taxation

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"OK, I'll bite and give you first rope..."

HA! I'm already swinging by my neck...

#

"Is it just the simplicity of the idea?"

Well, it 'is' simple, isn't it?

A point of purchase tax (replacing ALL other taxes) on EVERY transaction, for EVERYONE, with NO exceptions, exemptions, loopholes.

Certainly: way more simple than what we have now, on any level.

#

"Is it because it is regressive?"

The regressiveness is irrelevant to me. Consider: you have a fifty in your wallet and I have a twenty in mine...right there we -- you and me -- are not equal. As you like, from the start, you can purchase more than me, do more with your cash.

Should I cry and say, 'hey, we exist in inequity: gimme some of that cash, Lamp!'

If I've performed no service for you, offered no product, and if you're not the charitable sort, then my laying claim to part of your fifty is not a cry for equity, but simple extortion (*theft).

Life (living) is regressive...*shrug*

#

"Do you think all types of transactions should be taxed at the same rate?"

I suppose there's some room for wibbling around on the point of purchase tax rates...I'm not married to any particular number. Mostly, though, farting around with varying rates for 'differing' points of purchase is just a transparent attempt to tax certain folks more because those folks 'have more'.

Concretely: if the point of purchase tax rate is, say, 10% for a loaf of bread, then the point of purchase tax rate should be 10% for a private jet or a yacht.

Again: to me, where the money comes from is irrelevant, how it's spent is irrelevant, only the spending (the transaction) itself should matter**.

#

"Do you see any situations where some taxation should be progressive?"

No really, no.

#

"Oh yes, be prepared to defend your answers."

HA! I tried, failed, and await execution...






*Which is fine...I got no problem with theft...just be upfront about it...don't dress it up in ethics or morality...if stealing is what's to happen, then just fucking 'do it'.

Apocalypse NOW!

Not yet, but it may be coming.

[infinite monkey]

If the apocalypse comes I'd like to be on your side.

[classicman]

This chart from the OWS thread clearly shows that the only issue is the 1%.

Again, Raising the income tax rate on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains rate on them.

It also clearly shows that the number of "these people" is not large enough to have a significant effect without reducing the gov't outlays. The big three MUST be back on the table. Starting with the military. There is no other way around it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

This chart from the OWS thread clearly shows that the only issue is the 1%.

Again, Raising the income tax rate on them will be far less effective than raising the capital gains rate on them.

I believe that you will get a lot more money, but the president has already spent that in his fake "jobs" bill. So really if the revenue stream is neutral we are still broke dick....

It also clearly shows that the number of "these people" is not large enough to have a significant effect without reducing the gov't outlays. The big three MUST be back on the table. Starting with the military. There is no other way around it.

I agree to some degree, obviously I am biased on the issue of the military, but the sooner we get out of SWA the better and that will give us a savings.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe that you will get a lot more money, but the president has already spent that in his fake "jobs" bill. So really if the revenue stream is neutral we are still broke dick....
--snip

Bold mine.

I believe any changes to our tax structure and budget must result in a REVENUE POSITIVE result. Revenue neutral is a mistake. Revenue negative is a bigger mistake.

[BigV]

sliding from taxation to budget...

whheeeeeeee!!!!!!!

I have lots to say about this too, INCLUDING lots of debunking some of the *~%_*!)*%@0&$* misinformation out there.

[classicman]

wait what?

[BigV]

It also clearly shows that the number of "these people" is not large enough to have a significant effect without reducing the gov't outlays. The big three MUST be back on the table. Starting with the military. There is no other way around it.

Right.

My current biggest facepalming o you idiot comes from those that say, correctly, and as you say, correctly, that taking 50% of of the income of these richest people would reduce the debt by .5%, trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile (so leave us/them alone). O you liar.

Even though that's true, no one's saying to steal their moneys and all will be well. We are not trying to balance the budget and retire the debt (PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED, NOT THE SAME ISSUES) with one check. Or in one year. Come on people.

