Flat Tax

[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.

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

My passport says I'm an American born in Boston MA, numskull.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Nope. That plus some more.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We really should have a progressive fat tax. We could get billions in New revenue

 

[9aces]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. That plus some more.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

 

[9aces]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

Actually it was progressive, the rich paying thier share plus some, but it wasn't a tax on wages. He didn't support that but he supported taxing rents and wealth, including inherited wealth, which he thought was a generational crime.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

 

[9aces]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

Money isn't success, although in a capitalist world it's certainly a nice thing, and I'm not jealous of anyone since very few are smarter than I am, and no one here, by miles.

None of that, BTW, matters a damn to this debate.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

Even if it destroys America, eh?

 

[bripat9643]

They are paying enough. Problem is, our government spends too much.

I know this is hard for you, but rich people don't have enough money to do what you liberals want. Literally, you could take it all and still not pay for it.

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

Money isn't success, although in a capitalist world it's certainly a nice thing, and I'm not jealous of anyone since very few are smarter than I am, and no one here, by miles.

None of that, BTW, matters a damn to this debate.

If money doesn't matter, then why do you insist on taking it from those who have more than you?

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Even if it destroys America, eh?

That has always been, and always will be, only a matter of time. The reason we regulate capitalism is because it eventually destroys itself. Regulation rounds off the rougher edges and delays that for a time but it can never stop it. Eventually it can no longer create value, and becomes completely unbalanced. After the crash, we try again. That is its nature.