Why not tax the rich 100%?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.

Since three days ago when you posted this, no one else has responded, and I don't see where anyone has thanked your post, so if you want to BELIEVE 99% of the board agrees with you or understands what you've said, then you go right ahead, I think the lack of response speaks for itself. You're having a hard time explaining how the Fair Tax is regressive because it's not regressive, and you can't apply the same criteria to a consumption tax as you apply to an income-based tax. It's two completely different things. Only a true moron would attempt to do this repeatedly, even after it has been pointed out.

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.

You still didn't show the regressive nature because you were making comparison based on income and not consumption. Anyone can throw out random numbers and speculations, you haven't PROVEN a goddamn thing. It doesn't matter how many times you repeatedly say it, that doesn't make it any more legitimate or true. Yachts and caviar were items I used to define 'luxuries' or things outside the realm of necessity. Common fucking billy goat sense should tell you (or any moron) that wealthy people are FAR more likely to spend FAR more money on "luxuries" which would be taxed under the Fair Tax. Middle class and poor people will be FAR more likely to spend LESS on this stuff and MORE on basic necessities. Which basically means, a lesser portion of their overall income will be spent on things the Fair Tax applies to. In other words, it is NOT regressive. You have shown us absolutely NOTHING to refute this, and it contradicts common fucking billy goat sense. To make the Fair Tax be regressive, you have to believe that wealthy people will live at the poverty level and invest the rest of their income, while middle class and poor people would spend extravagantly on luxuries and never save or invest a dime. Now, if that comports with how people actually behave, maybe you have a point... but that isn't REALITY! When we look at consumption, we find people who are very wealthy, spending exorbitant amounts of money on things, regardless of their annual earnings, and we find the middle class investing in 401k or stocks, saving money, being wise with their spending and living within their means. Poor people spend very little on anything that isn't a basic necessity of life, they can't afford luxuries.

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.

Yes, I know 'quartile' is something we learn in grade school, it's still not a word people use in general conversation unless they are trying to act like they know what they are talking about. You are really good at doing that. I have noticed it many-a-time, when you are failing at making a point, you start regurgitating big words to make people THINK you know what the fuck you're talking about. Doesn't fool me a bit, you're still a moron.

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.

Yes, I understand that "regressive" means the taxation becomes more burdensome on lower incomes. Consumption doesn't really have anything to do with income level, other than, wealthier people can consume more because they have more money to spend on consumption. Now... does the burden of Fair Tax on luxury items affect middle class consumers more than wealthy consumers... probably so, but there is really not a way to alleviate that problem unless we take the wealth away from the wealthy and redistribute it to the less wealthy. The reason the Fair Tax wouldn't be as much of a burden on the wealthy is because they have more money! However, 23% of something is always 23%, whether you are rich, poor, middle class, made a lot of money last year or not... it is still the same exact amount...23%! All you are saying is, it is 'regressive' because wealthy people can afford it while the middle class may not be able to... well fucking duh! When is that NOT the case, EVER?

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

No, you threw out a bunch of fake numbers which didn't mean a damn thing. I ran this by my 6-year-old grandson the other day, just to make sure it was comprehensible to someone of your mental caliber... If I have $1,000 in my pocket, and you have $10, and we go to the store... which one of us is more likely to spend the most? Now, it's POSSIBLE that I could hold onto my money and not spend anything, while you spend all of your $10... that depends on individuality as consumers, anything is possible... but probably... I am going to outspend you, simply because I have the available wealth to do so. The same principle applies here, the wealthy are FAR MORE LIKELY to spend their wealth on extravagant luxury than anyone else, because they have the wealth to spare. You can squawk around with your fake numbers and illogical assumptions all you like, it doesn't refute common billy goat sense, which even a 6-year-old understands.

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.

First of all, per capita, they certainly DON'T consume or spend more than the wealthy... we just covered that. The poor and middle class represent a much larger percentage of the population than the wealthy, so as a total number, the middle class and poor do spend and consume more... BUT... under the current income tax system, the same middle class and poor, pay the most total dollars in income tax too! It's because there are so many more of them, not because something is unfairly tilted against them in favor of the wealthy. Even when you take out the poor and they pay NO income tax at all, the middle class STILL pay the bulk of the taxes collected. They outnumber the "wealthy" by about 10,000 to 1, that's why!

