The Tax Code and why 'Fair Tax' is Horribly Unfair

Pages

The Tax Code and why ‘Fair Tax’ is Horribly Unfair

StockBrokersBrewingDolphins

By samuraishake

Economy • November 2011 • Views: 2,328

Read the whole thing

Here’s how the math works out. Estimate how much you spend on groceries each month, and write down that number as a percentage of your net income. Now, configure the net income of someone who makes ten times more than you make. Does that person also spend ten times as much on groceries each month? No. This same calculation applies when figuring your living expenses. The simple truth is that the more wealthy a person is, the smaller percentage of income they have to spend just to survive. It’s this extra disposable income that makes a world of difference. Creating a ‘flat’ or ‘fair’ tax would only make it harder to survive paycheck to paycheck.

Recent Pages by samuraishake:
Lessons I Learned From Working in Right Wing Radio Man Attacks 3 People While Screaming About Trump Kansas Judge Denied Ballot Thanks To New Voter ID Law Study: Conservative Beliefs Come From Reduced Mental Effort Study Shows Right-Wing Blogs Run By Elitists

Jump to bottom

68 comments

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:24:53am

Yeah, but you have to understand that the conservative minded individuals just can't stand the idea of having something that is actually called "A PROGRESSIVE tax system." Deep down inside they just know it has something to do with hippies and Communism...

/// ;)

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:27:22am

The national sales tax forces people, who today avoid paying taxes, to pay taxes.

Anyone who pays the national sales tax, but is below a certain earning limit can get a refund for the tax they pay. (That is done currently in Canada). For example if a person earns $13,000 in a year it is recognized that they probably spent all of it on goods and services. It would be estimated that they paid $1,000 in the sales tax, and next year they would get a government cheque for that amount (split up into two or three payments).

The flat tax rate for people who do file their taxes also picks up people who avoid paying taxes. The wealthy that have used tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate would be unable to reduce it below the standard.

The flat tax rate for corporations would pick up companies that use tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate. They would no longer be able to avoid paying tax on their profits.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:33:11am

re: #2 Buck

And what would count as income, Buck? Would a company car count as income? A health insurance program? Stock options?

Can you acknowledge that the flat tax would be a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy, or would you prefer to keep spinning?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:34:05am

The Dry Wall guy, who earns $70,000 in cash each year and doesn't file taxes... The Cab driver who pockets the cash transactions... the restaurant owner who skims cash off the top by throwing out the cash receipts...

All of that money would be taxed when they use it to purchase something.

Today it is not taxed, and it is estimated the underground economy costs all of us billions of lost taxes each year.

A millionaire buying a $170,000 car would pay more Sales Tax in that one transaction than a person who earns $50,000 would in a 3 years.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:38:01am

re: #4 Buck

All of that money would be taxed when they use it to purchase something.

What if they bought something used, or on the burgeoning black market this would create? After all, you're talking about people who are already criminally avoiding tax-- why would they suddenly not criminally avoid taxes anymore?

Vicious Babushka Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:41:46am

re: #2 Buck

The national sales tax forces people, who today avoid paying taxes, to pay taxes.

Anyone who pays the national sales tax, but is below a certain earning limit can get a refund for the tax they pay. (That is done currently in Canada). For example if a person earns $13,000 in a year it is recognized that they probably spent all of it on goods and services. It would be estimated that they paid $1,000 in the sales tax, and next year they would get a government cheque for that amount (split up into two or three payments).

The flat tax rate for people who do file their taxes also picks up people who avoid paying taxes. The wealthy that have used tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate would be unable to reduce it below the standard.

The flat tax rate for corporations would pick up companies that use tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate. They would no longer be able to avoid paying tax on their profits.

If I buy something in Canada and pay tax on it, and I take it across the border, I am entitled to get a refund on the tax I paid.

So, if it already takes an hour at the border even without making any tax refund requests from Customs, how much fricken longer will that wait at the border be if I decide to request a tax refund on the 2 cases of Perrier that I bought at Metro?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:42:17am

re: #3 Obdicut

And what would count as income, Buck? Would a company car count as income? A health insurance program? Stock options?

Each of those things had to be purchased, and when they were purchased the national sales tax would be collected.

Can you acknowledge that the flat tax would be a gigantic tax cut for the wealthy, or would you prefer to keep spinning?

