The problem with taxing the rich

[edthecynic]

I HAVE BEEN IN THE BOARD MEETINGS WHERE THIS EXACT THING HAS HAPPENED!

BULLSHIT!
You probably never even had a job!

 

[Boss]

Well, too bad you'd rather throw adhoms rather than discuss your moronic ideas, but I certainly understand.

I can assure you, there is not a single solitary corporation in America who would support your idea. Also, no one who has more than an ounce of business sense, would support your idea. Also, no politician in any state with any amount of corporate presence, would support your idea. So we can say that your idea, no matter how great your idiot ass thinks it is, would be DOA.

Tax production, and see what you will have LESS of.... every single time! In fact, ANY time you tax something, you will ultimately have less of it happening, regardless. Now you may say, well what does that mean if we tax consumption, and it means the same thing... you would have less consumption, as people wouldn't want to pay the tax. But... what happens when there is less consumption (i.e. demand) and abundant supply?

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Lakhota]

The problem with taxing the rich

There is no problem. They have more to protect and consume more resources paid for by taxpayers.

It ain't rocket science...

 

[edthecynic]

morons
slow-minded,
libtard.

Well, too bad you'd rather throw adhoms rather than discuss your moronic ideas, but I certainly understand.

I can assure you, there is not a single solitary corporation in America who would support your idea. Also, no one who has more than an ounce of business sense, would support your idea. Also, no politician in any state with any amount of corporate presence, would support your idea. So we can say that your idea, no matter how great your idiot ass thinks it is, would be DOA.

Tax production, and see what you will have LESS of.... every single time! In fact, ANY time you tax something, you will ultimately have less of it happening, regardless. Now you may say, well what does that mean if we tax consumption, and it means the same thing... you would have less consumption, as people wouldn't want to pay the tax. But... what happens when there is less consumption (i.e. demand) and abundant supply?

So if you tax something you get less REGARDLESS, unless it is consumption, so it is not REGARDLESS.

As to what happens when there is less consumption of an abundant supply, the supplier stops producing and the production jobs are eliminated.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Well, too bad you'd rather throw adhoms rather than discuss your moronic ideas, but I certainly understand.

I can assure you, there is not a single solitary corporation in America who would support your idea. Also, no one who has more than an ounce of business sense, would support your idea. Also, no politician in any state with any amount of corporate presence, would support your idea. So we can say that your idea, no matter how great your idiot ass thinks it is, would be DOA.

Tax production, and see what you will have LESS of.... every single time! In fact, ANY time you tax something, you will ultimately have less of it happening, regardless. Now you may say, well what does that mean if we tax consumption, and it means the same thing... you would have less consumption, as people wouldn't want to pay the tax. But... what happens when there is less consumption (i.e. demand) and abundant supply?

As much as I loathed Reagan, Clinton and had bad feelings about the only decent man to be president through 2008, Pap Bush, ALL THREE of them raised taxes and in EACH INSTANCE the economy picked up. It was a false improvement in each case, but the point is raising taxes DID NOT kneecap the economy like the filthy fucking scum of the earth continue to lie about directly contradicting the FACTS ON FILE. The underlying cause as every emotionally mature adult with a three digit IQ will testify to, was accounting buggery - specifically, putting debt on the credit side of the ledger. Thank Paul Krugman and the other young Ly'ans of the day for blowing Milton Friedman and other ReagaNUTs for that.

In Krugman's defense, he woke up. Next he needs to reject the bullshit Nobel he accepted for bogus economic theory only topped in recent memory as a disgrace to the Nobels by the Scholes Merton derivatives pricing Nobel that almost crashed the economy in 1998 when it crashed and burned LTCM and a Clinton-era multi-billion dollar bailout.

Then a ratty little chickenhawk cocksucker from Tejas cut taxes on high income earners and presided over the lowest eight consecutive years of job growth in US history capped by the crash of the Scholes-Merton Delusion in 2008. This was the ReagaNUT Devolution coming home to roost on the backs of America's working class - although to be sure, 75% of Americans lost wealth they never really had and felt really bad about it.

But I digress...