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.

Well, we can go over it really slowly again, if you like.... Let's say 'poverty level' is $28k per year. And the average middle class person is making $35k per year. This means, they make $7k that would be subject to the Fair Tax, if they choose to spend it (consume). The first $28k is not taxed, the tax that would be paid is returned in the form of the prebate. If you spend LESS than $28k, you actually get a WINDFALL from Fair Tax, money you didn't work for or earn, you just had it given to you in order to displace taxes you never spent. Now, same scenario for the 'wealthy' or high income earners, the first $28k is tax free, but let's say they make $250k a year... minus the $28k, is $222k per year, which would be subject to the Fair Tax, if they choose to spend it (consume). They would have the same option as everyone else, if they spend less than $28k per year, they get a windfall, but the fact is, most wealthy people are not interested in trying to live on less than $28k a year, so they would spend considerably more. Since they have an extra $222k and not $7k, it is FAR MORE LIKELY they will spend more than $7k on stuff, but if they don't, good for them!

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.

Yes, we are having two entirely different arguments. You are attempting to apply criteria and standards associated with income earning levels, to an idea for a consumption-based tax, and the two things are entirely different and have entirely different sets of criteria and standards. You want to make Fair Tax 'regressive' by making some irrelevant argument which applies to income earning, and not consumption. It's like you are stuck on class warfare, class envy, disdain and prejudice toward one class of people over another, and it is clouding your judgement here. It prompts you to make stupid boneheaded arguments which do not apply, and then stubbornly cling to them in the face of, and in spite of, reality.

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.

The Flat Tax is nothing more than a REVAMP of the current system! I can make the argument that it IS regressive, or at least, more regressive than the current system. So yours is NOT fair, nor is it progressive. It's simpler than our current tax structure, that is true... but it isn't more simple than the Fair Tax.

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.

No, it's exactly what I stated, my position has never changed. Glad you could finally break through your bigotry and hatred of wealthy people to finally see a point I have made, that's a real breakthrough for you. Moron!

 

[Rationalist]

There's no way a 30% sales tax (the highest in the world) would help our economy. Here in WA, we already have an 8% sales tax on top of varying county sales taxes. In Seattle, that would total to 40%. It seems obvious to me that in a consumer-based economy that's a really bad idea.

A better idea would be to the repeal the 16th Amendment and enact a State-rate tax. Under this system, the total costs of the Federal government would be apportioned among the States, with each State deciding how to best raise the revenue.

Since most people are too stupid to recognize the value in that, though, I support a flat tax. I also support a temporary 40% surtax on large incomes (10+ million) to pay down the national debt.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There's no way a 30% sales tax (the highest in the world) would help our economy. Here in WA, we already have an 8% sales tax on top of varying county sales taxes. In Seattle, that would total to 40%. It seems obvious to me that in a consumer-based economy that's a really bad idea.

A better idea would be to the repeal the 16th Amendment and enact a State-rate tax. Under this system, the total costs of the Federal government would be apportioned among the States, with each State deciding how to best raise the revenue.

Since most people are too stupid to recognize the value in that, though, I support a flat tax.

A 30% tax exclusive sales tax that takes in just as much revenue as our income tax would have similar general economic effects. The particulars (it's effect on the poor and investment) would be the main thing.

I also support a temporary 40% surtax on large incomes (10+ million) to pay down the national debt.

40% on top of the flat tax? Or just a 40% rate? Anyway, most people who make incomes in that extreme range make it in capital gains rather than income, so the effect will be limited there. There also aren't nearly as many people making that much money. I don't think that such a tax would have a huge effect on the deficit. Also, ideally, you'd apply this as some sort of temporary constitutional amendment that controlled how the money could be spent, just to insure that congress couldn't easily change things.

 

[Rationalist]

A 30% tax exclusive sales tax that takes in just as much revenue as our income tax would have similar general economic effects. The particulars (it's effect on the poor and investment) would be the main thing.