The entire US economy isn't enough to retire the debt in one year. This will take time people. Arrrgh.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by BigV

Right.
o you idiot ~snip~ O you liar.

oh really?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

My current biggest facepalming o you idiot comes from those that say, correctly, and as you say, correctly, that taking 50% of of the income of these richest people would reduce the debt by .5%, trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile (so leave us/them alone). O you liar.

Even though that's true...

No contradiction there....

, no one's saying to steal their moneys and all will be well. We are not trying to balance the budget and retire the debt (PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED, NOT THE SAME ISSUES) with one check. Or in one year. Come on people.

The entire US economy isn't enough to retire the debt in one year. This will take time people.

No one said anything about one year. If you take 50% of their money every year you will not fix the problems in this country.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

Right.

My current biggest facepalming o you idiot comes from those that say, correctly, and as you say, correctly, that taking 50% of of the income of these richest people would reduce the debt by .5%, trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile (so leave us/them alone). O you liar.

Even though that's true, no one's saying to steal their moneys and all will be well. We are not trying to balance the budget and retire the debt (PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED, NOT THE SAME ISSUES) with one check. Or in one year. Come on people.

The entire US economy isn't enough to retire the debt in one year. This will take time people. Arrrgh.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No contradiction there....

No one said anything about one year. If you take 50% of their money every year you will not fix the problems in this country.

I'll go slow, try to keep up.

the ones that are saying:

1 -- even if you take 50% of the income the debt would be reduced by .5%
this is true.

2 -- .5% is trivial, insignificant, not worthwhile
this is debatable

3 -- so leave these rich people alone because a .5% reduction won't solve the problem immediately.
this is a manufactured lie.


Did you follow that? The lie is based on the implication that since abc plan won't work immediately, do not consider a or b or c.

Furthermore, the conversation I listened to very definitely talked about a one year timeframe. Do the math, that's how you get to .5%. Not no one, Fox News Radio hosts very clearly talked about a one year timeframe. They were telling their listeners that this is what the "plan" is about. Some people will hear that lie and then get all freaked out and fired up about it.

Furthermore, your point--if you take 50% of their money every year you will not fix the problems in this country--is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about PERFECT!!!! THANK YOU.

See? You're saying the result (fixing the problems in this country -- compared to -- retire the debt in one year) can't be achieved, therefore (implied) don't consider that plan (taking 50% of their money -- compared to -- taking 50% of their money). By staking out an impossible result, solving the country's problems, retiring the debt in one year, you and much of the conservative voice are saying with a deformed logic, don't consider the original suggestion at all. This happens all the time, and THAT is the lie.

Furthermore, no one has suggested that the government take 50% of anyone's money (nor 100% of the money, another fanciful scare story immediately following the 50% example, though this would result in a 2% reduction, so, just never mind). No one's suggesting either one.

Furthermore, if I change your suggestion from "solving the country's problems" to "making a significant difference in our country's debt problem" the answer is absolutely yes, but it will take time. Years of time. Ok? Remember that proverb, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. But let's not forget to kill the elephant first, eh?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

I'll go slow, try to keep up.

Fuck off condescending prick.

[DanaC]

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Jon Stewart was brilliant about this during the debt ceiling discussions. On the one hand the additional taxation of the top 1 % is counted as so negligible as to not be worth the collecting, yet cuts to services and benefits that come to a fraction of that are heralded as a good start and the saviour of the economy.

And that right there is Wealth Envy...

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And that right there is Wealth Envy...

How is that wealth envy? You don't see the hypocrisy in the characterisation of the amount of money that could be got from taxing the rich as neglible and therefore not worth pursuing as it wouldn;t make a difference, whilst the same or smaller amount of money that could be saved by cutting off the services and benefits of the lower incomes is characterised as a worthwhile figure which must be pursued, because it would make a real difference?

Setting aside the rights and wrongs of taxation -v- spending cuts, it's the characterisation of the amount as too low to bother with, or too great to not bother with that I'm talking about.

There are much better arguments against taxing the rich than that it wouldn't be enough to make a difference.