I know that it feels that way to you, but experience here in Canada proved otherwise. The wealthy SPEND more... Every time they take a first class flight, or go out for an expensive dinner.....They buy expensive wine, and expensive cars.... houses. every time they spend the (after tax) money on a cleaning service for their pool. They pay a sales tax.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:43:50am

re: #2 Buck

The national sales tax forces people, who today avoid paying taxes, to pay taxes.

Anyone who pays the national sales tax, but is below a certain earning limit can get a refund for the tax they pay. (That is done currently in Canada). For example if a person earns $13,000 in a year it is recognized that they probably spent all of it on goods and services. It would be estimated that they paid $1,000 in the sales tax, and next year they would get a government cheque for that amount (split up into two or three payments).

The flat tax rate for people who do file their taxes also picks up people who avoid paying taxes. The wealthy that have used tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate would be unable to reduce it below the standard.

The flat tax rate for corporations would pick up companies that use tax shelters and other methods to reduce their tax rate. They would no longer be able to avoid paying tax on their profits.

Why not just simplify the tax code and eliminate all these special interest write-offs and loop-holes while maintaining a progressive tax standard at lower percentages? That way everyone would at least pay a little something in to the IRS on any earned income?

The national sales tax Idea is a completely bogus and entirely regressive tax in that it only taxes money spent to buy goods. Poor and lower middle class families required to spend 100% of their income week to week just to get by and pay the bills would have to pay tax on every penny they made. Those making enough money to sock some or most of it away in a bank account or investment would not have to pay a penny in tax on their savings/investments.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:44:49am

re: #6 Alouette

If I buy something in Canada and pay tax on it, and I take it across the border, I am entitled to get a refund on the tax I paid.

So, if it already takes an hour at the border even without making any tax refund requests from Customs, how much fricken longer will that wait at the border be if I decide to request a tax refund on the 2 cases of Perrier that I bought at Metro?

You do it by mail. However so many people don't. So the government gets to keep that tax income as well. It added up so much that the original estimates of how much would be collected by the 7% national sales tax were way off. They were much lower than what actually was collected. So much so that the rate has been reduced to 5%.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:47:06am

re: #8 ausador

Why not just simplify the tax code and eliminate all these special interest write-offs and loop-holes while maintaining a progressive tax standard at lower percentages? That way everyone would at least pay a little something in to the IRS on any earned income?

No, there are many in the underground economy that would still be missed.

The national sales tax Idea is a completely bogus and entirely regressive tax in that it only taxes money spent to buy goods. Poor and lower middle class families required to spend 100% of their income week to week just to get by and pay the bills would have to pay tax on every penny they made. Those making enough money to sock some or most of it away in a bank account or investment would not have to pay a penny in tax on their savings/investments.

I explained how the poor could get a refund on that tax paid. This is actually being done right now in Canada. It works.

Sooner or later the money gets spent. Yes they can save the money for a few years, but it does not spend forever in the saving account. It gets spent, and then taxed....

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:47:36am

re: #7 Buck

Ah, so someone wouldn't have to pay taxes on the income form perks. Nice-- another way for the wealthy to get ahead on this. A guy could get a $300/month car, an apartment from his company and it wouldn't count as income. Pretty sweet deal for him.

I know that it feels that way to you, but experience here in Canada proved otherwise.

You don't have a flat tax in Canada.

You have a progressive one. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:48:25am

re: #7 Buck

Are you conflating the flat tax with a national sales tax because you're confused about what you're talking about, or are you trying to be purposefully deceptive again, like you were with your defense of Ann Coulter's racist bullshit?

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:50:56am

re: #10 Buck

No, there are many in the underground economy that would still be missed.

I explained how the poor could get a refund on that tax paid. This is actually being done right now in Canada. It works.

So the poor would possibly get a refund in several installment payments stretched out over months the following year, but the wealthy still would not have to pay anything?

Gee you make it sound so entirely fair and equitable Buck...NOT!

wrenchwench Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:51:18am

Sales taxes are the most expensive to collect, and the easiest to cheat on. Not by the buyer who pays it, but by the millions of merchants who are supposed to collect it and turn it in.

Buck, you're an idiot.

