fairtax, the only way to go.

maquiscat · Feb 18, 2011

haymarket said:
5- rates would be progressively structured with a series of different rates reflecting the differences between different levels of income. While I do NOT have a detailed chart worked out for you, I can say that I would see a whole lot more than brackets than just two or three. I could see bracket for the poor at 1% and then scaled up from there until we talk about individuals with incomes of $100 million or more per year where the rates would approach perhaps 67%.

See here is where I am having the problem with your tax view, aside from the fact that it is an income tax and not based on consumption/wealth. You would have an income tax as high as 67% but on top of all that you would then add in the taxes that feed into the FICA and Medicare systems (These are additional taxes, not income tax on payments out from these systems, which you seemed to think was what I was asking about before). So an individual's tax liability could be as high as 75% or more!

haymarket · Feb 19, 2011

maquiscat said:
See here is where I am having the problem with your tax view, aside from the fact that it is an income tax and not based on consumption/wealth. You would have an income tax as high as 67% but on top of all that you would then add in the taxes that feed into the FICA and Medicare systems (These are additional taxes, not income tax on payments out from these systems, which you seemed to think was what I was asking about before). So an individual's tax liability could be as high as 75% or more!

Only for the very wealthiest in our society. That is still much better than the rates that we had in the Fifties and the rich managed to survive and thrive quite nicely.

TurtleDude · Feb 19, 2011

haymarket said:
Only for the very wealthiest in our society. That is still much better than the rates that we had in the Fifties and the rich managed to survive and thrive quite nicely.

again you confuse effective rates with top marginal rates and your attitude that the rich should pay more and more is nothing more than an envy based spite on your part.

we need a tax system that curtails more government-not encourages it

haymarket · Feb 19, 2011

TurtleDude said:
again you confuse effective rates with top marginal rates and your attitude that the rich should pay more and more is nothing more than an envy based spite on your part.

we need a tax system that curtails more government-not encourages it

If you had to give me a dollar for every time you claimed this and then FAILED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THOSE EFFECTIVE RATES, I could eat steak and lobster tonight along with three or four very nice drinks and it would be on you.

But then what else is new? You hate evidence like the plague. You never present independent authoritative verifiable evidence of your boasts. Its just your belief system talking. When I tell you about the Ohio estate Tax - I gave you the law on it. You provide zip, nothing, bupkus. Maybe you can turn over a new leaf today and start presenting actual evidence instead of just your boast, claims, beliefs, wishes and hopes.

imagep · Feb 19, 2011

maquiscat said:
Wow a little quicker than I expected. Didn't realize you were currently on.

Again, rewording as to ensure understanding.

I am paying my $160 in income tax (I averaged the range) and then I would pay say an additional $60 FICA and an additional $25 Medicare tax for a grand total of $245 in taxes on my income?

Assuming that I am correct in my reading, would it not be better to just make that all one income tax?

I tend to agree with that. It would be much more simple that it is now. Part of the reason that we have a progressive income tax is because many other taxes are relatively regressive. So it's a trade off. Having a flat tax instead of several different taxes on income would tend to have the same ultimate effect, but would be much easier for individuals and employers and even the IRS to deal with.

Of course, along the same lines, I believe that we should tax all income, regardless of it's source, at the same rate. Otherwise we still wouldn't have a simple flat tax that could be filled out on a postcard. But few flat taxer's would agree increasing taxes on inheritance or capital gains to the same rate as income taxes - just another example of the wealthy waging class warfare.

I have heard self proclaimed experts to suggest that the 18% tax rate is ideal. Supposedly that is the revenue maximizing rate that the government tends to collect regardless of what particular tax scheme we have. If thats true, then I am all for a flat tax rate of 18%. I would still prefer a government that is so small that it could be operated solely on a substantial death tax since that type of tax tends to be less harmful to our economy and postpones taxes on money that people earn until after the point that money can improve their lives.

