Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[NYcarbineer]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

I never once said what the flat tax rate would be

I gave you examples and illustrations of the concept you can't seem to understand the difference

Yes you did, but for clarification why don't you state for the record what it would be? I don't have a problem where you set it, I'll still prove my point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

For the last fucking time I never said what the flat tax rate would end up being.

You are using numbers I used in illustrations of the concept as statements of fact

And so what if people with kids pay more?

Why on earth should someone who chose to have kids pay less tax than someone who earns the exact same income who chose not to have kids?

I'll use any number you want. By all means, pick a number. btw, your plan is meaningless without an actual rate.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I didn't defend anything I merely told you your whining about the rich was unnecessary

So my 'whining' about the rich wasn't necessary because your tax plan won't cut taxes for the rich.

Prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

For the last fucking time I never said what the flat tax rate would end up being.

You are using numbers I used in illustrations of the concept as statements of fact

And so what if people with kids pay more?

Why on earth should someone who chose to have kids pay less tax than someone who earns the exact same income who chose not to have kids?

Let's end it by agreeing that your tax plan as you've laid it out here would have to

1. raise taxes on the poorer and cut taxes on the richer, or,

2. keep taxes for the richer where they are and raise everyone else's taxes to match their rates, or

3. lower everyone's taxes to zero (or less)

in order to achieve what you call FAIRNESS.

 

[RDD_1210]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

 

[Contumacious]

REPEATING

Let's see what Karl Marx said about a heavy graduated income tax in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, Ch 2

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

 

[RDD_1210]

REPEATING

Let's see what Karl Marx said about a heavy graduated income tax in the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, Ch 2

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

And? Who gives a shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

And another RWNJ tries to explain how less money for needed federal programs is the same as more money for needed federal programs. That's why there is always "NJ" after the "RW".

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I want taxes to be fair and am not targeting any one group

Shall I repeat the question?

What don't you understand here?

let me make it clear

I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHO PAYS MORE TAXES AND WHO PAYS LESS UNDER A FLAT TAX

all I care about is making income tax as egregious as it is fair by treating every income dollar exactly the same

 

[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

And another RWNJ tries to explain how less money for needed federal programs is the same as more money for needed federal programs. That's why there is always "NJ" after the "RW".

Where have I said the flat tax will bring in less revenue?

What I said was I don't know what flat rate would be at least revenue neutral

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I want taxes to be fair and am not targeting any one group

Shall I repeat the question?

What don't you understand here?

let me make it clear

I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHO PAYS MORE TAXES AND WHO PAYS LESS UNDER A FLAT TAX

all I care about is making income tax as egregious as it is fair by treating every income dollar exactly the same

Well then quit disputing the fact that your tax plan will widen the gap between rich and poor.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

So you are honestly arguing for the flat tax because it will raise taxes on everybody?

Amazing.

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

Oh and btw, you started out with a 15% rate. Then you flopped down to 10% as far as I can tell.

Well either way, in my last full year of work, a 50,000 gross income, your plan would have raised my taxes.

I paid just under $5000 in federal income tax. No dependents. No major deductions. Call that 9%.

Whichever of your numbers I would have used, my taxes would have been higher.

And for those at the same wage with, for example, kids, theirs would have bee MUCH higher.

I never once said what the flat tax rate would be

I gave you examples and illustrations of the concept you can't seem to understand the difference

Yes you did, but for clarification why don't you state for the record what it would be? I don't have a problem where you set it, I'll still prove my point.

Tell me where I said flat out the flat tax rate should be X

You can't use numbers I used for illustrative purposes to explain the concept to you

 

[Skull Pilot]

No I'm telling you that your incessant whining about the rich getting a huge tax cut is unwarranted because as I have shown you a lesser percentage tax on all income can yield result in virtually the same taxes paid if only a portion of income is taxed at a higher rate.

I really can't make it any simpler than that but if you still can't understand it maybe you should hire a tutor

You made it simple. You defended the charge that your tax plan would cut taxes for the rich by showing how it would raise taxes for the rich.

Which is it? Do you want to raise taxes on the rich, cut taxes for the rich, or keep them the same?

I want taxes to be fair and am not targeting any one group

Shall I repeat the question?

What don't you understand here?

let me make it clear

I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK WHO PAYS MORE TAXES AND WHO PAYS LESS UNDER A FLAT TAX

all I care about is making income tax as egregious as it is fair by treating every income dollar exactly the same

Well then quit disputing the fact that your tax plan will widen the gap between rich and poor.

I never said it wouldn't did I?

I said it would be fairer than taking 40% of some people's money so other can pay nothing

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

No the problem with Obama care was no one read the fucking thing before voting on it

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

Yes because we all know that laws with millions of words are easier to implement and cost the government less to do so just like the most complicated doodads and gadgets are the best and least expensive way to do simple things as well

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's use 2011 numbers for this Example

In 2011 the gross US income in the US was

12,949,905,000,000

Total Personal Income U.S. and All States

The total income tax collected was

1,091,473,000,000

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

So for 2011 a revenue neutral flat tax on 100% of income would have been

1091473000000/12949905000000 or

8.42%

Now for you fucking thick imbeciles I am not saying this should be the flat tax rate but merely illustrating the point that a lower flat rate on ALL income can indeed bring in as much tax revenue as a multiple brackets of higher rates on only part of all income

Now you can figure in the many billions of dollars in savings from downsizing the IRS and use that to lower the tax rate even more

 

[RDD_1210]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

Yes because we all know that laws with millions of words are easier to implement and cost the government less to do so just like the most complicated doodads and gadgets are the best and least expensive way to do simple things as well

No one ever implied that, but simpler doesn't equal better which is a major selling point of you flat tax morons.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

Yes because we all know that laws with millions of words are easier to implement and cost the government less to do so just like the most complicated doodads and gadgets are the best and least expensive way to do simple things as well

No one ever implied that, but simpler doesn't equal better which is a major selling point of you flat tax morons.

The major selling point is that it is fair.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Yes. Exposed. Deal with it.

 

[RDD_1210]

A flat tax is a simple idea for simple people. The only reason idiots favor it is for one of two reasons

1) They are rich and stand to benefit greatly

2) They are a simple minded person and only endorse things they can easily understand. (See this thread as proof). These are the same people who hated Obamacare because it was "too much to read".

Yes because we all know that laws with millions of words are easier to implement and cost the government less to do so just like the most complicated doodads and gadgets are the best and least expensive way to do simple things as well

No one ever implied that, but simpler doesn't equal better which is a major selling point of you flat tax morons.

The major selling point is that it is fair.

But it's not though.