Sorry for the ad hominem, but you prove it every time you pick a topic to comment on.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:54:07am

re: #12 Obdicut

Are you conflating the flat tax with a national sales tax because you're confused about what you're talking about, or are you trying to be purposefully deceptive again, like you were with your defense of Ann Coulter's racist bullshit?

I don't think I am conflating anything. I am discussing more than one thing at a time. I was clear that I was talking about a flat sales tax AND a flat federal income tax, AND a flat corporate tax.

Yes, I am using the Canadian national sales tax to explain how it does NOT hurt lower income people, and how it brings in previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters.

All in the topic. Bringing up you opinion in contrast to mine on Anne Coulter is certainly trying to change the subject and confuse the issue.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:54:50am

re: #13 ausador

So the poor would possibly get a refund in several installment payments stretched out over months the following year, but the wealthy still would not have to pay anything?

Gee you make it sound so entirely fair and equitable Buck...NOT!

How do you get "but the wealthy still would not have to pay anything?" from what I said?

Simply Sarah Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:57:52am

re: #15 Buck

I don't think I am conflating anything. I am discussing more than one thing at a time. I was clear that I was talking about a flat sales tax AND a flat federal income tax, AND a flat corporate tax.

Yes, I am using the Canadian national sales tax to explain how it does NOT hurt lower income people, and how it brings in previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters.

All in the topic. Bringing up you opinion in contrast to mine on Anne Coulter is certainly trying to change the subject and confuse the issue.

So, you're claiming to demonstrate that the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Canadian tax system shows that the infinitely more regressive flat tax concepts being proposed in the U.S. aren't, well, regressive. Right, good luck with that.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 11:58:55am

re: #15 Buck

Are things like rent and medical services included in that sales tax, Buck?

Can you acknowledge that a flat tax on income would be a gigantic tax break for the wealthy, or do you want to keep pathetically, obviously dodging?

I'm bringing up the Coulter thing to remind you that your attempts at deception are pretty well-known, so you should try for honesty. I'm not expecting you to actually do so, of course. It's not your style.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:02:25pm

re: #18 Obdicut

Are things like rent and medical services included in that sales tax, Buck?

Can you acknowledge that a flat tax on income would be a gigantic tax break for the wealthy, or do you want to keep pathetically, obviously dodging?

I am not dodging, I answered both very clearly.

I was not deceptive, you confuse disagreeing with you with deception. Again, you are changing the subject.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:03:05pm

re: #17 Simply Sarah

So, you're claiming to demonstrate that the COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Canadian tax system shows that the infinitely more regressive flat tax concepts being proposed in the U.S. aren't, well, regressive. Right, good luck with that.

No that isn't what I am doing at all.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:04:54pm

re: #16 Buck

How do you get "but the wealthy still would not have to pay anything?" from what I said?

Excuse me, let me be much more specific. The wealthy would still not have to pay anything in National sales tax on any money not spent to buy actual goods in that calender tax year, correct?

So the poor have to pay a flat tax with no deductions on every cent they earn, then pay a national sales tax on every cent they spend. The wealthy would have to pay the same tax as the poor on every cent they earned, but then only have to pay the sales tax on the tiny percentage of their income that was actually spent on goods instead of being banked or invested. Is this not correct also?

Look up the definition of "Regressive" taxation...because this is what they mean.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:05:43pm

re: #19 Buck

I am not dodging, I answered both very clearly.

Point out where you answered the question of whether a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

You didn't. You instead answered that question about the sales tax, thus dodging the need to admit that the flat income tax would be a huge tax break for the wealthy.

Obvious, and transparent, and pathetic.

Simply Sarah Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:08:10pm

re: #20 Buck

No that isn't what I am doing at all.

You're saying how great it works in Canada, as if to use that to justify things, when Canada isn't even close to being like that (Yet). But really, I'm not going to spend any more time bothering with you. You're dishonest and evasive, as always.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:10:19pm

re: #21 ausador

Excuse me, let me be much more specific. The wealthy would still not have to pay anything in National sales tax on any money not spent to buy actual goods in that calender tax year, correct?

So the poor have to pay a flat tax with no deductions on every cent they earn, then pay a national sales tax on every cent they spend. The wealthy would have to pay the same tax as the poor on every cent they earned, but then only have to pay the sales tax on the tiny percentage of their income that was actually spent on goods instead of being banked or invested. Is this not correct also?

