Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't this "fairness "' imply that there is a fairness in gov services provided?

Don't rich people get more use out of the government ?

I don't own any patents . Why should I pay for the patent office ?

I Maybe fly 2x a year . Why should I pay the same tax rate for the rich guy who flies all the time . He's using the FAA and public airports a lot more than I am .

One of the biggest ways that the richer use the government more is that they benefit from the education provided to the people who generate their wealth, without having had to pay for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

The number was 15% idiot.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Not under the flat tax I have been proposing they aren't

I used capital gains because you were whining that the rich would get a tax cut if we used a flat tax I showed you how they wouldn't

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

Who said anything regarding exemptions?

Every serious flat tax proposal I've ever seen.

And? That is not the subject matter of the thread.
Nobody cares what you have seen. That isn't the issue here.
And let us suppose for a moment, your view is correct. So what?....An exemption for lower income earners only makes sense.

But giving lower income earners a break isn't FAIR according to the OP. Go argue with him

I never stated lower income people should be taxed at ZERO. In my view, everyone should be required to have some skin in the game.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why do you people always deny it when I say that is the core value of conservative domestic economic policy?

 

[Norman]

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why do you people always deny it when I say that is the core value of conservative domestic economic policy?

Assuming that the poor people are going to be on welfare like income for life... hardly a realistic assumption.

Of course, you are right that this is distinctly different core value of economic policy than that of the regressives - theft.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

It most likely doesn't seem like a great plan to me, my take is it is an absurd mini rant by someone who hates taxes and doesn't understand that a flat tax is a paved road to a Plutocracy.

We got a Republic, and people like you don't understand a progressive income tax is today more important than ever before. The CU & McCutcheon 5-4 decisions have moved us to the tipping point of losing what our founders left us.

Why is a progressive tax more important than ever before?
Explain. Use your own words. Facts only.

It's more important than ever before because the current economic forces are shifting more and more of America's wealth toward the wealthy.

That would apply only if the Keyensian Theory of the Zero Sum Game were not a theory.
Fact is, that theory has been debunked. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. There is no magic pot of money from which we draw And there certainly is not system whereby one has a special ladle to use to draw from the magic pot.
Of course you people have convinced yourselves that if one has a dollar more, then another must have a dollar less.
There is no "share" of wealth. Wealth is created. And these alleged forces do not exist. If what you state were to be true, then there would be a steady flow of mysterious withdrawls, presumably from wealthy people with special access codes which permit them and ONLY them to take money from whomever they wish.

 

[thereisnospoon]

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why do you people always deny it when I say that is the core value of conservative domestic economic policy?

Please point out where I stated or implied this

 

[Ame®icano]

One of the biggest ways that the richer use the government more is that they benefit from the education provided to the people who generate their wealth, without having had to pay for it.

This is funny... "rich benefits from education provided to the poor".

At the same time, our education is bad, overpriced, kids are failing tests, getting out of public schools dumber then when they get in... I would like to see that rich who benefited from you.

 

[BULLDOG]

You love the progressive tax system don't you?

Why not apply it everywhere?

Because I'm smarter than you are.

That's true, but probably not something to brag about. A pair of old gym socks are smarter than him.

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

Wow.
Newsflash. Yes this IS a debate. You refuse to participate because you don't like where the debate is going. So be it.
Your reaction simply confirms that you as a liberal have no answers in rebuttal.
So just stay out of it. Don't post.

A debate is where logic and facts determine the direction of the discussion. All the silly right wing claims have nothing to do with either of those things. I have no desire or need to rebut the crazy ramblings of a RWNJ. The large majority of your crap has been has been proven wrong long ago, and I just come here to laugh at the idiots that continue to spout it..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your incomprehensible example didn't prove anything.

BTW, if you exempt money earned at the bottom in a flat tax system, it's no longer flat. Do you?

Who said anything regarding exemptions?

Every serious flat tax proposal I've ever seen.

And? That is not the subject matter of the thread.
Nobody cares what you have seen. That isn't the issue here.
And let us suppose for a moment, your view is correct. So what?....An exemption for lower income earners only makes sense.

But giving lower income earners a break isn't FAIR according to the OP. Go argue with him

I never stated lower income people should be taxed at ZERO. In my view, everyone should be required to have some skin in the game.

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

You want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Why do you people always deny it when I say that is the core value of conservative domestic economic policy?

Please point out where I stated or implied this

When you insisted on the poor having 'skin in the game' in the form of taxes. Whoever you are, an increase in taxes makes you poorer, all else being equal.

You want the poor to pay more in taxes. That will make them poorer. You want a flat tax. That will make the rich richer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

It most likely doesn't seem like a great plan to me, my take is it is an absurd mini rant by someone who hates taxes and doesn't understand that a flat tax is a paved road to a Plutocracy.

We got a Republic, and people like you don't understand a progressive income tax is today more important than ever before. The CU & McCutcheon 5-4 decisions have moved us to the tipping point of losing what our founders left us.

