Flat Tax

[PaintMyHouse]

The flat tax is a sure loser.

Keep our tax progressive as the rich use more resources.

The rich pay for all the resources they use.

Not even close...

Well which ones are they not paying for then?

It's the percentage they aren't paying for. We have tens of trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure and we pick up plenty of what makes thier wealth safe and keeps them happy. They pay, but not enough.

You do realize they're paying the vast majority of the taxes right?

You liberals love other people's money. Try spending some of your own for a change.

Income taxes aren't the only taxes, boys. And if the rich and corporations were paying enough we would be paying the bills and paying down the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

And Smith, and Ricardo, but not Malthus, who was poor. Life is ironic.

What makes you think Smith's moral code was absolutely correct? He could have been a child molester, for all you know.

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And Smith, and Ricardo, but not Malthus, who was poor. Life is ironic.

What makes you think Smith's moral code was absolutely correct? He could have been a child molester, for all you know.

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What makes you think Smith's moral code was absolutely correct? He could have been a child molester, for all you know.

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

Higher taxes is not the issue. A higher proportion is, which he said was fine because the rich get more and have more.

 

[OnePercenter]

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

The rich and wealthy also deduct 100% of property taxes reducing federal tax. If you were an American you'd know that.

 

[Dovahkiin]

If you want a flat tax, don't complain about the debt.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

What makes you think Smith's moral code was absolutely correct? He could have been a child molester, for all you know.

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

If you want a flat tax, don't complain about the debt.

I've never seen it where increasing taxes actually increased revenue...ever.

 

[Dovahkiin]

If you want a flat tax, don't complain about the debt.

I've never seen it where increasing taxes actually increased revenue...ever.

You're literally wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

 

[bripat9643]

He could have been but for starters, he was a moralist. And on this and many other things, he was correct.

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

Higher taxes is not the issue. A higher proportion is, which he said was fine because the rich get more and have more.

His idea of a "higher proportion" was a straight property tax.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If you want a flat tax, don't complain about the debt.

I've never seen it where increasing taxes actually increased revenue...ever.

Try US history.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

Then why don't you support abolishing the income tax since you think Adam Smith is so infallible?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

Higher taxes is not the issue. A higher proportion is, which he said was fine because the rich get more and have more.

His idea of a "higher proportion" was a straight property tax.

Nope. That plus some more.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

View attachment 62673

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

The poor were the renters while the poor were the rentees.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

Then why don't you support abolishing the income tax since you think Adam Smith is so infallible?

Because he was wrong. Progressive income taxes are perfectly valid.

 

[bripat9643]

He did say that, but to support a property tax that is no different than the property taxes we impose. Since the rich buy much bigger houses than the poor, then pay much higher property taxes.

The rich and wealthy also deduct 100% of property taxes reducing federal tax. If you were an American you'd know that.

No they don't. There's an upper limit on what they are allowed to deduct.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

The poor were the renters while the poor were the rentees.

Doesn't change what he said now does it?

 

[bripat9643]

Can you actually tell me what page of any book that he has ever written where he said that so I don't think you didn't do a google image search and found some edited image somewhere. I've actually read a little of these passages and he did say that but he was referring to taxes on homes which was common then.

Page 653: http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf

And I never use false quotes, ever. Unlike most here I don't need to...

I've notice you never read the whole thing either. It is actually referring to tax on rental property so that the rich landlords would pay more than the poor. As far as I can tell, He wasn't actually referring to an income tax per say.

He didn't believe in income taxes, or any kind of payroll tax. He thought it a disincentive to work. He believed in taxes on rents, luxuries, and sin.

That changes nothing of the fact that he supported the rich paying more than thier share.

Then why don't you support abolishing the income tax since you think Adam Smith is so infallible?

Because he was wrong. Progressive income taxes are perfectly valid.

So then why should we give a damn what Adam Smith says?

 

[OnePercenter]

Then why don't you support abolishing the income tax since you think Adam Smith is so infallible?

You're Canadian, what makes you think we give a rats ass what you think?