Look up the definition of "Regressive" taxation...because this is what they mean.

My point is that you are wrong in your underlying assumption that the wealthy spend only a "tiny percentage of their income" on goods and services. The money they earn does get spent. First it gets taxed at the source and then taxed again as it is spent.

jaunte Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:11:25pm

Robert Justich, a managing director of Bear Stearns (along with WND, FrontPageMag, Michelle Malkin and Rense) is very concerned about Drywall guy and the underground economy.
[Link: www.google.com...]

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:13:08pm

re: #22 Obdicut

Point out where you answered the question of whether a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

I said:

I know that it feels that way to you, but experience here in Canada proved otherwise. The wealthy SPEND more... Every time they take a first class flight, or go out for an expensive dinner...They buy expensive wine, and expensive cars... houses. every time they spend the (after tax) money on a cleaning service for their pool. They pay a sales tax.

You clearly are separating the taxes, I am discussing them as a group. Once again you are trying to change the subject.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:14:53pm

re: #26 Buck

You clearly are separating the taxes, I am discussing them as a group.

Can you please admit that a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

Or are you really so committed to your deception you can't even bring yourself to do that?

How on earth can you claim to be treating them as a group, when you're talking about Canada's national sales tax-- which is twinned with a progressive income tax, NOT a flat sales tax?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:17:01pm

re: #25 jaunte

Robert Justich, a managing director of Bear Stearns (along with WND, FrontPageMag, Michelle Malkin and Rense) is very concerned about Drywall guy and the underground economy.

Yes.

Tomorrow I could become an illegal alien in the USA. I own a house, and could move there. I would live almost completely tax free. Certainly no income tax. I would pay a little in property tax, and maybe some state sales tax.

A National sales tax would mean I would pay .... a form of federal tax. In the form of a consumption tax.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:17:58pm

re: #28 Buck

If you're such a tax-avoiding cheat, why wouldn't you buy things used, or on the black market?

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:18:22pm

re: #24 Buck

My point is that you are wrong in your underlying assumption that the wealthy spend only a "tiny percentage of their income" on goods and services. The money they earn does get spent. First it gets taxed at the source and then taxed again as it is spent.

If they spent it all every year then they wouldn't be "wealthy" now would they?

"Res ipsa Loquitur"
("The thing speaks for itself", or more commonly in this day and age... DUH?!)

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:19:05pm

re: #27 Obdicut

Can you please admit that a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

Or are you really so committed to your deception you can't even bring yourself to do that?

How on earth can you claim to be treating them as a group, when you're talking about Canada's national sales tax-- which is twinned with a progressive income tax, NOT a flat sales tax?

I am using the Canadian national sales tax to explain how it does NOT hurt lower income people, and how it brings in previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters. I am using that as a working example. I didn't think it forces me not to discuss "twining" it with a flat income tax.

jaunte Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:20:15pm

Herman Cain's apples and oranges have made an appearance.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:21:57pm

re: #31 Buck

Can you please admit that a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

Or are you really so committed to your deception you can't even bring yourself to do that?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:22:05pm

re: #30 ausador

If they spent it all every year then they wouldn't be "wealthy" now would they?

"Res ipsa Loquitur"
("The thing speaks for itself", or more commonly in this day and age... DUH?!)

Really? Are you so sure about that? When they buy an expensive car and house they are less wealthy? When they go skiing by taking a private jet, you think they are less wealthy?

Their golf club membership makes them less wealthy?

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:23:29pm

re: #34 Buck

Really? Are you so sure about that? When they buy an expensive car and house they are less wealthy? When they go skiing by taking a private jet, you think they are less wealthy?

Their golf club membership makes them less wealthy?

Hey-- maybe you're not being a completely transparent defender of the ultra-wealthy. Stock is something you buy, right? Are you proposing having the sales tax apply to stock, too?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:23:52pm

re: #33 Obdicut

Can you please admit that a flat tax on income would result in a huge tax break for the wealthy?

Or are you really so committed to your deception you can't even bring yourself to do that?

I explained that twice now. You can try and separate my points into separate ideas if you want. That is not what I am doing.

I am saying that the flat income tax should have the national sales tax to balance it. That is my point.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:26:24pm

re: #35 Obdicut

Hey-- maybe you're not being a completely transparent defender of the ultra-wealthy. Stock is something you buy, right? Are you proposing having the sales tax apply to stock, too?