Why is a progressive tax more important than ever before?
Explain. Use your own words. Facts only.

It's more important than ever before because the current economic forces are shifting more and more of America's wealth toward the wealthy.

That would apply only if the Keyensian Theory of the Zero Sum Game were not a theory.
Fact is, that theory has been debunked. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. There is no magic pot of money from which we draw And there certainly is not system whereby one has a special ladle to use to draw from the magic pot.
Of course you people have convinced yourselves that if one has a dollar more, then another must have a dollar less.
There is no "share" of wealth. Wealth is created. And these alleged forces do not exist. If what you state were to be true, then there would be a steady flow of mysterious withdrawls, presumably from wealthy people with special access codes which permit them and ONLY them to take money from whomever they wish.

The nation generates a finite amount of wealth every year. Who gets it determines who gets richer, who gets poorer, who stays the same.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because I'm smarter than you are.

That's true, but probably not something to brag about. A pair of old gym socks are smarter than him.

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

Wow.
Newsflash. Yes this IS a debate. You refuse to participate because you don't like where the debate is going. So be it.
Your reaction simply confirms that you as a liberal have no answers in rebuttal.
So just stay out of it. Don't post.

A debate is where logic and facts determine the direction of the discussion. All the silly right wing claims have nothing to do with either of those things. I have no desire or need to rebut the crazy ramblings of a RWNJ. The large majority of your crap has been has been proven wrong long ago, and I just come here to laugh at the idiots that continue to spout it..

Blah blah blah.
Which of ther "crap" has been proven wrong....Examples please. Facts only.
Laughter. From a useful idiot.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's true, but probably not something to brag about. A pair of old gym socks are smarter than him.

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

Wow.
Newsflash. Yes this IS a debate. You refuse to participate because you don't like where the debate is going. So be it.
Your reaction simply confirms that you as a liberal have no answers in rebuttal.
So just stay out of it. Don't post.

A debate is where logic and facts determine the direction of the discussion. All the silly right wing claims have nothing to do with either of those things. I have no desire or need to rebut the crazy ramblings of a RWNJ. The large majority of your crap has been has been proven wrong long ago, and I just come here to laugh at the idiots that continue to spout it..

Blah blah blah.
Which of ther "crap" has been proven wrong....Examples please. Facts only.
Laughter. From a useful idiot.

The entire Benghazi issue and all it's offshoots like the E-mail crap has become nothing more than the right's refusal to accept that they lost that battle long ago.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

It most likely doesn't seem like a great plan to me, my take is it is an absurd mini rant by someone who hates taxes and doesn't understand that a flat tax is a paved road to a Plutocracy.

We got a Republic, and people like you don't understand a progressive income tax is today more important than ever before. The CU & McCutcheon 5-4 decisions have moved us to the tipping point of losing what our founders left us.

Why is a progressive tax more important than ever before?
Explain. Use your own words. Facts only.

It's more important than ever before because the current economic forces are shifting more and more of America's wealth toward the wealthy.

That would apply only if the Keyensian Theory of the Zero Sum Game were not a theory.
Fact is, that theory has been debunked. Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. There is no magic pot of money from which we draw And there certainly is not system whereby one has a special ladle to use to draw from the magic pot.
Of course you people have convinced yourselves that if one has a dollar more, then another must have a dollar less.
There is no "share" of wealth. Wealth is created. And these alleged forces do not exist. If what you state were to be true, then there would be a steady flow of mysterious withdrawls, presumably from wealthy people with special access codes which permit them and ONLY them to take money from whomever they wish.

The nation generates a finite amount of wealth every year. Who gets it determines who gets richer, who gets poorer, who stays the same.

No it doesn't. Please, what in economic reality makes you want to claim such a thing?
I would submit that those that earn wealth use it to create wealth.
For example. My annuity generates income for myself and others in the form of commissions to the administrator who makes his living by directing the wealth of others. That money in turn is used to invest in companies which in one aspect use that to create jobs. All of which creates NEW wealth.
And people do not "get" wealth. It is earned or created by the earner or creator.
Now, this idea that if one earns or creates more wealth for themselves has some direct reverse affect on another is patently false.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So you won't answer the question either

This is called a debate so tell me why progressive taxes are good for income but not for example sales taxes?

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

Wow.
Newsflash. Yes this IS a debate. You refuse to participate because you don't like where the debate is going. So be it.
Your reaction simply confirms that you as a liberal have no answers in rebuttal.
So just stay out of it. Don't post.

A debate is where logic and facts determine the direction of the discussion. All the silly right wing claims have nothing to do with either of those things. I have no desire or need to rebut the crazy ramblings of a RWNJ. The large majority of your crap has been has been proven wrong long ago, and I just come here to laugh at the idiots that continue to spout it..

Blah blah blah.
Which of ther "crap" has been proven wrong....Examples please. Facts only.
Laughter. From a useful idiot.