No rational person has anything against the rich. Problems are with how some of the rich got rich, in this discussion with government policy subsidizing corporations and some individuals (both wealthy and welfare recipients) at the expense of the working classes. If you can't admit that government policy specifically and intentionally funneled money up the material totem pole where it has stayed, then you are either pathetically differently abled or one willfully ignorant nutball motherfucker.

Only you and each of the scum of the earth who support corporate hegemony over US government know the answers to that. Whatever the answers are, they are in your mirrors.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead. We are a consumer-driven nation who likes to buy shit, so this would work out very nicely, because people wouldn't stop buying shit. I am also one of those who think we should eliminate capital gains taxation and corporate taxes entirely.

Why eliminate corporate taxes? We should eliminate all other taxes and replace then with a corporate tax.

.... and what would prevent a business from closing its doors, and moving it's business elsewhere?

HANGZHOU, China, 19 April, 2012 – As part of its largest expansion in 50 years, Ford Motor Company today announced it will build a new state-of-the-art assembly plant in Hangzhou, China, doubling its production capacity in China to 1.2 million passenger cars annually by 2015.

Ford China to Build US $760 Million Assembly Plant in Hangzhou; Doubles China Passenger Car Capacity to 1.2 Million Units Annually | Ford Motor Company Newsroom

Ford is putting all their advanced technology in automobile production in China. Raise corporate tax, and I'm sure they won't think twice laying off American workers while looking to greater opportunities in China. Got any more great ideas you'd like to add to our "booming" Obama economy?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The problem with "taxing the rich" is it buys into the socialist fantasy that we as a people are divided because some of us make more money than the other.

That's right - that's the problem. It has nothing to do with practical consequences - but entirely to do with what it "buys into" - whatever that means.

I am a free man. All of my brethen are my equals in my eyes and before the law regardless of whether they make more or less money than I do. We need to stop playing into their games and thinking that we are different because of the amount of money we have.

If having more or less money didn't make a difference people wouldn't be trying so hard to have money.

Live within your means, don't purchase a 50" flat screen ... with a laptop ... ipad ... iphone ... the latest gaming system ... along with a 5 yr loan on a new car, educate yourself before you agree to sign a bank loan that tries to entice you with an ARM for more affordable payments, and I'm sure you wouldn't be "trying so hard to have money" to payoff all that unnecessary added debt.

 

[Boss]

morons
slow-minded,
libtard.

Well, too bad you'd rather throw adhoms rather than discuss your moronic ideas, but I certainly understand.

I can assure you, there is not a single solitary corporation in America who would support your idea. Also, no one who has more than an ounce of business sense, would support your idea. Also, no politician in any state with any amount of corporate presence, would support your idea. So we can say that your idea, no matter how great your idiot ass thinks it is, would be DOA.

Tax production, and see what you will have LESS of.... every single time! In fact, ANY time you tax something, you will ultimately have less of it happening, regardless. Now you may say, well what does that mean if we tax consumption, and it means the same thing... you would have less consumption, as people wouldn't want to pay the tax. But... what happens when there is less consumption (i.e. demand) and abundant supply?

So if you tax something you get less REGARDLESS, unless it is consumption, so it is not REGARDLESS.

As to what happens when there is less consumption of an abundant supply, the supplier stops producing and the production jobs are eliminated.

Fuck... are you SO stupid you are unable to comprehend a sentence in plain English?

I clearly stated that just like anything you tax, you will get less consumption. Did you read it correctly that time, moron? If not, please read it again, I have not contradicted what I said. When you increase tax on something, you get less... doesn't matter if you tax investments, you'll have less investments... if you tax production, you'll get less production... if you tax higher incomes, you'll get less higher incomes.... If you tax condoms, you'll sell fewer condoms... AND... *drumroll* IF YOU TAX CONSUMPTION, YOU GET LESS CONSUMPTION.... are we clear on that?

What happens is not production jobs eliminated. More supply than demand results in lower price, in almost every case. The capitalist takes it in the shorts on profit in that case, because it is better to move the product at a lower profit margin than to not move the product at all. Reducing production is the LAST thing that would be done, if market share can't be maintained after lowering price. You're really an idiot when it comes to business, I can't believe you have the nerve to post this stuff. I would be embarrassed.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Why eliminate corporate taxes? We should eliminate all other taxes and replace then with a corporate tax.