You and I disagree on what stock is. I say it is money, and that I will spend that money. I spend it on things that I pay the national sales tax on.

It adds up...

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:26:54pm

re: #36 Buck

I explained that twice now. You can try and separate my points into separate ideas if you want. That is not what I am doing.

No, you haven't. You've dodged it, to avoid having to admit that it would be a massive tax break on the wealthy. Do you really think anyone here is so stupid that they can't see that?

I am saying that the flat income tax should have the national sales tax to balance it. That is my point.

Why are you assuming that the wealthy spent an equivalent amount of their discretionary income as normal people?

Can you answer any of the numerous questions you've dodged?

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:28:01pm

re: #37 Buck

Stock is not money. You cannot use stock to purchase anything. This is one of your more obvious lies.

I'm happy with the extent you've been forced to cover yourself with shame with obvious, transparent lies. You're now down to "stock is money". I have a $20 bill in my pocket. I have shares of EA stock. They are different. Saying stock is money is like saying my shoe is money, because I could sell my shoe for money.

Pathetic. Just goddamn pathetic.

Romantic Heretic Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:29:21pm

re: #15 Buck

I don't think I am conflating anything. I am discussing more than one thing at a time. I was clear that I was talking about a flat sales tax AND a flat federal income tax, AND a flat corporate tax.

Yes, I am using the Canadian national sales tax to explain how it does NOT hurt lower income people, and how it brings in previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters.

All in the topic. Bringing up you opinion in contrast to mine on Anne Coulter is certainly trying to change the subject and confuse the issue.

Um, as someone on a disability pension I can tell you that 13% hurts a lot. I pay it because taxes are what it costs to have a society as fair and civil as Canada's.

But it doesn't make things any fairer and it sure as hell doesn't collect 'previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters.'

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:30:23pm

re: #39 Obdicut

Stock is not money. You cannot use stock to purchase anything. This is one of your more obvious lies.

I'm happy with the extent you've been forced to cover yourself with shame with obvious, transparent lies. You're now down to "stock is money". I have a $20 bill in my pocket. I have shares of EA stock. They are different. Saying stock is money is like saying my shoe is money, because I could sell my shoe for money.

Pathetic. Just goddamn pathetic.

It's ok, I don't think he will be winning any converts to his warped sense of financial "equality" with this thread. ;)

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:31:51pm

re: #41 ausador

It's ok, I don't think he will be winning any converts to his warped sense of financial "equality" with this thread. ;)

It's seriously the dumbest argument I've ever run into. Stock is money. What the hell. Who the hell would believe that crap?

jaunte Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:33:48pm

According to Fairtax.org:

The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:39:09pm

I don't think I have dodged any questions.

I explained that it has been the experience here in Canada that EVERYONE spends the bulk of the money they earn. Sooner or later, even the wealthy.

I buy and sell stock to earn money, which I spend. I was trying to say that buying a stock is just converting one financial instrument into another. You are taxed on the profit, not the actual conversion. Like buying a bond, or putting money into a savings account. You only pay tax when you withdraw it and spend it.

Obdicut Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:39:33pm

re: #43 jaunte

A lot of people who support the Fairtax don't realize it would affect rent and services, like doctors bills, school fees, etc.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:43:51pm

A February 2005 report, California's Tax Gap, prepared by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, estimates California's underground economy costs the state $6.5 billion a year.

That is just California.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:46:34pm

re: #40 Romantic Heretic

it sure as hell doesn't collect 'previously uncollected government income from the income tax cheaters.'

It actually does. I explained how people who would avoid paying income tax still have to buy goods and services and pay tax on that.

Um, as someone on a disability pension I can tell you that 13% hurts a lot. I pay it because taxes are what it costs to have a society as fair and civil as Canada's.

I am sorry if it is too personal, but do you get a GST rebate?

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:50:59pm

re: #44 Buck

I don't think I have dodged any questions.

I explained that it has been the experience here in Canada that EVERYONE spends the bulk of the money they earn. Sooner or later, even the wealthy.

I buy and sell stock to earn money, which I spend. I was trying to say that buying a stock is just converting one financial instrument into another. You are taxed on the profit, not the actual conversion. Like buying a bond, or putting money into a savings account. You only pay tax when you withdraw it and spend it.

