The problem with taxing the rich

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

So Zeke is trying hard to be convincing... believing that ALL Federal Government spending is simply tied to infrastructure, the FDA, military (on top of social security, Medicare and Medicaid of course). He wants to honestly contend that our government wastes no money, is very responsible, never corrupt, would never reward political contributors with a Federal position, is VERY efficient running their own departments, etc. ...... who exactly belongs on this "Fantasy Island", or are you just playing THAT ignorant?

With regard to infrastructure alone, you might not be aware of this:

Interstate highways and their rights of way are owned by the state in which they were built. The last federally owned portion of the Interstate System was the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Washington DC Capital Beltway. The new bridge was completed in 2009 and is collectively owned by Virginia and Maryland. Maintenance is generally the responsibility of the state department of transportation. However, there are some segments of Interstate owned and maintained by local authorities.

About 70 percent of the construction and maintenance costs of Interstate Highways in the United States have been paid through user fees, primarily the fuel taxes collected by the federal, state, and local governments. To a much lesser extent they have been paid for by tolls collected on toll highways and bridges. The Highway Trust Fund, established by the Highway Revenue Act in 1956, prescribed a three-cent-per-gallon fuel tax, soon increased to 4.5 cents per gallon. In 1993 the tax was increased to 18.4 cents per gallon, where it remains as of 2012.

The rest of the costs of these highways are borne by general fund receipts, bond issues, designated property taxes, and other taxes. The federal contribution comes overwhelmingly from motor vehicle and fuel taxes (93.5 percent in 2007), and it makes up about 60 percent of the contributions by the states. However, any local government contributions are overwhelmingly from sources besides user fees. The portion of the user fees spent on highways themselves covers about 57 percent of their costs, with about one-sixth of the user fees being sent to other programs, including the mass transit systems in large cities. In the northeastern United States, some large sections of Interstate Highways that were planned or constructed before 1956 are still operated as toll roads. Others have had their construction bonds paid off and they have become toll-free, such as in Connecticut (I‑95), Maryland (I‑95), Virginia (I‑95), and Kentucky (I‑65).

Can you show me anywhere, where it CLEARLY STATES that infrastructure maintenance is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government?

Where does it say that The revenue for such maintenance is collected through a Federal Income Tax? (which the "flat tax" system discussion in my post you quoted, was in regards to)

Now because our Federal Government CHOOSES to use taxpayer dollars to pay for infrastructure, and that bridges are in much need of repair ..... what happened to the 70% already collected?

Why are tolls double in my state within the past 3 years, which is meant to pay for maintaining the state's infrastructure, which they have ALREADY been given by the Federal government (according to Obama) to pay for our bridges and roads on Feb 13, 2009?

I think you better lay off of the Fantasy tv with all your Kool Aid. Especially if you believe our Federal Government is anywhere CLOSE to being "fiscally efficient and responsible" ..... now I'm honestly trying hard to hold back and not laugh my ass off at that very thought, with respect to government. However your delusions of our government's fiscal effectiveness is quite hilarious.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Actually those people DON'T fall in to the category of rich. If you think they do, please define what you believe to be the definition of rich.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, Ed... I claimed they COULD or MIGHT do this. There are a million different factors, we are having a generic conversation, there is no ONE answer here. It depends on the product or service, how much competition there is, what the market demands are, what the relevant supply is, how much overhead is labor cost, how much does a tax increase impact the bottom line, is there another solution besides raising prices or cutting overhead, like outsourcing.... all of these things are considered and mulled over... I HAVE BEEN IN THE BOARD MEETINGS WHERE THIS EXACT THING HAS HAPPENED!

You are stubbornly refusing to accept reality with regard to how capitalism works, and insisting that a corporate production tax would be the same as a consumer tax. Anyone who runs a corporation or sits on a board of a corporation would say you are out of your ... mind.

TAX production, and see what you will have LESS of! Guaranteed!