Then you'd see a mass exodus of US corporations to Canada and Mexico, and places with lower corporate tax rates. Guess what leaves with the corporations? A thing called JOBS!

Why eliminate corporate taxes? Simple, it would revive American manufacturing like nothing else we could do. It would cause the creation of millions of jobs, as companies from around the world flocked to this country to set up shop.

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

You have no understanding of what a consumption tax means, at least in the system I have been trying to explain.

When was the last time you actually sat down and calculated how much you make that simply goes to the government in the form of taxes? I am a firm believer, if we started out with our pay for the week, THEN we were given the responsibility to physically write out a check to the government for the taxes we owed, there would be a whole new outlook on government spending. The fact that it's all conveniently set aside for us, where our main focus is on "how much we have actually (been allowed to have) EARNED", that the amount of taxes that goes out isn't really that great a concern for many. Like direct deposit, we don't miss what we aren't forced to physically keep track of...... out of sight, out if mind.

Perhaps edthecynic figures it's far better to continue to have the government dip its hand into his hard earned paycheck, than exchange it for a system where a flat Federal tax is applied towards the goods (luxuries) you buy. Maybe he believes he'd miss the challenge of having to figure out all that added paperwork that needs to go out before every April 15th, and begin to suffer from withdrawals?

 

[RDD_1210]

Over the past decade or so, the cries from the left have become incessantly loud, that we must dramatically increase taxes on the rich, who supposedly "don't pay their fair share," and have "more money than they need." When you attempt to have a civil conversation with these people, they tune you out, and insist that rich people are greedy bastards who all fit some stereotype of Homer Simpson's boss. They fail to realize one key fundamental, we don't tax wealth in America. We tax incomes.

Now, this doesn't matter to the left, they presume that people who earn high incomes are rich folk, like Homer Simpson's boss. These rich people get paid outrageous amounts of money to sit around drinking bourbon and yucking it up at the country club about who they screwed over this week, while their wives blow money like Paris Hilton in a little dog shop. They buy their kids Hummers for graduation, and go on lavish vacations to Barbados or Fiji. The left has developed this false perception based on stereotypes, and nothing can penetrate the prejudice.

The truth of the matter is, there are all kinds of different people who earn a lot of income, and not all of them are wealthy. There are also very wealthy people who earn very little income at all, and simply live off of their wealth and investments. There is no stereotype which applies to everyone, we don't live in a cookie-cutter world. This is the biggest problem I have with setting any arbitrary amount at which we determine is "enough" without regard for what the individual does, or the value of their contribution.

I want to present a few examples for your consideration, in order to illustrate what I am saying. First up, John Hannah, the All-pro offensive lineman who played for the New England Patriots in the 70s. Arguably, the greatest OL to ever play the game. When he signed with New England, his base salary was in the neighborhood of $400k per year. He played for 12 years, 183 games. Of course, he renegotiated his contract a few times along the way, but Hannah never made the kind of money stars of today make in the NFL. After his career in football, he held several jobs in coaching, making considerably less income. Currently, he works for a friend of mine, and makes less than $40k per year. The wealth he enjoyed while playing football is gone, he literally came begging my friend for a job. Big John made decent money in his day, but pro football careers are relatively short, and the lifestyle you are expected to maintain is very expensive. In any event, the man was never "wealthy" and for his entire career, probably earned less than an average #4 draft pick signs for these days.

Next up, a man you don't know, is name is David Hilliard. He works as an underwater welder on oil/gas pipelines in Texas. David knocks down a cool $240k per year, but he works his ass off and takes extreme risk to his life and health, every day. Aside from the dangers related to diving, he also faces a risk of electrocution, and there are a number of high health risks from the environment itself. In my opinion, he is underpaid for what he does.