TurtleDude · Feb 20, 2011

haymarket said:
If you had to give me a dollar for every time you claimed this and then FAILED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THOSE EFFECTIVE RATES, I could eat steak and lobster tonight along with three or four very nice drinks and it would be on you.

But then what else is new? You hate evidence like the plague. You never present independent authoritative verifiable evidence of your boasts. Its just your belief system talking. When I tell you about the Ohio estate Tax - I gave you the law on it. You provide zip, nothing, bupkus. Maybe you can turn over a new leaf today and start presenting actual evidence instead of just your boast, claims, beliefs, wishes and hopes.

when you constantly post stupidity based on the highest marginal rates to claim that the rich currently are not taxed enough I will note how stupid that claim is

TurtleDude · Feb 20, 2011

imagep said:
I tend to agree with that. It would be much more simple that it is now. Part of the reason that we have a progressive income tax is because many other taxes are relatively regressive. So it's a trade off. Having a flat tax instead of several different taxes on income would tend to have the same ultimate effect, but would be much easier for individuals and employers and even the IRS to deal with.

Of course, along the same lines, I believe that we should tax all income, regardless of it's source, at the same rate. Otherwise we still wouldn't have a simple flat tax that could be filled out on a postcard. But few flat taxer's would agree increasing taxes on inheritance or capital gains to the same rate as income taxes - just another example of the wealthy waging class warfare.

I have heard self proclaimed experts to suggest that the 18% tax rate is ideal. Supposedly that is the revenue maximizing rate that the government tends to collect regardless of what particular tax scheme we have. If thats true, then I am all for a flat tax rate of 18%. I would still prefer a government that is so small that it could be operated solely on a substantial death tax since that type of tax tends to be less harmful to our economy and postpones taxes on money that people earn until after the point that money can improve their lives.

you do understand that dividends are taxed twice?

haymarket · Feb 20, 2011

TurtleDude said:
when you constantly post stupidity based on the highest marginal rates to claim that the rich currently are not taxed enough I will note how stupid that claim is

Why do you call me stupid and call my post stupid when all I do is what any other poster would do - ask you for evidence to back up a claim you have repeatedly made but never ever substantiates it with evidence?

You repeatedly have talked about effective tax rates but have NEVER provided any actual evidence of what those supposed rates were.

CriticalThought · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
its an obvious starting point

its the way nature and society has been for eons.

it also imposes no costs of people who have no role in your situation

How about a universsal property tax then? The more space you use the more you should pay, right?

maquiscat · Feb 21, 2011

imagep said:
I would still prefer a government that is so small that it could be operated solely on a substantial death tax since that type of tax tends to be less harmful to our economy and postpones taxes on money that people earn until after the point that money can improve their lives.

Would you please define "death tax" in your contet here? Also is there a difference between a death tax and an inheritance tax?

maquiscat · Feb 21, 2011

CriticalThought said:
How about a universsal property tax then? The more space you use the more you should pay, right?

Don't we already have this? Or are you saying to have a federal property tax as well as a state property tax?

haymarker, I note that you constantly talk about taxing the wealthy. However, income does not equal wealth. I could win Powerball, pay my large taxes that year, put it all in escrow, quit my job and then never pay income based taxes ever again. How is that taxing me being wealthy? Meanwhile any state with income tax, whether I live there or not, still gets taxes out of me.

haymarket · Feb 21, 2011

maquiscat said:
Don't we already have this? Or are you saying to have a federal property tax as well as a state property tax?

haymarker, I note that you constantly talk about taxing the wealthy. However, income does not equal wealth. I could win Powerball, pay my large taxes that year, put it all in escrow, quit my job and then never pay income based taxes ever again. How is that taxing me being wealthy? Meanwhile any state with income tax, whether I live there or not, still gets taxes out of me.

ALL I ask is that everyone pays their taxes. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

maquiscat · Feb 21, 2011

haymarket said:
ALL I ask is that everyone pays their taxes. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

I will grant you this one for sure. I for one have never advocated corporate welfare nor personal welfare. I think that almost all the deductions and exemptions and such are just plain silly.

