Why only a "progressive" income tax?

[NYcarbineer]

n

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Its not a lack of understanding. Its a lack of any consideration. He fully understands that a 400% increase in the tax rates of the poor will have a massively negative impact on their lives. And wouldn't produce even close to the same revenue.

He just doesn't care. See, consequence is irrelevant to an ideologue. Their motto is 'no matter what'. The damage caused is irrelevant. The revenue shortfalls are irrelevant. Math is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is their ideology. And they apply it the same way, regardless of circumstances, consequence, or outcome.

Where circumstances, consequence and outcome would be immediately relevant to a rational person. Its one of the reasons why virtually no nation on earth applies their tax plan.

 

[Redfish]

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.

rich people buy more stuff than poor people

 

[Skull Pilot]

n

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

You do know you would have paid more in taxes if the bush tax cuts expired don't you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Its not a lack of understanding. Its a lack of any consideration. He fully understands that a 400% increase in the tax rates of the poor will have a massively negative impact on their lives. And wouldn't produce even close to the same revenue.

He just doesn't care. See, consequence is irrelevant to an ideologue. Their motto is 'no matter what'. The damage caused is irrelevant. The revenue shortfalls are irrelevant. Math is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is their ideology. And they apply it the same way, regardless of circumstances, consequence, or outcome.

Where circumstances, consequence and outcome would be immediately relevant to a rational person.

Yeah just pull 400% out of your ample ass that makes it true

 

[Redfish]

n

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

^^^^talking point ^^^^^

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Which post did you prove that in. I can't find it.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

I believe that right now even vacation homes qualify for a mortgage interest deduction, which is really kind of the reverse of progressive. Its basically a taxpayer funded benefit for the real-estate lobby, and people that can afford vacation homes, and lenders.

I think most economists would say there shouldn't even be a regular mortgage interest deduction, which distorts the market. And again is really unfair to renters.

 

[NYcarbineer]

n

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

^^^^talking point ^^^^^

What's factually incorrect, or irrelevant?

 

[NYcarbineer]

n

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

You do know you would have paid more in taxes if the bush tax cuts expired don't you?

Possibly. Would the poor?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Which post did you prove that in. I can't find it.

#456

 

[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

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?

When you factor in those programs, we don't have many poor people at all.

America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero

 

[Skylar]

n

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

More accurately if 150 nations approach the same problem....and come up with an identical solution 150 of 150 times, there's likely some solid practical reasons behind that decision. Progressive taxation works. As when you want fish, you fish where the fish are.

Your proposal is based on several truck sized holes. First, your premise that subjective value judgments invalidate law. That's nonsense. Virtually every law we have involves subjective value judgments. In fact, our system of law couldn't exist without it. Negating your entire point.

And second, that there's no difference in need between a billionaire buying another super yacht.....and someone struggling to pay the rent. You insist that the needs are the same. A rational person could recognize a distinction.

And when rational people around the world are asked if they can recognize that distinction, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. With virtually every nation on earth applying progressive taxation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

nyou 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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

You do know you would have paid more in taxes if the bush tax cuts expired don't you?

Possibly. Would the poor?

define poor

 

[Redfish]

nyou 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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

^^^^talking point ^^^^^

What's factually incorrect, or irrelevant?

1. that the GOP blocked letting the bush rates expire. Dems controlled congress for Obama's first two years
2. that Obama left them because of "economic forces". He left them because even he realized that raising taxes on everyone who pays taxes would hurt the economy.

 

[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

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?

When you factor in those programs, we don't have many poor people at all.

America's Real Poverty Rate Is Around And About Zero

that's not education that's welfare and food stamps and I never said anything about those programs you did

All I am arguing for is a revenue neutral flat tax

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

 

[Skull Pilot]

n

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

More accurately if 150 nations approach the same problem....and come up with an identical solution 150 of 150 times, there's likely some solid practical reasons behind that decision. Progressive taxation works. As when you want fish, you fish where the fish are.

Your proposal is based on several truck sized holes. First, your premise that subjective value judgments invalidate law. That's nonsense. Virtually every law we have involves subjective value judgments. In fact, our system of law couldn't exist without it. Negating your entire point.

And second, that there's no difference in need between a billionaire buying another super yacht.....and someone struggling to pay the rent. You insist that the needs are the same. A rational person could recognize a distinction.

And when rational people around the world are asked if they can recognize that distinction, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. With virtually every nation on earth applying progressive taxation.

Sorry income is income some income isn't worth more than other income because it is spent on different things

 

[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

That is not a lower flat rate on all income. Start with that 47% of households who paid no federal income tax a few years ago (probably less now).

That's a tax increase for ALL of them that had any income.

Where did I say it was lower for everyone?

is it "fair" that almost half of the people with incomes paid no income tax?

It's a very low rate that will result in the exact same revenue as our current system

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If so it's largely because the Republicans blocked letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that coupled with economic forces no president has any control over.

^^^^talking point ^^^^^

What's factually incorrect, or irrelevant?

1. that the GOP blocked letting the bush rates expire. Dems controlled congress for Obama's first two years
2. that Obama left them because of "economic forces". He left them because even he realized that raising taxes on everyone who pays taxes would hurt the economy.

Democrats did not control Congress in 2010 at the end of which most of the tax cuts were due to expire.