROPORTION of their wealth and income. Therefore a CONSUMPTION tax is going to be REGRESSIVE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The pre-bates on the fair tax do compensate for the regressiveness of the consumption tax, but I don't know if it completely eliminates it (haven't seen figures on this). It would probably, at best, be flat.

It protects the lower income brackets, but it still becomes regressive from the middle class on up.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You truly are a moron.

Really? I am the moron here? Why are you having such a hard time explaining this? Stumped by a moron, that's pretty sad. I wouldn't be saying dixie is a moron, I would be saying, man, that dixie is brilliantly sharp and a tough debater. That's usually what someone says when someone else is handing them their ass in debate.

Again dear ditzie.... the poor and middle class tend to SPEND the bulk of their earnings.

Do they spend the bulk of their earnings on yachts and caviar, and shit they can't afford to buy because they have to pay their bills? Because the basic necessities wouldn't be taxed under the Fair Tax, only the extra stuff... like yachts and caviar. And under the Fair Tax, they would have an extra couple hundred dollars each paycheck to spend. Perhaps, with all that extra income, they wouldn't tend to spend it all, maybe they could SAVE some money? It's totally academic HOW MUCH of their income is spent, if they spend it all, the bulk of it would not be taxed.

The Fair Tax would protect the poorest, but it would shift the burden of overall revenue more onto the backs of the middle class. Currently the top 50% pay 97.3% of federal income taxes. If you shift to a consumption based tax, the second and third quartiles (from 25-75% of income earners) is going to see an increase in their overall tax burden and the top 10% (the wealthiest) will see a decrease. On a per capita basis, yes, the wealthy spend more. As a percentage of the economy it is not even close, the poor and middle class consume FAR MORE than the wealthy overall.

This is where you attempt to use $5 words like "quartile" and pretend you are smart or something? I'm not impressed. Again, you are trying to argue incomes and the Fair Tax doesn't concern itself with incomes. You are confusing "rich people" with people who earn a high income, and "poor people" with those who don't. Incomes can be based on a variety of things, and sometimes has nothing to do with the overall assets and holdings of the individual. Then you proceed to tell me.. this group of people over here, are going to pay more, and that group over there is going to pay less... but you don't really elaborate on that. Everyone is paying 23%... the same. The burden is EQUAL!

As a percentage of the economy it is not even close, the poor and middle class consume FAR MORE than the wealthy overall.

Not sure why you thought this point was relevant to anything... The middle class and poor pay the bulk of total income tax revenues. Yes, I would imagine, collectively speaking, no matter what kind of taxation you have, the middle class and poor are probably going to pay the greatest dollar amount, since they greatly outnumber the wealthy. Is there something in that which is supposed to mean something here?

You are using the same stupid argument far left nuts use with regards to taxes. They proclaim that the 'wealthy' got the majority of Bush tax cuts, because on a per capita basis they got more dollars returned. But when you look at the extension of those cuts, over two thirds of the total dollars returned went to the lower and middle income classes. So are you going to use the same stupid 'logic' as the far left ditzie? Or are you going to wake up to economic REALITY?

Huh? You've completely lost me. You see, I am talking about something entirely different than you seem to want to be arguing. MY argument is for a consumption-based tax, which doesn't care or concern itself with class status. With the Fair Tax, the middle and lower class get to keep their FICA and payroll taxes... have I mentioned that? How much were your FICA and payroll taxes last week, Super? Mine were in the range of $300! I'm not rich, but I am probably a little upper middle class. My logic is, this is how it plays out for virtually everyone who has a job and gets a paycheck. We live on the "after deductions" amount, but with the Fair Tax, the deductions would be considerably less. Meaning, everyone gets a raise in pay! That's just for starters... then, there is the pre-bates. Another $5-6000 'bonus' check we'll get each year, to pay for any taxation on basic necessities...(you know, the stuff most poor and middle class are spending all their money on.)

I have already shown you the numbers moron on why it is regressive. I am beginning to think you don't comprehend the definition of 'Regressive'..... so let me help you out....