In the end I think most of yours and my problems (as well as those who think like us) is not in whether or not people should pay taxes, but in what are equitable rates and the method in which they are collected.

The reasons I like the Fair Tax Act is that it reduces the tracking from all the people and all the businesses to just retail businesses. Less tracking means an easier time finding anyone fraud. It also taxes everyone straight up, since no one can escape paying retail at some point in their life, including the black market and the tourists. It encourages savings/investments which are the basis of economic growth, i.e. the capitol that is loaned/granted for business startup or growth. It places the taxes where the people can see them clearly so that the gov't (note no mentioning of one party over the other) can't play class warfare games. And it accounts for cost of living with the prebate. Add to that, that manufactures will no longer have tax component that is added to the prices of their products, which reduces the cost of the products overall, you have an incentive for business world wide to bring their manufacturing here which in turn increases employment.

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

haymarket said:
Why do you call me stupid and call my post stupid when all I do is what any other poster would do - ask you for evidence to back up a claim you have repeatedly made but never ever substantiates it with evidence?

You repeatedly have talked about effective tax rates but have NEVER provided any actual evidence of what those supposed rates were.

Where have I called you stupid

your posts often are stupid

you constantly gush adoration for higher marginal tax rates that once existed but never back up that these (which often applied only to say the current dollar equivalent of those making over 10 million while the current top rates hit those making 200K or so) confiscatory marginal rates actually meant higher effective rates for those in the top 2 percent

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

CriticalThought said:
How about a universsal property tax then? The more space you use the more you should pay, right?

a property tax has more validity than income taxes-its in the nature of a use tax

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

haymarket said:
ALL I ask is that everyone pays their taxes. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

yet you defend a system where half the population pays no income tax and 98% pays no death confiscation tax

it appears that lots of people don't pay the price the Good Justice craved

maquiscat · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
yet you defend a system where half the population pays no income tax and 98% pays no death confiscation tax

No he doesn't. Read what he says. He has repetedly stated that he wants a system where everyone pays something. While he does support a progressive income tax system, he does not support everything that the current system has. This is definatly an example of a wrong argument and one that is either intended to mislead or show a serious lack of wanting to debate on your part. You are imposing upon haymarker aspects that I would grant to the Democratic party as a whole, that he simply does not have.

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

maquiscat said:
No he doesn't. Read what he says. He has repetedly stated that he wants a system where everyone pays something. While he does support a progressive income tax system, he does not support everything that the current system has. This is definatly an example of a wrong argument and one that is either intended to mislead or show a serious lack of wanting to debate on your part. You are imposing upon haymarker aspects that I would grant to the Democratic party as a whole, that he simply does not have.

i reject your claims having been the main person haymarket spews his drivel at

he supports the current income tax system and the current estate tax system-the former means less than 60% pay taxes, the latter less than 2% pay taxes.

he claims stuff like the social security tax (which was never designed as a general revenue tax imposed irrespective of what you use) and state taxes (sales, property) are the same as the taxes many do not pay

haymarket · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
Where have I called you stupid

your posts often are stupid

you constantly gush adoration for higher marginal tax rates that once existed but never back up that these (which often applied only to say the current dollar equivalent of those making over 10 million while the current top rates hit those making 200K or so) confiscatory marginal rates actually meant higher effective rates for those in the top 2 percent

When you type a convoluted, run on sentence like this do you actually have a point in your own head that you are attempting to convey? Because it fails completely to come across.

And do you actually believe you are fooling anyone by this transparent dodge in claiming that you can call someones ideas and posts STUPID but are not saying that are STUPID? You are being disingenuous in the extreme.