40% on top of the flat tax? Or just a 40% rate? Anyway, most people who make incomes in that extreme range make it in capital gains rather than income, so the effect will be limited there. There also aren't nearly as many people making that much money. I don't think that such a tax would have a huge effect on the deficit. Also, ideally, you'd apply this as some sort of temporary constitutional amendment that controlled how the money could be spent, just to insure that congress couldn't easily change things.

Yes, I used the term 'surtax' incorrectly. What I meant was rate, as in a second bracket.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Also, the 23% rate advertised by the Fair Tax guys is calculated similarly to how the income tax is calculated, so that's really the more appropriate measure to use when comparing the two. 23% is higher than most flat tax plans, but that's because of the pre-bates needed to make a consumption tax less regressive and the fact that savings are pretty much taken out of the pie.

 

[apple0154]

The problem is the definition of "income". The money many wealthy people acquire is not considered income, ie: capital gains, inheritance, etc.

A millionaire requires their bank account be refreshed by money from some source, otherwise, spending $50,000/yr for 20 years would leave them broke so the solution is to tax all money received. Then, they can save it or spend it or invest it....it won't matter. The taxes will have been paid on it.

One contributing factor to the Great Depression was banks slowed the loaning of money. Naturally, the wealthy depositors did not want their money loaned out with the economy the way it was as they feared any loans would not be paid but the point is a large portion of the money the bankers had on deposit to be loaned was money obtained by means not considered income.

Now we get to today. Low interest rates. Sluggish economy. Even the wealthy individual, the proverbial millionaire, is going to think twice before spending money. Obviously, they are not going to spend money the same way they would if the economy was booming. So, what happens? They invest or save the money. The money is taken out of circulation as far as tax is concerned.

Are you following, Dixie?

If someone acquired 100 cans of soup and never ate any we'd say they were hoarding. What do we call the act of acquiring money and not spending it?

The solution is to tax any and all money received. That way the tax dollars keep circulating through the community and the wealthy need to receive more money than the average person, otherwise, they will not be wealthy for long.

Simple, really.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The problem is the definition of "income". The money many wealthy people acquire is not considered income, ie: capital gains, inheritance, etc.

Point #1- You are flat wrong. Inheritance is taxed as income, and so are capital gains.

A millionaire requires their bank account be refreshed by money from some source, otherwise, spending $50,000/yr for 20 years would leave them broke so the solution is to tax all money received. Then, they can save it or spend it or invest it....it won't matter. The taxes will have been paid on it.

Point #2- You are flat wrong again... All sources of income are currently taxed. If they have investments in tax free funds, and remove them for any reason, they are then taxed.

One contributing factor to the Great Depression was banks slowed the loaning of money. Naturally, the wealthy depositors did not want their money loaned out with the economy the way it was as they feared any loans would not be paid but the point is a large portion of the money the bankers had on deposit to be loaned was money obtained by means not considered income.

Point #3- You are flat wrong again-- The Great Depression was caused by a dramatic and sudden run on the banks following the stock market crash of 1929. None of this had anything to do with tax or taxable income.

Now we get to today. Low interest rates. Sluggish economy. Even the wealthy individual, the proverbial millionaire, is going to think twice before spending money. Obviously, they are not going to spend money the same way they would if the economy was booming. So, what happens? They invest or save the money. The money is taken out of circulation as far as tax is concerned.

Are you following, Dixie?

I follow this, so far you are 0 for 3... and don't seem to know what the fuck you are even talking about. Obviously, a wealthy person is not going to take money from tax free investments to show as income when you are taxing incomes 40-50-60-70%... It's better for them to leave the money in tax free investments, because they don't need it, they are wealthy. And yes, it does take the money out of circulation as far as tax is concerned. This is why a consumption tax would be considerably better at generating revenues.

If someone acquired 100 cans of soup and never ate any we'd say they were hoarding. What do we call the act of acquiring money and not spending it?

Saving.

The solution is to tax any and all money received. That way the tax dollars keep circulating through the community and the wealthy need to receive more money than the average person, otherwise, they will not be wealthy for long.

Simple, really.