You's shown me your numbers, you've crunched them too... you've made emphatic statements... you've claimed things to be fact... but you haven't shown me anything which proves the Fair Tax is regressive, and not PROGRESSIVE. You can keep huffing and puffing, and you can throw out some formulas and some graphs and charts too, if you want to go to the trouble... but we are having two different arguments here. You are making an argument rooted and based in class envy and on incomes earned. I am making an argument for consumption-based tax, which eliminates class warfare as a political tool forever. You are arguing to maintain a dysfunctional bureaucratic behemoth with a little 'tweaking' of the control variables, and I am arguing for a completely new (and better) system and new way of thinking in terms of raising tax revenues.

You truly are an idiot. "the rich invest because they want to avoid taxes"???? ROFLMAO.... They invest because they want to make money you moron. While they will try to shelter their investments where they can, they invest heavily in areas where they will pay taxes on cap gains and dividends as well.

Let's clarify what I said.. The wealthy may or may not invest, for a variety of reasons. When they invest, it is always about making money. But it is also about protecting their assets... their wealth. When they have a choice between showing earned income or socking it away in a tax-free trust fund... they will sock it away, because an income is something they don't need. This is considered investment. It is relatively low-risk and secure. Do you even have any idea how many trillions of dollars are locked up in tax-free investments, basically to avoid the individual having to pay an income tax on it?

I do not despise the rich you idiot. I want a system that is fair and the fair tax is anything but.

You've just not proven that. And here's the thing, you can't prove it. You are trying desperately to prove it by arguing incomes and class, and this is all based on something different. Consumption.

Your continued comments on 'they don't NEED income anymore' is nothing short of moronic. Again, I have never stated they don't spend money or that they spend less per capita than the poor or middle class, that is just a stupid straw man on your part. The point ditzie is that as a GROUP, they SPEND less as a PROPORTION of their wealth and income. Therefore a CONSUMPTION tax is going to be REGRESSIVE.

My continued arguments? That's the argument put forth by many a pinhead... Tax the Rich more, they don't need their money! Isn't that what we've been told over and over and over? The wealthy have more than they need, and can afford to pay more tax? That was the premise of the treat title... why not tax the rich 100%...they don't need it. ....I feel like I am channeling John Stossel. But really, if that is the liberal socialist argument for raising the tax rates on the wealthy, why not raise it to 100%... why stop at 40..50..60..? What makes that any different? The wealthy are wealthy, they don't need an income.

But they WILL spend.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Really? I am the moron here? Why are you having such a hard time explaining this? Stumped by a moron, that's pretty sad. I wouldn't be saying dixie is a moron, I would be saying, man, that dixie is brilliantly sharp and a tough debater. That's usually what someone says when someone else is handing them their ass in debate.

99% of the board already understands what I have said and they understand that the Fair Tax is REGRESSIVE in nature. I am having a hard time explaining it to YOU. Because as stated, you are a moron.

Do they spend the bulk of their earnings on yachts and caviar, and shit they can't afford to buy because they have to pay their bills? Because the basic necessities wouldn't be taxed under the Fair Tax, only the extra stuff... like yachts and caviar. And under the Fair Tax, they would have an extra couple hundred dollars each paycheck to spend. Perhaps, with all that extra income, they wouldn't tend to spend it all, maybe they could SAVE some money? It's totally academic HOW MUCH of their income is spent, if they spend it all, the bulk of it would not be taxed.

This seriously is taking your ignorance to a whole new level. As YOU even stated, the 'basic necessities' in terms of a prebate are based on the POVERTY level. Those at poverty level or below will not be taxed. We get this you moron. The REGRESSIVE nature, as I have stated repeatedly (I even showed you the numbers to help you understand) begins after passing that poverty level (which as you stated is the level of prebate). To pretend they have to be buying caviar and yachts to get hit with the fair tax is pathetic.

This is where you attempt to use $5 words like "quartile" and pretend you are smart or something? I'm not impressed. Again, you are trying to argue incomes and the Fair Tax doesn't concern itself with incomes. You are confusing "rich people" with people who earn a high income, and "poor people" with those who don't. Incomes can be based on a variety of things, and sometimes has nothing to do with the overall assets and holdings of the individual. Then you proceed to tell me.. this group of people over here, are going to pay more, and that group over there is going to pay less... but you don't really elaborate on that. Everyone is paying 23%... the same. The burden is EQUAL!

