Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[Skull Pilot]

You are not taxing the person you are taxing the dollars of income
Everyone pays the same percentage on every dollar of income

The fact that one has more income than another is neither fair nor unfair

We tax at a higher percentage as there is more money to tax.

See, your premise makes no sense. You equate buying a new super yacht with struggling to pay the rent, insisting that we're not allowed to make any distinction in terms of the actual need of each because that's a subjective value judgment. And you're obviously wrong. As subjective value judgments are the basis of most every law. We not only can apply subjective value judgments in respect to our laws, we pretty much have to.

So the entire argument that the application of subjective value judgments invalidates progressive taxation is debunked. As we use the subjective value judgments on pretty much every law. And they're perfectly valid.

And while you personally may be incapable of recognizing the difference between say, a luxury yacht vs. paying the rent, a rational person could make that distinction. And rational people do. As progressive taxation is applied in pretty much every first world nation on earth.

I don't care what people use their money to buy it doesn't matter

We don't tax the gallon of gas used to drive to a strip club more than the gallon of gas used to drive to the supermarket do we?

So once you get rid of the gas tax, where do you make up that revenue?

Where did I say get rid of the gas tax?

Where did you say you want to keep it?

Hey Idiot you're the one who said I wanted to get rid of it not me

 

[Redfish]

n

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

Because taxing income is simpler and works better.

Try as you may, you're not going to make a new super yacht and struggling to pay the rent equivalents. And your entire argument is based on the idea. Which is why you failed. And why virtually no nation on earth follows your assumptions.

I'm not trying to make anything equivalent

Show me where I did

The only equivalency I want is on the tax rate on a dollar of income

Income should be taxed like everything else

 

[Wilbur Right]

Skylar, it seems like pilot is a one trick pony.

Its like life is all fair EXCEPt for the tax code.

Like a poor person walks into the bank to borrow money and gets treated EXACtLY like the person with 10 million dollars in the bank.

Like a poor person has an accountant, a broker and an investment advisory firm.
Rich people have all the above and that seems to be fair according to pilot.

One trick pony is all he is. No understanding of the differences of living in this country while rich. And living here poor.

Its all the same to him. Weird.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So no tries on the above?

Fair enough. So far so good. So far I've proven that the flat taxers want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

After all you don't really "need " that 3rd car do you?

If the flat tax is so good why not make sales taxes based on a percentage of your income?

 

[NYcarbineer]

n

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And your goal with taxes is to increase the gap between rich and poor by shifting the tax burden away from the rich towards the poor.

 

[Redfish]

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

After all you don't really "need " that 3rd car do you?

If the flat tax is so good why not make sales taxes based on a percentage of your income?

Uhh, Duh, because it wouldn't be flat?

 

[Redfish]

n

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And your goal with taxes is to increase the gap between rich and poor by shifting the tax burden away from the rich towards the poor.

of course not, but that is exactly what has happened over the last 7 years under obozo the Kenyan clown prince.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

After all you don't really "need " that 3rd car do you?

If the flat tax is so good why not make sales taxes based on a percentage of your income?

It's based on a percentage of the sale the same percentage for every sale the same percentage for every dollar spent on a sale

The progressive tax that you love is more like basing the price of a car on your income the more you make the more you pay for the exact same car that someone else who makes less than you pays less for

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look at this chart of effective tax rates based on income quintiles.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Federal income tax is the second chart down.

Now, anyone explain to me how you get from those rates, to flat tax rate across the board,

without raising taxes on the poorer and lowering taxes for the richer.

So no tries on the above?

Fair enough. So far so good. So far I've proven that the flat taxers want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

Then public education and Medicaid must go? Then all income based government assistance programs must go?

 

[Skylar]

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I did the math if you can't follow it that's your problem

When the math is checked, they don't work.

GOP flat tax plans simply don't add up

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/why-the-republican-tax-plans-wont-work.html?_r=0


Details and Analysis of Senator Ted Cruz’s Tax Plan

Details and Analysis of Dr. Ben Carson’s Tax Plan

With every analysis including at least a 9% tax rate, higher than what you propose. And every one of them failing to reach revenue neutrality. With none of them even being close.

And again, the lowest quintile pays 2% in federal income taxes, while the top quintile pays 21%. You're insisting that the wealthy should have their tax rates cut to nearly a 3rd while the poor should have their taxes increased by 400%. This you consider 'fair'. As you don't recognize any distinction between someone strugging to pay the rent and someone buying the second super yacht.

A rational person could.

 

[Skylar]

n

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And by 'liberal tax plan', you mean the tax plan of virtually every nation on earth?

 

[Redfish]

Look at this chart of effective tax rates based on income quintiles.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Federal income tax is the second chart down.

Now, anyone explain to me how you get from those rates, to flat tax rate across the board,

without raising taxes on the poorer and lowering taxes for the richer.

So no tries on the above?

Fair enough. So far so good. So far I've proven that the flat taxers want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

Then public education and Medicaid must go? Then all income based government assistance programs must go?

why? with a flat tax, those assistance programs make more sense than they do now.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look at this chart of effective tax rates based on income quintiles.

Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households

Federal income tax is the second chart down.

Now, anyone explain to me how you get from those rates, to flat tax rate across the board,

without raising taxes on the poorer and lowering taxes for the richer.