Newsflash: It is impossible to legally earn an income in America, and not have it subject to income taxation. Any and all money received, by wealthy people or any people, is currently taxed. If you earn less than a certain amount of income, you get back all of what you paid in, you may even get money you didn't pay in, if you qualify for EIC. Wealthy people must pay income tax on every single dime they make, unless they re-invest it in tax-free securities, which many of them do. You can't tax that money until it is claimed as income.

 

[apple0154]

Point #1- You are flat wrong. Inheritance is taxed as income, and so are capital gains.

In Iowa, inheritance is exempt if passed to a surviving spouse, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, or other "lineal" descendants. Other recipients are subject to inheritance tax, with rates varying depending on the relationship of the recipient to the deceased.

In Kentucky, the inheritance tax is a tax on a beneficiary's right to receive property from a decedent's estate. It is imposed as a percentage of the amount transferred to the beneficiary. Currently, transfers to "Class A" relatives—spouses, parents, children, grandchildren, and siblings—are exempt from inheritance tax. Transfers to "Class B" relatives—nieces, nephews, daughters- and sons-in-law, aunts, uncles, and great-grandchildren—are taxed at a lower rate than transfers to "Class C" recipients, defined as anyone not falling within Class A or B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax

Point #2- You are flat wrong again... All sources of income are currently taxed. If they have investments in tax free funds, and remove them for any reason, they are then taxed.

Long-term capital gains, which apply to assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains. In 2003, this rate was reduced to 15%, and to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets.

Point #3- You are flat wrong again-- The Great Depression was caused by a dramatic and sudden run on the banks following the stock market crash of 1929. None of this had anything to do with tax or taxable income.

I said banks were not making loans and a large portion of the money they had to loan was money from the two previous examples above, ie: inheritances and capital gains. In other words full tax was not paid on that money resulting in less money being circulated.

I follow this, so far you are 0 for 3... and don't seem to know what the fuck you are even talking about. Obviously, a wealthy person is not going to take money from tax free investments to show as income when you are taxing incomes 40-50-60-70%... It's better for them to leave the money in tax free investments, because they don't need it, they are wealthy. And yes, it does take the money out of circulation as far as tax is concerned. This is why a consumption tax would be considerably better at generating revenues.

Do try to improve your reading comprehension.

Also, you have continually said the wealthy don't need an income so explain how the wealthy replenish their wallets if they never take money from somewhere. Where do they get the money to continue to live on?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Also, you have continually said the wealthy don't need an income so explain how the wealthy replenish their wallets if they never take money from somewhere. Where do they get the money to continue to live on?

I am going to ignore the rest of your post because it is obvious you don't understand US Tax Code, or the difference between State and Federal taxation, as it pertains to inheritance and estate taxes. I am generally opposed to inheritance taxes anyway, because the money was taxed as income already.

The wealthy don't need an income, isn't that the argument you continually make when advocating we raise their tax rates? They have more than they need, they don't really need all that money... isn't that the same argument in principle? I am simply agreeing with you and carrying it to the next level, they don't need any income, really. Now think about it a moment, let that sink in a bit... Why does a person who has virtually unlimited wealth, need to earn an income? Their wealth is invested, the investments will provide a rate of return sufficient to support their lifestyle, and they will pay whatever little bit of tax they need to, in order to live their lifestyles... but they don't need to earn an income anymore, they already did.

Once you have reached this pinnacle, there is no longer a practical need to earn income, some wealthy people do, they become obsessed with greed, or they just have the hunger for making more and more money... but they don't NEED to do this, that is an important distinction. For all intents and purposes, they have reached a point at which they can live off their wealth, and the general idea is to 'break even' each year, make enough money to pay for your lifestyle, and pay the lowest income tax possible. Some very wealthy individuals claimed ZERO income in 2010...they paid NO federal income tax... no income = no tax... doesn't matter how much your net worth is. Of course, they can't do this forever, but most of the super-wealthy could probably do this for 10..15..20 years or so. They don't have to add to the wealth they have, just maintain their lifestyles... they might even trim back their lifestyles and not buy the yacht... they may opt for the brie instead of the caviar.. But having to earn an income is pretty much a thing of the past for most wealthy people... so tax away! Raise it to 100% ...they don't need it!