Ahh, but there in lies the rub...

Here in America the schemes to get a Flat tax/Fair Tax enacted would all do away completely with the capital gains tax. So you would not be taxed on the profit of your investment when you sold your stock, not one penny, you would pay sales tax (providing a federal sales tax was enacted which is pretty much only a pipe dream at this point) only on the dollars that you actually spent. Those dollars that you saved (in a mattress, in a bank, in new investments) would be completely tax free.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:51:58pm

re: #45 Obdicut

A lot of people who support the Fairtax don't realize it would affect rent and services, like doctors bills, school fees, etc.

Right, but I am pointing out that those additional taxes would be offset by the lower income tax.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:52:07pm

re: #46 Buck

A February 2005 report, California's Tax Gap, prepared by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, estimates California's underground economy costs the state $6.5 billion a year.

That is just California.

You do realize that about 4 billion of that was marijuana sales don't you?

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:54:42pm

re: #50 ausador

You do realize that about 4 billion of that was marijuana sales don't you?

OK, lets say that is true. The dealer makes money on drug sales. They then spend that money on all kinds of goods and services. Today they are not taxed on that money at all. The national sales tax would mean they are taxed (yes, on the money they spend). They do spend the money....

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 12:59:32pm

re: #48 ausador

only on the dollars that you actually spent.

Again, the money is spent. The economy is driven by the wealthy spending the money.

AND no I am not saying do away with the capital gains tax. I am saying tax all earnings the same. So at the end of the year I can add up how much money I made in stock buying and selling, and then I pay tax on that. I pay tax again on the money I made when I consume.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:00:39pm

re: #49 Buck

Right, but I am pointing out that those additional taxes would be offset by the lower income tax.

What lower income tax? People who rent are (mostly) already in the brackets where they pay next to nothing. You want to "cut" their theoretical current income tax by removing all their exemptions and write-offs and thereby actually make them pay more and then just to add insult to injury force them to pay a national sales tax too!

Make no mistake Buck, the plans currently being touted in America will cause everyone to pay more than they already do, except for the top 5% that is...

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:03:39pm

re: #53 ausador

Again, I argue that your assumption is wrong. " People who rent are (mostly) already in the brackets where they pay next to nothing." That is simply not true. For those who are in that bracket, I explained in #2 that below a certain earning limit people would get a refund for the tax they paid on rent or whatever.

jaunte Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:05:41pm

From IRS publication FS-2005-14, "Understanding the Tax Gap."
Image: Screen_shot_2011-11-04_at_2.58.20_PM.png

Under-reporting noncompliance is the largest component of the tax gap. In other words, non-filing illegals don't have much to do with the gap caused mainly by taxpayers who are clever enough to cheat on their income, deductions, expenses and credits.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:13:04pm

re: #55 jaunte

the gap caused mainly by taxpayers who are clever enough to cheat on their income, deductions, expenses and credits.

Yes, I said that.

re: #2 Buck

The national sales tax forces people, who today avoid paying taxes, to pay taxes.

re: #4 Buck

The Dry Wall guy, who earns $70,000 in cash each year and doesn't file taxes... The Cab driver who pockets the cash transactions... the restaurant owner who skims cash off the top by throwing out the cash receipts...

All of that money would be taxed when they use it to purchase something.

Under-reporting noncompliance! Just like I am saying.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:15:27pm

re: #52 Buck

Again, the money is spent. The economy is driven by the wealthy spending the money.

AND no I am not saying do away with the capital gains tax. I am saying tax all earnings the same. So at the end of the year I can add up how much money I made in stock buying and selling, and then I pay tax on that. I pay tax again on the money I made when I consume.

No the money is not all effing spent! If it was spent then they wouldn't have tens of millions (or billions for a select few hundred people) in the bank. What your saying is an outright lie and you know it is. I have better things to do than talk to dishonest liars, see ya later Buck.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:17:04pm

re: #57 ausador

No the money is not all effing spent! If it was spent then they wouldn't have tens of millions (or billions for a select few hundred people) in the bank. What your saying is an outright lie and you know it is. I have better things to do than talk to dishonest liars, see ya later Buck.

Not spent immediately, but it is spent. Saving for something... that something is money you will spend.