Finally, a woman I know, named Lisa. She started a cleaning business in 1992, following the death of her husband, and being left to raise 3 children with no experience or work history. She slowly built a small business from the ground up, starting with a shoestring budget, eating mac-and-cheese for dinner every night, her children qualifying for government assistance, and living in low income housing. Twenty years later, she oversees 6 crews of 4 people each, and files her taxes as an individual, showing an income of around $200k per year. However, that is the income from her business, and she has to pay for everything related to the business, including her employees wages and benefits. Now, she did manage to send all three of her children to college, and she owns a modest home, but she is not a 'wealthy' person, by any stretch.

The point here is this; None of these people fit the stereotype of the left, they aren't "wealthy" individuals, they are talented, hard working, determined, but not rich. Taking a larger piece of their pie because you are jealous that they make more money than most, is just plain boneheaded and immature. We don't have ANY way of determining the "worth" of what someone brings to the table. There is a vast difference between an income of $200k earned by Lisa, who paid her dues, ate mac-and-cheese, suffered and struggled to make it... and some jerk off who wins $200k pulling a slot machine lever in Vegas, isn't there? So why do we feel compelled to tax them at the same exorbitant rate? There is a difference between David, who earns $240k a year risking his life every day, and some ingrate who inherited the rights to his father's music royalties, which earn $240k per year.

Are we supposed to put people like Nancy Pelosi in charge of determining who deserves what they earn and who doesn't? Or should we leave this up to the capitalist system, which always seems to manage paying people based on value? What in the hell gives ANY liberal the right to determine what is a fair amount to earn in income? Based on WHAT? How can anyone arbitrarily establish a dollar amount that is "fair" in all cases and circumstances?

The dirty little secret in this whole deal, is that the "super rich" have no real NEED to earn incomes anymore. They only do so because they can, and if you start taxing them outrageous amounts, more and more of them will simply stop doing it. They didn't become wealthy by being idiots. The people you hurt by jacking up taxes on high incomes, are the people who are trying to become rich, the people who are still working on it, who haven't yet arrived at where they want to be. Kill their dream, and you effectively kill the dream for everyone. But the liberal left is poised to take the hacksaw to their own nose, consequences be damned.

Ummmmm, I hate to break the bad news to you. But your cute little stories....... Not one of these people would be technically considered rich. Do you even understand what you're arguing against?

Whoops.

 

[zeke]

Boss. Homeless to billioniare was YOUR claim. I checked Forbes list of American billioniares, and other than Trump, who was never homeless or poor, those other two, they didn't make the list. Why?

And Boss, two out of 315 million. I might as well play the lottery if being rich was my objective.

If you would simply come out and state that America gives you a chance to do better than you might have been able to do elsewhere, why, you and I could agree on something. But claiming that the homeless of America can go from homeless to billioniare is a bit of a stretch.

 

[zeke]

Then you'd see a mass exodus of US corporations to Canada and Mexico, and places with lower corporate tax rates. Guess what leaves with the corporations? A thing called JOBS!

Why eliminate corporate taxes? Simple, it would revive American manufacturing like nothing else we could do. It would cause the creation of millions of jobs, as companies from around the world flocked to this country to set up shop.

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

You have no understanding of what a consumption tax means, at least in the system I have been trying to explain.

When was the last time you actually sat down and calculated how much you make that simply goes to the government in the form of taxes? I am a firm believer, if we started out with our pay for the week, THEN we were given the responsibility to physically write out a check to the government for the taxes we owed, there would be a whole new outlook on government spending. The fact that it's all conveniently set aside for us, where our main focus is on "how much we have actually (been allowed to have) EARNED", that the amount of taxes that goes out isn't really that great a concern for many. Like direct deposit, we don't miss what we aren't forced to physically keep track of...... out of sight, out if mind.

Perhaps edthecynic figures it's far better to continue to have the government dip its hand into his hard earned paycheck, than exchange it for a system where a flat Federal tax is applied towards the goods (luxuries) you buy. Maybe he believes he'd miss the challenge of having to figure out all that added paperwork that needs to go out before every April 15th, and begin to suffer from withdrawals?

Interesting way to look at it. How about looking at it this way. Lets say every American with a pay check had to write a check to the government for the services provided. And instead of government project costs being spread out across the nation, the people living in a particular area would bear the brunt of the cost.