ROFLMAO.... seriously? ONLY YOU would think quartile is a '$5 dollar' word. We learn quartiles in like the second/third grade... But then again it IS a fraction and we all know you suck at fractions.

Yet again moron.... did you READ THE DEFINITION OF REGRESSIVE when it comes to taxation? Did you? Because in order to determine if the Fair tax is REGRESSIVE or not you HAVE TO LOOK AT TOTAL INCOME/WEALTH.

Yet again moron.... I did elaborate on why the lower and middle income spend more. You are just too ignorant to comprehend it.

As a percentage of the economy it is not even close, the poor and middle class consume FAR MORE than the wealthy overall.

Not sure why you thought this point was relevant to anything... The middle class and poor pay the bulk of total income tax revenues. Yes, I would imagine, collectively speaking, no matter what kind of taxation you have, the middle class and poor are probably going to pay the greatest dollar amount, since they greatly outnumber the wealthy. Is there something in that which is supposed to mean something here?

ROFLMAO.... I am not surprised you don't get it.

You don't get why the poor and middle income CONSUMING more is relevant to the Fair tax? A CONSUMPTION tax? Like I said... you are a moron.

Huh? You've completely lost me.

That is quite obvious.

You see, I am talking about something entirely different than you seem to want to be arguing. MY argument is for a consumption-based tax, which doesn't care or concern itself with class status. With the Fair Tax, the middle and lower class get to keep their FICA and payroll taxes... have I mentioned that? How much were your FICA and payroll taxes last week, Super? Mine were in the range of $300! I'm not rich, but I am probably a little upper middle class. My logic is, this is how it plays out for virtually everyone who has a job and gets a paycheck. We live on the "after deductions" amount, but with the Fair Tax, the deductions would be considerably less. Meaning, everyone gets a raise in pay! That's just for starters... then, there is the pre-bates. Another $5-6000 'bonus' check we'll get each year, to pay for any taxation on basic necessities...(you know, the stuff most poor and middle class are spending all their money on.)

You seriously need to work on your 'logic'. In one breath you tell me that the Fair tax 'prebates' are based on poverty level, then you pretend that the middle class and lower classes are somehow magically spending most of their money on necessities that won't be taxed. See if you can't figure out on your own where you went so wrong. I will help you out if you need it.

You's shown me your numbers, you've crunched them too... you've made emphatic statements... you've claimed things to be fact... but you haven't shown me anything which proves the Fair Tax is regressive, and not PROGRESSIVE. You can keep huffing and puffing, and you can throw out some formulas and some graphs and charts too, if you want to go to the trouble... but we are having two different arguments here. You are making an argument rooted and based in class envy and on incomes earned. I am making an argument for consumption-based tax, which eliminates class warfare as a political tool forever. You are arguing to maintain a dysfunctional bureaucratic behemoth with a little 'tweaking' of the control variables, and I am arguing for a completely new (and better) system and new way of thinking in terms of raising tax revenues.

The above highlights how very little you understand with regards to this topic. We are not having two different arguments. You are simply leaving part of the discussion off the table because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of what the fair tax is. Again, I urge you to learn HOW a system is deemed Regressive vs. Progressive. I posted the definition of Regressive for you. Try to read it over and over until you understand it. My position has NOTHING to do with class warfare ditzie.

I am also not arguing to keep the current system you retard. Flat tax with standard deduction..... ring any bells moron? you SAY you want simplification. Mine is FAR simpler than yours. Mine is ACTUALLY Progressive. Mine is actually FAIR.

Let's clarify what I said.. The wealthy may or may not invest, for a variety of reasons. When they invest, it is always about making money. But it is also about protecting their assets... their wealth. When they have a choice between showing earned income or socking it away in a tax-free trust fund... they will sock it away, because an income is something they don't need. This is considered investment. It is relatively low-risk and secure. Do you even have any idea how many trillions of dollars are locked up in tax-free investments, basically to avoid the individual having to pay an income tax on it?

So now you are restating what I said earlier. Glad you are catching on. The above is NOT even close to what you stated. It is comical though, your trying to teach me about investing.