Sooner or later... it is spent.

Vicious Babushka Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:47:23pm

re: #44 Buck

I don't think I have dodged any questions.

I explained that it has been the experience here in Canada that EVERYONE spends the bulk of the money they earn. Sooner or later, even the wealthy.

I buy and sell stock to earn money, which I spend. I was trying to say that buying a stock is just converting one financial instrument into another. You are taxed on the profit, not the actual conversion. Like buying a bond, or putting money into a savings account. You only pay tax when you withdraw it and spend it.

Wealthy people most certainly DO NOT live paycheck to paycheck or even dividend check to dividend check. Not even in Canada.

Buck Fri, Nov 4, 2011 1:57:34pm

re: #59 Alouette

Wealthy people most certainly DO NOT live paycheck to paycheck or even dividend check to dividend check. Not even in Canada.

I didn't say that they did. I said that the money does get spent, sooner or later.

watching you tiny alien kittens are Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:26:28pm

re: #60 Buck

I didn't say that they did. I said that the money does get spent, sooner or later.

What? two hundred years later when the last of their degenerate inbred heirs turns into a junkie and spends it on Oxycontin? Fat lot of good that does the indebted tax base now.

But since you know that already and your only trolling for reactions from the members here how is this for one (especially since you already told me to fuck off in the mainpage thread)...

Perhaps if you took some time off from your obsessive self digital anal penetration and spent that time attempting to educate yourself on history, government, and financial matters you might not come across as such a clueless uneducated buffoon. You also would not be smearing shit stains all over your keyboard every time you try to type something.

andres Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:38:55pm

re: #4 Buck

The Dry Wall guy, who earns $70,000 in cash each year and doesn't file taxes... The Cab driver who pockets the cash transactions... the restaurant owner who skims cash off the top by throwing out the cash receipts...

You realize that, if you know someone committing a felony, you are guilty concealing it, even if you don't get a penny from them, right?

Renaissance_Man Fri, Nov 4, 2011 2:58:57pm

re: #52 Buck

Again, the money is spent. The economy is driven by the wealthy spending the money.

Utter rubbish. Trickle down economics has been demonstrably proven to be a complete fraud, as you would know if you paid attention to the fact that as wealth has become more and more concentrated, the economy has slowed. The wealthy invest vastly out of proportion to their spending. That money percolates - it does not keep an economy humming.

What drives an economy are billions of small transactions. Lots of little expenditures, little sales. In other words, what happened in the US in the mid 90s, when there was a middle class tax cut, and the middle and lower classes had spending money to make these little transactions. It is not a coincidence that as more and more people control less and less wealth, the economy slows.

Spocomptonite Fri, Nov 4, 2011 3:00:29pm

Can I just point out the irony of Buck here being in Canada which has a so much more progressive taxation AND expenditure system than the U.S. does, while I live here in a state that gets over half its revenue from sales taxes alone?

Buck, I'll trade you places. You win, I win.

Buck Sat, Nov 5, 2011 9:35:57pm

re: #63 Renaissance_Man

Trickle down economics is not what I am talking about. You took a long detour to explain how wrong someone who IS talking about Trickle down economics would be, when NO ONE was talking about Trickle down economics .
I am talking about a consumption tax. Which is not even close to the same thing.

Buck Sat, Nov 5, 2011 9:41:20pm

re: #62 andres

You realize that, if you know someone committing a felony, you are guilty concealing it, even if you don't get a penny from them, right?

What? I saw a room full of Congressman who all seemed to know Charlie Rangel....I wonder if they know they are guilty.

Buck Sat, Nov 5, 2011 9:45:07pm

re: #64 Spocomptonite

Buck, I'll trade you places. You win, I win.

Hmm maybe.... you got anything to trade? Own a house? Own a car? What state is that?

I am looking to make a change.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) Sun, Nov 6, 2011 4:00:35am

re: #58 Buck

Not spent immediately, but it is spent. Saving for something... that something is money you will spend.

Sooner or later... it is spent.

Do you understand that saving is not neccessarily saving for a purchase at a later date? Do you understand that opportunity costs for holding cash can be perceived to be at a nadir, particularly during a deflationary crisis? Do you understand that saving can be simply the most prudent method of avoiding bankruptcy instead of foregoing present consumption for future consumption?

See also [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!