Need a new interstate highway. Just bill the cost among the people of the city the highway goes through. How about safe food. Maybe just bill the people that want to eat food that has been inspected. Military bases that bring a lot of jobs to an area and want to expand or upgrade facilities. Bill the locals direct.

Wouldn't take to long before a. people writing those checks for those projects would be bankrupt and b. the people would be DEMANDING that the income tax withholding be brought back.

Please try again.

And in terms of discussing this desire for a "flat tax" or a "consumption tax" or what ever else you want to call it, this doesn't seem to be the format. I thought this site was for discussion of actual political activities and decisions. Not some fantasy island wish list. Wouldn't that be on the fantasy site?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yes, Romney paid 14%.

Romney paid 14% on profits realized from investment capital he didn't have to invest. If you increase the tax rate for profit on investment capital, guess what you will get less of?

I know you are smart enough to realize we need available capital for business to grow and expand, create new jobs, and generate economic prosperity. At least, I think you are that smart, maybe not?

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston


IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.

The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.
<more>

Do you think companies ought not prepare for the threat of increased Federal taxes, or an increase in government regulations towards business? What about having to factor in all the upcoming costs that must be accounted for with regards to Obamacare? Perhaps the Federal Government ought to talk to some successful businesses on how to handle debt and actually "learn" how to begin to build a surplus? Then again, we all know how much more financially responsible those whom the IRS represents.

 

[zeke]

Romney paid 14% on profits realized from investment capital he didn't have to invest. If you increase the tax rate for profit on investment capital, guess what you will get less of?

I know you are smart enough to realize we need available capital for business to grow and expand, create new jobs, and generate economic prosperity. At least, I think you are that smart, maybe not?

Idle corporate cash piles up | David Cay Johnston


IRS data suggests that, globally, U.S. nonfinancial companies hold at least three times more cash and other liquid assets than the Federal Reserve reports, idle money that could be creating jobs, funding dividends or even paying a stiff federal penalty tax for hoarding corporate cash.

The Fed’s latest Flow of Funds report showed that U.S. nonfinancial companies held $1.7 trillion in liquid assets at the end of March. But newly released IRS figures show that in 2009 these companies held $4.8 trillion in liquid assets, which equals $5.1 trillion in today’s dollars, triple the Fed figure.
<more>

Do you think companies ought not prepare for the threat of increased Federal taxes, or an increase in government regulations towards business? What about having to factor in all the upcoming costs that must be accounted for with regards to Obamacare? Perhaps the Federal Government ought to talk to some successful businesses on how to handle debt and actually "learn" how to begin to build a surplus? Then again, we all know how much more financially responsible those whom the IRS represents.

Now I am curious. My health insurance actually comes to me through the company my wife works for. They provide access to health insurance to all employees. Paid for by both the employee and the company.

My question. Just what are all these increased costs you mention for this company, because of Obamacare? When none of the employess will be using Obamacare.

Or are you talking about those companies to cheap to offer health insurance to their employees? Or pay them at such a low rate that the employee couldn't afford to pay their portion of the health care premimum? Or the employer that cuts the hours of their employes so they can say their employees are not working full time.

Which of the countries fine employers are gonna have all these increased costs?

 

[Boss]

Boss. Homeless to billioniare was YOUR claim. I checked Forbes list of American billioniares, and other than Trump, who was never homeless or poor, those other two, they didn't make the list. Why?

And Boss, two out of 315 million. I might as well play the lottery if being rich was my objective.

If you would simply come out and state that America gives you a chance to do better than you might have been able to do elsewhere, why, you and I could agree on something. But claiming that the homeless of America can go from homeless to billioniare is a bit of a stretch.

Oprah Winfrey... check up on her, dipshit.

Trump was penniless after his bankruptcy. The other two didn't make the list because they weren't billionaires, which I admitted.

What I said was, a homeless person could become a billionaire in America. That is a true statement. It's rare, because not many homeless people have the drive, ambition, motivation, and determination, to become wealthy. If Oprah, an African American woman, can go from abject poverty in Mississippi, and become one of the wealthiest individuals in the country, then anyone can.