The entire Benghazi issue and all it's offshoots like the E-mail crap has become nothing more than the right's refusal to accept that they lost that battle long ago.

Denial is not a defense.
The fact is Hillary Clinton has been exposed for having done a lot of very bad things and you people can't handle it.

 

[BULLDOG]

No. This is not a debate. This is a forum where I can laugh at stupid right wing claims. If you understood and accepted the nature of facts, we could debate, but sadly the right has shown that is not possible.

Wow.
Newsflash. Yes this IS a debate. You refuse to participate because you don't like where the debate is going. So be it.
Your reaction simply confirms that you as a liberal have no answers in rebuttal.
So just stay out of it. Don't post.

A debate is where logic and facts determine the direction of the discussion. All the silly right wing claims have nothing to do with either of those things. I have no desire or need to rebut the crazy ramblings of a RWNJ. The large majority of your crap has been has been proven wrong long ago, and I just come here to laugh at the idiots that continue to spout it..

Blah blah blah.
Which of ther "crap" has been proven wrong....Examples please. Facts only.
Laughter. From a useful idiot.

The entire Benghazi issue and all it's offshoots like the E-mail crap has become nothing more than the right's refusal to accept that they lost that battle long ago.

Denial is not a defense.
The fact is Hillary Clinton has been exposed for having done a lot of very bad things and you people can't handle it.

Not exposed. She has been accused. Nothing new there. The right has been falsely accusing her of stuff for a long time. They can never make it stick though.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressive income taxes are based on the subjective marginal utility analysis that basically says idiots in government can decide if you "need" all the money you make or not and that they are justified in taking the money they decide you don't "need"

Well all of you who love this type of blatantly unfair tax scheme I ask you why stop at income?

Why not use progressive tax schemes for everything that is taxed?

Let's say you own a 4 bedroom home but you and your wife have only 1 kid. You only "need" 2 bedrooms so some moron in your state government can decide that those 2 bedrooms must be taken from you and given to someone else and then inserts 2 people into your home because they "need" those rooms and you don't

What about a vacation home? Surely you don't "need" that if you only use it on occasion.

You and your wife have 2 cars and you have your dream car in the garage you don't need that classic 1969 GTO so why not let the government take it from you to give to someone who does "need" it

I bet that sounds like a great plan to some of you doesn't it?

It most likely doesn't seem like a great plan to me, my take is it is an absurd mini rant by someone who hates taxes and doesn't understand that a flat tax is a paved road to a Plutocracy.

We got a Republic, and people like you don't understand a progressive income tax is today more important than ever before. The CU & McCutcheon 5-4 decisions have moved us to the tipping point of losing what our founders left us.

Why is a progressive tax more important than ever before?
Explain. Use your own words. Facts only.

CU v FEC
McCutcheon v FEC

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/campaign-contribution-limits-overview.aspx

My own words;

Under current law money can be given to a candidate or an incumbent or withheld from a candidate or incumbent and given to an opponent if the individual does not support the special interests which control vast amounts of money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

To implement a flat tax, all else being equal, you will lower the rate on the richest, therefore they will pay less.

Somewhere, someone else has to make up the difference? Who's left?

Yes, the middle and low income groups. They will have to pay more.

I've already given you 2 examples of how a lower tax rate on 100% of income results in the same or slightly higher tax paid than a higher rate on a portion of that same income

 

[Skull Pilot]

Doesn't this "fairness "' imply that there is a fairness in gov services provided?

Don't rich people get more use out of the government ?

I don't own any patents . Why should I pay for the patent office ?

I Maybe fly 2x a year . Why should I pay the same tax rate for the rich guy who flies all the time . He's using the FAA and public airports a lot more than I am .

How do the so called rich use government services more?

The guy who flies more pays more taxes on plane tickets than you
The really rich guys who fly charter or private jets pay even more

You have kids in public school the rich guy doesn't why should he pay more?

Hell the couple with no kids pays way more in income taxes than the couple with 6 kids they have 6 kids in public schools why should the couple with no kids pay more in taxes?

 

[Skull Pilot]

SO wait

15% of 7 million as compared to 12% of 10 million is incomprehensible to you?

That's so sad

Go back and lay out your entire tax system, in detail, from which you are pulling the above hypothetical numbers.

My god



In the flat tax system I have been talking about every dollar earned will be taxed at the same rate no matter what the source there will be no deductions at all

can you understand that?

IOW you're hawking a fantasy.

You're going to put a $2400 annual income tax on someone making minimum wage of what, 16,000 a year...

lol good one.

First, 12% of 16k is not 2400. it is 1920. Almost $500 less than your knee jerk amount.
And yes, that IS an appropriate amount. Why shouldn't lower income earners have some skin in the game?

The number was 15% idiot.

You're still not understanding the example

I never said the flat tax rate would be 15%

The current cap gains tax is 15% the example was how a rich guy with nothing but investment income would pay more tax if he was charged 12% on his entire income than he does now where 15% is charged on only a portion of his income

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you