And you still have never provided authoritative evidence of these so called 'effective tax rates'. So I ask again.

haymarket · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
i reject your claims having been the main person haymarket spews his drivel at

he supports the current income tax system and the current estate tax system-the former means less than 60% pay taxes, the latter less than 2% pay taxes.

he claims stuff like the social security tax (which was never designed as a general revenue tax imposed irrespective of what you use) and state taxes (sales, property) are the same as the taxes many do not pay

It would be decent if you allowed the person to speak for themselves rather than creating a Frankenstein monster version for you to attack as a strawman. But then, why start a new behavior today of all days?

It also would be decent if you did not drag me into all your posts and spoke to the person who made it.

Thanks to Maquiscat for pointing out to you that I am on record as saying that all income earners should pay an income tax. You continue to lie about this every chance you get.

haymarket · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
a property tax has more validity than income taxes-its in the nature of a use tax

A property tax is as regressive and as unfair as they come. Just look at you and me. You have stated that you pay about $6,000 for 26 acres of property. I live on less than one acre and pay nearly 5/6ths of that. My latest bill saw an increase from $4,500 to now $5,000.00. Pretty soon, I will be paying what you pay for 32 times the property I own.

You are simply not paying your fair share and are not a net property tax payer. (that last part is sarcasm but it does hit the nail upon the head)

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

haymarket said:
A property tax is as regressive and as unfair as they come. Just look at you and me. You have stated that you pay about $6,000 for 26 acres of property. I live on less than one acre and pay nearly 5/6ths of that. My latest bill saw an increase from $4,500 to now $5,000.00. Pretty soon, I will be paying what you pay for 32 times the property I own.

You are simply not paying your fair share and are not a net property tax payer. (that last part is sarcasm but it does hit the nail upon the head)

how is it unfair when the biggest property holders often have no children in public shools

and you confuse local tax issues as usual

My child has never used public schools-nor have i so again you are wrong

and since I pay more in taxes each year than your property is worth what are you pissing and moaning about?

haymarket · Feb 21, 2011

from turtle

how is it unfair when the biggest property holders often have no children in public shools

You labor under the false assumption that the purpose of the local school district is to educate your own children. The purpose of the local school district is to further an educated community. As a member of the community, you benefit greatly from that regardless of how many children you may or may not have or where they are educated.

and you confuse local tax issues as usual

I am not confusing anything of the kind. I know the three levels of government. I also know what a tax is.

My child has never used public schools-nor have i so again you are wrong

As it has already been explained to you, what your child does is irrelevant to the topic.

and since I pay more in taxes each year than your property is worth what are you pissing and moaning about?

What you pay in taxes is immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion. You have no idea what my property is worth which renders your boast ridiculous.

TurtleDude · Feb 21, 2011

haymarket said:
from turtle

You labor under the false assumption that the purpose of the local school district is to educate your own children. The purpose of the local school district is to further an educated community. As a member of the community, you benefit greatly from that regardless of how many children you may or may not have or where they are educated.

I am not confusing anything of the kind. I know the three levels of government. I also know what a tax is.

As it has already been explained to you, what your child does is irrelevant to the topic.

What you pay in taxes is immaterial and irrelevant to the discussion. You have no idea what my property is worth which renders your boast ridiculous.

more envy and spite hidden by self righteous nonsense

you have no idea of what my property is worth but it is YOU who started whining about a facade like this

but I pay over 300K alone in year in federal taxes and when you add state and local taxes etc that means I pay close to half a million a year in taxes and I doubt you have a home worth that

so stop whining I subsidize hundreds of people

liblady · Feb 21, 2011

TurtleDude said:
more envy and spite hidden by self righteous nonsense

you have no idea of what my property is worth but it is YOU who started whining about a facade like this

but I pay over 300K alone in year in federal taxes and when you add state and local taxes etc that means I pay close to half a million a year in taxes and I doubt you have a home worth that

so stop whining I subsidize hundreds of people

it seems money doesn't buy class.

fairtax, the only way to go.

Maquis Admiral

warrior of the wetlands

Villiage Idiot

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Maquis Admiral

Maquis Admiral

Maquis Admiral

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Maquis Admiral

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

pirate lover