YOU may as well play the lottery, because you lack any motivation, drive, ambition or determination, and have resigned yourself to common thievery to get ahead. You've convinced yourself the only way you'll ever get ahead, is to steal wealth from those who already have it...or win the lottery.

There is no other system or place on this planet, which affords the individual the kind of opportunity for financial prosperity, as this country and this system... NONE! Yet, that's not good enough for you, we have to DESTROY that system and implement 19th century Marxist Socialism, which has FAILED MISERABLY every time it has been tried. Oh, but it's all different this time, because we're calling it "social justice" or "progressivism" and denying it's the same thing Karl Marx advocated.

You people are not only the most ignorant and uneducated fools in the world, but also the most gullible and full of yourself. It's like a pack mentality thing, you all slap each other on the back and chortle back and forth about the Tea Party, and refuse to accept a damn thing anyone else has to say. If the right is FOR something, you are automatically programmed to be AGAINST it! But let me tell you something, jackasses... the chickens will come home to roost. You may have the political upper hand at the moment, and you may even let that go to your heads, but this ain't over yet... far from it.

 

[Boss]

Ummmmm, I hate to break the bad news to you. But your cute little stories....... Not one of these people would be technically considered rich. Do you even understand what you're arguing against?

Whoops.

Uhm, I hate to break it to you, but every one of those people fall into the category of "the rich" who you and the liberal left claim aren't paying their fair share and need their taxes jacked up, because they don't need all that money, in your opinion.

My argument was very simple... We do not tax WEALTH in America! We tax income. Being that is the case, we have to look at income and who deserves what, and this varies from person to person. Someone may make $250k a year and actually deserve $500k a year for what they do! Someone may make $250k in a given year because they pulled the right slot machine lever! There is no way to set some arbitrary amount of income, and claim those people are "too wealthy" and don't "deserve" what they earn.

And here is another point that is often overlooked by you retards... Capitalists don't pay people more than they deserve, it doesn't happen in a free market capitalist system, because if it does, a competing capitalist pays people what they DO deserve, and puts you out of business. Where this "meme" came from, is Eastern Europe, where Marxist Socialism was bottled and sold as a cure-all for the problems of kings and rulers, who DID acquire more than they deserved, for doing nothing. Free market capitalists pay people based on the value they bring to the table, and who in the fuck are YOU to question that?

 

[DiamondDave]

Boss. Homeless to billioniare was YOUR claim. I checked Forbes list of American billioniares, and other than Trump, who was never homeless or poor, those other two, they didn't make the list. Why?

And Boss, two out of 315 million. I might as well play the lottery if being rich was my objective.

If you would simply come out and state that America gives you a chance to do better than you might have been able to do elsewhere, why, you and I could agree on something. But claiming that the homeless of America can go from homeless to billioniare is a bit of a stretch.

But it CAN be done.. there is the very same freedom for them to do so as anyone else... there is nothing in place in law to prevent it.. and THAT is the key

Is it going to be easy for a homeless person to do so?? No.. nor should it be.. nor should they receive any leg up from government to make it easier.. that is not the job of government

But there have been many super poor who are now indeed millionaires, even if there are not ones documented to join the very select few out of 350MILLION citizens.. and psssssttt, the percentage of the rest of us making it to billionaire is extremely low too

 

[Wyatt earp]

Since all corporate taxes are de facto consumption taxes, corporations pass all their overhead, including taxes, to their consumers, you have just explained what is wrong with consumption taxes.

And a corporate consumption tax would be much easier to understand, since it is already incorporated in the price, the price you see is the price you pay tax and all. With a consumption tax you have to take the sticker price and then multiply by 17.823%, or whatever, and then add the tax to the sticker price to know what you are actually paying.

So if a consumption tax is good, then a corporate tax is better. If a corporate tax sucks, then a consumption tax sucks worse!

You have no understanding of what a consumption tax means, at least in the system I have been trying to explain.