Now you can go down this road, but the first problem you'll have to address is outsourcing... so you'll have to pass some restrictive law against that, or corporations would simply start moving their production operations to places you can't impose the tax. Want to take a guess what the ramifications from THAT will be? More American companies will simply close their doors and divert resources to their Indonesian operations. Then you'll need to address the massive and overwhelming unemployment you've created. The next problem you will have, is lack of supply and high demand. Want to know what THAT causes?

So you see, your ... notion of imposing a tax on corporations, is fraught with consequences your ... brain is incapable of dealing with. But like any ... liberal, you don't give a ... about consequences, you'll just spin them into the fault of republicans and tea partiers.

Next time your chatting around the conference table, you might want to explain to your executives that outsourcing to another party for production within this country is not the same as off-shoring jobs and production to a different country.

To your point on taxes being a brake on that which is taxed... if there is an exchange of one tax for another the brake may not apply as much as you might think. For example, eliminating income taxes will result in additional cash in the hands of the folks. People are already accustomed to paying sales taxes. Higher sales taxes may cause some pause but the extra cash will be there to spend and the desire to buy will not have changed. Has inflation ever really reduced sales? Only if a price inflates disproportionately to the other prices and/or if the price sends the item out of reach does it reduce the sales. People would still buy phones if they cost 15% more. Especially if they had 15% more income to spend.

 

[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.

Actually those people DON'T fall in to the category of rich. If you think they do, please define what you believe to be the definition of rich.

I already stated in the OP (re: the problem with taxing the rich) We don't tax the rich, we tax income. It's YOUR side's argument that high income earners are "the rich" and this has been defined as people who have incomes over $200k~$250k per year. You need me to quote Obama and Biden stump speeches, or what?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead.

Why would you want to fuck old people up the ass so hard? Do you hate them?

SS is tied to inflation. Sales tax is a part of the cost of items. SS checks would go up 15% to adjust for a 15% sales tax making the move from income to sales taxation a moot issue for retirees.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Let me ask you this, with the added regulations through Obamacare (preexisting conditions is the big target everyone wants to float around) has the cost of insurance actually gone up or down?

What about the cost of all those regulation requirements you avoided discussing? Last I check business owners don't have the degree or knowledge to understand (never mind keep up) with all the new regulations that are introduced. Now a company owner certainly doesn't want to be fined as a result of all this government red tape, so they most likely need to keep a staff to interpret all these new regulations. How many business regulations are we talking about?

at year-end 2012, overall rules in the pipeline (active, completed, and long-term) affecting small business according to federal agencies stand at 854.
In fact, the number of rules with small-business impacts under Obama since 2010 has regularly exceeded 800. The last time rules in this category exceeded 800 was back in 2003.

Small Business Regulations Surge Under Obama - Forbes

Of course businesses need capital to later expand, relocate, maintainance and upkeep (buildings, trucks, equipment, new emergency generators to coincide with additional "green" regulations the government may decide businesses somehow "need" to survive, just to name a few).

 

[rightwinger]

I really don't care as much about John Hanna (who should have saved enough money to retire on) or a small business owner....They are not the rich that anyone is talking about

We are talking of the richest 400 Americans in the Forbes 400 who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. We tax based on an income tax that the super wealthy just laugh at. Their wealth multiplies many times while they pay a tax on the pittance they claim as income

You want to tax......follow the money

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/11/0...the-lower-150-million-americans-put-together/

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Actually those people DON'T fall in to the category of rich. If you think they do, please define what you believe to be the definition of rich.

I already stated in the OP (re: the problem with taxing the rich) We don't tax the rich, we tax income. It's YOUR side's argument that high income earners are "the rich" and this has been defined as people who have incomes over $200k~$250k per year. You need me to quote Obama and Biden stump speeches, or what?

No, we don't tax WEALTH, we tax WAGES.

 

[Boss]

No, Ed... I claimed they COULD or MIGHT do this. There are a million different factors, we are having a generic conversation, there is no ONE answer here. It depends on the product or service, how much competition there is, what the market demands are, what the relevant supply is, how much overhead is labor cost, how much does a tax increase impact the bottom line, is there another solution besides raising prices or cutting overhead, like outsourcing.... all of these things are considered and mulled over... I HAVE BEEN IN THE BOARD MEETINGS WHERE THIS EXACT THING HAS HAPPENED!