So no tries on the above?

Fair enough. So far so good. So far I've proven that the flat taxers want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

Then public education and Medicaid must go? Then all income based government assistance programs must go?

Why would it?

None of those have anything to do with equalizing income between rich and poor

 

[Skull Pilot]

n

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And by 'liberal tax plan', you mean the tax plan of virtually every nation on earth?

Everybody's doing it so we should too

Not a good reason to do anything

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

After all you don't really "need " that 3rd car do you?

If the flat tax is so good why not make sales taxes based on a percentage of your income?

It's based on a percentage of the sale the same percentage for every sale the same percentage for every dollar spent on a sale

The progressive tax that you love is more like basing the price of a car on your income the more you make the more you pay for the exact same car that someone else who makes less than you pays less for

Wrong. The sales tax is charged based on the cost of the goods or services purchased.

The progressive AND flat taxes are based on the income of the purchaser (since we are purchasing government services).

By your argument, both the progressive and the flat tax are unfair.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So no tries on the above?

Fair enough. So far so good. So far I've proven that the flat taxers want to increase the gap between rich and poor.

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

Then public education and Medicaid must go? Then all income based government assistance programs must go?

Why would it?

None of those have anything to do with equalizing income between rich and poor

Giving people an education and healthcare regardless of their abililty to pay doesn't make them better off financially?

Give me a break.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

And there we go. Flat taxers have no care for what the middle class or poor have to pay. Consequence, tax revenue, none of it matters to them.

It would matter to a rational person.

What we're seeing is the limits of ideologues. Where how well their approach works is irrelevant to them. Who it hurts, how it effects our nation, even mathmatics itself is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is pushing their ideology, no matter what.

Its what worries me about someone like Cruz. He'd gladly watch the nation burn if it meant he was able to enforce his ideology.

So then answer the question in the first post

If the so called progressive tax is so good and fair then why not have a progressive sales tax where for example the tax on your second car is more than the tax on the first and the tax on the third car is even more than the tax on the second?

After all you don't really "need " that 3rd car do you?

If the flat tax is so good why not make sales taxes based on a percentage of your income?

It's based on a percentage of the sale the same percentage for every sale the same percentage for every dollar spent on a sale

The progressive tax that you love is more like basing the price of a car on your income the more you make the more you pay for the exact same car that someone else who makes less than you pays less for

Wrong. The sales tax is charged based on the cost of the goods or services purchased.

The progressive AND flat taxes are based on the income of the purchaser (since we are purchasing government services).

By your argument, both the progressive and the flat tax are unfair.

Wrong the sales tax is a flat tax on each dollar spent on taxable items

If the sales tax is 5% then 5% of every dollar spent is charged to you the consumer

 

[Redfish]

n

Oh, it totally would. The point is....so what? You'd either have to massively increase the tax rates for the poor and middle class, or see a massive drop in tax revenue as we drop rates for the wealthy.

And math is irrelevant to them, just like consequence is irrelevant to them. These are ivory tower conceptions of 'fair', where the rich are the hapless victims of our system. So you already know you're not exactly going to be dealing with a real world perspective.

Funny I just did an example with 2011 income and tax numbers and a revenue neutral flat tax would have only been 8.4%

That is funny. Because virtually every economist to review even 10% plans finds them woefully inadequate to cover our current revenue.

But again, what does it matter to you? You've said you don't care what the middle class and poor have to pay. And if the rich are getting a massive discount on their taxes, where does the revenue have to come from even in your imaginary 'revenue neutral' tax plan?

The poor and middle class. Who you insist should be paying far, far more than they do now. Which you insist will be 'fair'.

I just proved that for 2011 the flat rate of 8.4% on all income would have raised the exact same revenue so if you think a flat tax that is actually lower than the lowest current bracket of 10% is a "massive increase" then you and I speak different languages

you need to understand that the goal of all liberal tax plans is to punish the evil rich. said another way------------punish success and reward failure-----------its the liberal way.

create incentives to stay poor and dependent on momma government.

And by 'liberal tax plan', you mean the tax plan of virtually every nation on earth?

I have no issue with a progressive income tax. My issue is that half of americans are paying zero federal income tax.

The real problem that no one in DC wants to address is that the government is spending more than it is collecting, we will be 20 trillion in debt by the time the next president takes office, we were at 10.6T when Obama took office, we are borrowing 40% of what the government spends. This has to stop. Taxing the shit out or the top income brackets will not fix the mess.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just because some of us are offline when you post your crap doesn't mean you have proven anything

Then you show us by example how your tax plan would not increase the gap between rich and poor,

leaving all else aside and just showing us the tax rates for the poor and rich now and then.

You can't do it. The average effective tax rate for the lowest incomes in the US are currently at ZERO or less.

Those people's taxes HAVE to go up under your plan, for starters. That makes them poorer.

Why is it I always have to repeat myself to you

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

The point of taxes is to raise money for the fucking government to do its job and its job is not equalizing income among the masses

Then public education and Medicaid must go? Then all income based government assistance programs must go?

Why would it?

None of those have anything to do with equalizing income between rich and poor

Giving people an education and healthcare regardless of their abililty to pay doesn't make them better off financially?

Give me a break.

If it did then we wouldn't have poor people would we?