When was the last time you actually sat down and calculated how much you make that simply goes to the government in the form of taxes? I am a firm believer, if we started out with our pay for the week, THEN we were given the responsibility to physically write out a check to the government for the taxes we owed, there would be a whole new outlook on government spending. The fact that it's all conveniently set aside for us, where our main focus is on "how much we have actually (been allowed to have) EARNED", that the amount of taxes that goes out isn't really that great a concern for many. Like direct deposit, we don't miss what we aren't forced to physically keep track of...... out of sight, out if mind.

Perhaps edthecynic figures it's far better to continue to have the government dip its hand into his hard earned paycheck, than exchange it for a system where a flat Federal tax is applied towards the goods (luxuries) you buy. Maybe he believes he'd miss the challenge of having to figure out all that added paperwork that needs to go out before every April 15th, and begin to suffer from withdrawals?

Interesting way to look at it. How about looking at it this way. Lets say every American with a pay check had to write a check to the government for the services provided. And instead of government project costs being spread out across the nation, the people living in a particular area would bear the brunt of the cost.

Need a new interstate highway. Just bill the cost among the people of the city the highway goes through. How about safe food. Maybe just bill the people that want to eat food that has been inspected. Military bases that bring a lot of jobs to an area and want to expand or upgrade facilities. Bill the locals direct.

Wouldn't take to long before a. people writing those checks for those projects would be bankrupt and b. the people would be DEMANDING that the income tax withholding be brought back.

Please try again.

And in terms of discussing this desire for a "flat tax" or a "consumption tax" or what ever else you want to call it, this doesn't seem to be the format. I thought this site was for discussion of actual political activities and decisions. Not some fantasy island wish list. Wouldn't that be on the fantasy site?

Well this post failed. On so many points, for one the highways are interstate, hence the name. You must be a lawyer or IRS agent to post this. lol

 

[edthecynic]

morons
slow-minded,
libtard.

Well, too bad you'd rather throw adhoms rather than discuss your moronic ideas, but I certainly understand.

I can assure you, there is not a single solitary corporation in America who would support your idea. Also, no one who has more than an ounce of business sense, would support your idea. Also, no politician in any state with any amount of corporate presence, would support your idea. So we can say that your idea, no matter how great your idiot ass thinks it is, would be DOA.

Tax production, and see what you will have LESS of.... every single time! In fact, ANY time you tax something, you will ultimately have less of it happening, regardless. Now you may say, well what does that mean if we tax consumption, and it means the same thing... you would have less consumption, as people wouldn't want to pay the tax. But... what happens when there is less consumption (i.e. demand) and abundant supply?

So if you tax something you get less REGARDLESS, unless it is consumption, so it is not REGARDLESS.

As to what happens when there is less consumption of an abundant supply, the supplier stops producing and the production jobs are eliminated.

Fuck... are you SO stupid you are unable to comprehend a sentence in plain English?

I clearly stated that just like anything you tax, you will get less consumption. Did you read it correctly that time, moron? If not, please read it again, I have not contradicted what I said. When you increase tax on something, you get less... doesn't matter if you tax investments, you'll have less investments... if you tax production, you'll get less production... if you tax higher incomes, you'll get less higher incomes.... If you tax condoms, you'll sell fewer condoms... AND... *drumroll* IF YOU TAX CONSUMPTION, YOU GET LESS CONSUMPTION.... are we clear on that?

What happens is not production jobs eliminated. More supply than demand results in lower price, in almost every case. The capitalist takes it in the shorts on profit in that case, because it is better to move the product at a lower profit margin than to not move the product at all. Reducing production is the LAST thing that would be done, if market share can't be maintained after lowering price. You're really an idiot when it comes to business, I can't believe you have the nerve to post this stuff. I would be embarrassed.

The more insulting your reply, the more you know you are wrong.

If you remember, the magic free market capitalistic system of competition prices goods at the lowest profitable price to keep the competition at bay, so when you reduce consumption and then reduce price you are now selling good at less than they can profitably produced. You know what happens to a company that can't make a profit, don't you? They shut down and jobs are lost. Taxing consumption costs jobs.

In another thread you were a molecular biologist, in this thread you are a businessman who sits on the board of directors, that's pretty good for someone who has never had a job and definitely makes you an expert on business.