You are stubbornly refusing to accept reality with regard to how capitalism works, and insisting that a corporate production tax would be the same as a consumer tax. Anyone who runs a corporation or sits on a board of a corporation would say you are out of your ... mind.

TAX production, and see what you will have LESS of! Guaranteed!

Now you can go down this road, but the first problem you'll have to address is outsourcing... so you'll have to pass some restrictive law against that, or corporations would simply start moving their production operations to places you can't impose the tax. Want to take a guess what the ramifications from THAT will be? More American companies will simply close their doors and divert resources to their Indonesian operations. Then you'll need to address the massive and overwhelming unemployment you've created. The next problem you will have, is lack of supply and high demand. Want to know what THAT causes?

So you see, your ... notion of imposing a tax on corporations, is fraught with consequences your ... brain is incapable of dealing with. But like any ... liberal, you don't give a ... about consequences, you'll just spin them into the fault of republicans and tea partiers.

Next time your chatting around the conference table, you might want to explain to your executives that outsourcing to another party for production within this country is not the same as off-shoring jobs and production to a different country.

To your point on taxes being a brake on that which is taxed... if there is an exchange of one tax for another the brake may not apply as much as you might think. For example, eliminating income taxes will result in additional cash in the hands of the folks. People are already accustomed to paying sales taxes. Higher sales taxes may cause some pause but the extra cash will be there to spend and the desire to buy will not have changed. Has inflation ever really reduced sales? Only if a price inflates disproportionately to the other prices and/or if the price sends the item out of reach does it reduce the sales. People would still buy phones if they cost 15% more. Especially if they had 15% more income to spend.

Well, first of all, I don't chat around conference tables anymore, I am now retired. Outsourcing can either be domestic or foreign... offshoring is what oil prospectors do. If you jack up corporate taxes or try to tax US production, the capitalists will move production operations to a foreign country where there is not excessive tax, or outsource the production to a foreign country, where they don't have excessive tax. There is no logical reason for them to outsource domestically to a company who would be subject to excess tax. The point I was making to Ed, was this.. Capitalists have a variety of options with regard to how they mitigate a tax increase.

Again, it depends on the product or service, the supply and demand, the market competition, and a plethora of other factors we can't possibly cover in a generic conversation about ALL capitalist enterprise. But I can assure you, whenever a corporation has that board meeting to discuss how to mitigate the extra 'overhead' costs from a new tax or regulation, the very LAST option they take, is passing all of it on to the consumer in the form of a price increase. Generally, it is a combination of downsizing, outsourcing, reducing quantity or quality, and last of all, a price increase... IF the market allows it.

You can not say what people will or won't do. You have no way of knowing how consumers will respond to price increase, it is a subjective guess. This is why I said "may and could happen" in my remarks, and didn't pretend to know what consumers WOULD do. Again, we are not talking about phones, we are having a generic conversation, and there is no universal answer to how consumers would respond, there are too many factors and unknown variables to even make an educated guess. However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

With regard to the poor, if they are dependent upon the Federal Government to supply their needs through various programs (to even include a free computer or cell phone), where exactly is the incentive to provide for themselves?

I'm also curious .... with all these billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars going towards this fight for the war on poverty (Lyndon B. Johnson 1964), what statistical proof is there to show the effectiveness [success] of the Federal Government in at least REDUCING the poverty rate since 1964?

 

[Boss]

I really don't care as much about John Hanna (who should have saved enough money to retire on) or a small business owner....They are not the rich that anyone is talking about

We are talking of the richest 400 Americans in the Forbes 400 who have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. We tax based on an income tax that the super wealthy just laugh at. Their wealth multiplies many times while they pay a tax on the pittance they claim as income

You want to tax......follow the money

?The 400 wealthiest Americans now own more than the ?lower? 150 million Americans put together.? | Real-World Economics Review Blog

But they ARE the people who's incomes you want to tax more, because that is what Obama, Biden, and the Democrats have been saying since 2008. The level was moved from $200k to $250k, but again...as you admit, these are not "rich" people.

We tax INCOME... not WEALTH! A super-wealthy person has absolutely ZERO need to earn any more income. They will often use their wealth to invest in capitalist ventures, because we lowered tax rates to incentivize this, because it is essential to creating economic prosperity... you see, when a new start up company needs a million dollars to get their company going, they don't go to the welfare recipients and homeless people. When a company needs to meet payrolls before their products are produced, distributed and sold, they don't go asking middle-class workers to loan them some money. They depend on investment capitalists, wealthy people who have the available resources.

As for your tired old 1% vs. 99% argument... this is a purely Maoist teaching. Don't believe me? Go read up on the People's Revolution which brought Mao to power in China. It's the exact same argument. It's an offshoot of Marxism and Communism, and the dirty little secret is, there will ALWAYS be a 1%. You can't do anything about it. The question is, will the 1% be free market capitalists, who "we the consumer" can control and limit with our pocketbook, or will they be the Ruling Class who control all wealth AND power of authority? You want to see a really fucked up unfair world? Implement Maoism in America!

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm one of those who thinks we should abandon income taxation entirely, and adopt a consumption tax instead.

Why would you want to fuck old people up the ass so hard? Do you hate them?

How on earth would this hurt old people?

Why on earth do you think our current tax monstrousity doesnt hurt them more already?

 

[RKMBrown]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

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.

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

 

[editec]

The dirty little secret in this whole deal, is that the "super rich" have no real NEED to earn incomes anymore.

Rentiers, few of them actually EARN money.

 

[Boss]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

 

[edthecynic]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

Bullshit! The poor and middle class spend everything they earn plus what they put on their credit card. The Wealthy spend only a tiny fraction of their wealth. A consumption tax is by far and away one of the most regressive taxes ever dreamed up by the wealthy for avoiding taxes.

 

[RKMBrown]

However, we do know, when you increase tax rate on anything, you get less of it. When you increase price, fewer people will buy, generally speaking. Subsequently, when we lower prices and taxes, there is an incentive realized. These are relatively simple facts of economics and capitalism, along with supply and demand.

You are ignoring inflation in your argument.

When the price of everything goes up people don't buy less do they? Why not? Easy, because they are generally earning more. Otherwise, if what you were saying is true then people would be buying 1/10th the number of houses than they did 30years ago because the cost has come up an order of magnitude. But that is not the case because incomes have also gone up an order of magnitude. Moving taxation from income to consumption will not change the buying patterns of folks that already have income and already consume said products with said income.

Moving taxation from income tax to consumption tax will only affect the people who are consuming but not paying income tax. IOW we are encouraging people to not work and/or to not report their income. See the extremely rich folks who can live off their existing assets, the drug dealers who don't report their income, and the poor who don't pay income tax based on exemptions and/or being paid not to work.

I'm not ignoring inflation, but inflation will also have the same effect on people. You are mistakenly presuming I mean something I never said here. People don't stop purchasing in direct ratio with price increase, IOW, if housing increases 20%, that doesn't mean 20% fewer will buy houses. Fewer will buy houses, and fewer are buying houses today than 30 years ago. Houses have increased, but so has rate of pay.

On to taxation... I don't understand your argument, we are talking about eliminating the income tax entirely, no one would ever again have to report their income and pay tax on it. Instead, people would pay a tax when they purchase things above and beyond basic needs. You are correct, drug dealers and people who evade taxes, would then be contributing to the kitty. Is that a bad idea? Poor and middle class people who live modest lifestyles and spend within their means, would pay less tax than they currently pay, while wealthy big spenders would pay much more. Something wrong with that?

We are a consumer-driven nation, it's just how we roll. Given this fact of life, doesn't it make better sense to obtain our tax revenue here, than off of incomes? I mean, IF you can tolerate giving up the class warfare rhetoric the left has become so fond of lately?

You are a bit confused. I'm for eliminating income tax and replacing it with sales tax.

My argument is that you are wrong when you keep saying that fewer people are buying houses today than 30 years ago. You seem to think that people stop buying things with price inflation. But that is not true. People stop buying things when they don't have any money to spend. If I get 15% more money in my pocket due to elimination of the income tax, I'll spend it. If the cost of goods goes up 15% as sale tax I'll spend my extra income on sales tax. The change in tax system won't change what I buy. It won't change what I buy because I'm a worker, a tax payer, and a consumer.

To the welfare hounds above... stop crippling people with welfare checks and rebate checks, let people earn a living and be responsible for themselves for a change. That will bring this country out of the ditch, not paying people to stay in the ditch.

 

[Boss]

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

I didn't address your little anti-right tirade above, because you're full of shit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Ronald Reagan's policies sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history, and that is just a plain old fact. The results of his policies lasted through Bush I (who was opposed to Reaganomics... called it "voodoo economics" ...did everything he could to dismantle those policies as president), lasted through (Clinton, who was ironically the closest to Reagan in economic policy since Reagan.) and through another Bush, (who's 'compassionate conservatism' was the diametric opposite of Reaganomics). When the Reagan magic finally began to wear off at the end of Bush II's 2nd term, the libtards began claiming it didn't work, and demanding to know where the jobs and prosperity were. Now we have morons like you, who have revised history in your minds, and filled up the Internet with trumped up bogus propaganda that is mostly untrue, running around besmirching Reagan. You're a fucking idiot. You don't have any "facts" to back up your stupidity, it's all a bunch of manipulated, hyped-up mumbo jumbo, prepared by totalitarian Marxists, and designed to appeal to stupid people like yourself.

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

 

[edthecynic]

This looks more and more like you, boss man.

Instead of blabbermouthing thirteen to the dozen like a hippo's tail flailing shit all over the place marking his territory, go back upstream and tackle my post on the measured results of tax increases. Taxes are something no one but welfare hounds like corporations and losers like - and which are clearly undesirable now, but which one does not need to lie about.

It'll be my pleasure to let you show the crowd here how you handle facts, there... ...boss man.

I didn't address your little anti-right tirade above, because you're full of shit. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Ronald Reagan's policies sparked the longest period of peacetime prosperity in our nation's history, and that is just a plain old fact. The results of his policies lasted through Bush I (who was opposed to Reaganomics... called it "voodoo economics" ...did everything he could to dismantle those policies as president), lasted through (Clinton, who was ironically the closest to Reagan in economic policy since Reagan.) and through another Bush, (who's 'compassionate conservatism' was the diametric opposite of Reaganomics). When the Reagan magic finally began to wear off at the end of Bush II's 2nd term, the libtards began claiming it didn't work, and demanding to know where the jobs and prosperity were. Now we have morons like you, who have revised history in your minds, and filled up the Internet with trumped up bogus propaganda that is mostly untrue, running around besmirching Reagan. You're a fucking idiot. You don't have any "facts" to back up your stupidity, it's all a bunch of manipulated, hyped-up mumbo jumbo, prepared by totalitarian Marxists, and designed to appeal to stupid people like yourself.

Our economic growth is stuck at a stagnant 1.5% over the past 6 years, and we're adding 100k new workers to the workforce while creating 20k new jobs, and you fuckwits are dancing in the streets like it's the greatest thing that's ever happened. The bastard in the white house has done everything in his power to destroy capitalism as we know it, energy costs have skyrocketed, gas has doubled in price, groceries are 40% higher, but you people just keep on claiming things are turning around... getting better all the time.

I joked about this when Obama was elected. I said, within 4 years, we'd all be standing around a burning trash barrel, eating shit sandwiches... and liberals would be telling us how great it is that we could all come together and enjoy a meal together for a change. It was clearly a joke, but damn if I wasn't too far off.

that's just plain old BULLSHIT. St Ronnie's policies failed his first 2 years, then he started to reverse everything he did and the economy grew until the Bush I recession.