View Poll Results: Which do you prefer:

Voters
197. You may not vote on this poll
  • Income tax - no changes in the status quo

    39 19.80%
  • Flat tax - Everyone pays the same %

    67 34.01%
  • National sales tax - don't spend, you don't pay taxes

    47 23.86%
  • No tax - Unconstitutional - rely on private donations

    10 5.08%
  • Other - explain

    21 10.66%
  • Cookies!

    13 6.60%
Page 16 of 90 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 899

Thread: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

  1. #151
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    That's pretty damning. We spend too goddamn much money.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    This is your guy from the NYT. A liberal hack it would appear

    Robert S. McIntyre’s “Fuzzy Math” | Cato @ Liberty

  3. #153
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post

    That's pretty damning. We spend too goddamn much money.
    We do spend too much money.. but that's a separate issue than This strings METHOD of collecting it.

    As I said, people are imaging/DREAMING some "15%" as the natl sales tax.
    Again, this option is meaningless without a Real number.

    Put 57% federal and 7% state sales tax and you got 64%. The economy moves Underground/cash.. which forces the rate even higher.

    It's higher yet if you want to Exclude Food and medicine etc.

    'Fairytax' also Incudes RENT! Yes can you imagine paying 50% more on Rent alone.

    Anyone here live in NYC, Boston, SF, LA, etc? 50% more. Or Even at their claimed 30%?
    Same for summer rentals ectc.
    Who's going to be able to save up for a new house (also +30%) with these Rental rates/taxes.

    Medical too.. 50% on a few Hundred Thousand for Heart Surgery/Kidney/Chemo anyone?

    Prescriptions? Medical Insurance? Auto Insurance?
    NO, NOT exempt.

    As the WSJ article/Joint congressional committe on taxation, US treasury, says.... it's 64% Federal alone if you tax just what states do now... exempting medical and food, etc.

    -
    Last edited by mbig; 01-08-10 at 09:23 PM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  4. #154
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    It appears Bruce Bartlett has turned from being part of the GOP to being a liberal. You have only shown that the liberals don't like it.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett]Bruce Bartlett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


    Since 1993, Bartlett had been affiliated with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank based in Dallas, Texas. In 2005 he was fired by the NCPA for his outspoken criticism of President George W. Bush.[2]

    Since 1995, he has written a newspaper column for Creators Syndicate, based in Los Angeles, and written extensively for many newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune magazine, and Commentary magazine. He currently blogs at Capital Gains and Games

    In 2006, he published Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (ISBN 0-385-51827-7), which is critical of the Bush Administration's economic policies as departing from traditional conservative principles. He compared the second Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."[3]

    In an August 2007 The Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bartlett criticized the FairTax proposal as misleading and unlikely to simplify taxpaying.[4] Bartlett was especially critical of what he states are FairTax's accounting tricks in rate calculation and proponent claims that "real investment spending would rise 76%" if their plan were adopted.[4] A sponsor of the plan, Representative John Linder acknowledged Bartlett's point that the Church of Scientology had proposed a national sales tax, but said that the FairTax movement was independent of the Church of Scientology and Bartlett had confused them with the Scientology-affiliated Citizens for an Alternative Tax System.[5] Other sponsors of the plan were critical of Bartlett's article claiming he used "red herrings" and provided false information on the plan and research.[6][7] In September 2007, Bartlett wrote an article for The New Republic,[8] where he continued his criticism of the FairTax, including his claim that the FairTax/national sales tax has its origins with the Church of Scientology. Bartlett restated information about the bill ("prebate" distribution method, i.e., rebate in advance) and what is included in the rate studies (prebate and government) that the plan's proponents have disputed and claim are false.[9]

    In August 2009, Bartlett wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in which he attributed the recession of 2009 to George Bush and Republicans, whose policies he claimed resulted in an inferior record of economic performance to those of President Clinton.[10] In the same editorial, Bartlett wrote that instead of enacting meaningful healthcare reform, President Bush pushed through a costly Medicare drug plan by personally exerting pressure on reluctant conservatives to vote for the program. Bartlett claimed that because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan and that "[b]y not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan."[11] Bartlett concluded:

    "Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting."[12]

    In Bartlett's latest book, The New American Economy:The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, he rejects the free-market, embracing Keynesianism, while disparaging the idea that economics is a science, but rather is subjectively helpful or harmful based on contemporary conditions. This is some people's interpretation of the book. But since Keynesianism doesn't reject the free-market, others would argue that Bartlett is simply reflecting the consensus view of how the economy works under depression conditions.
    [edit]

  5. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    That the authors are liberal doesn't make their analysis wrong or under suspicion. A rate of 50% will create a black market.

    The problem is that we spend too much money at the federal level. We ought to shift all entitlement programs to the states. That would cut the federal budget by more than half.

  6. #156
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    We know who's taxes will go down (with a National sales tax).
    Buffett's will drop a Billion alone as his spending is Neglible compared to his income.
    Goldman Sachs/Disney/GE CEOs.. all WAY down as these people spend very little of their income to live.
    Their Taxes will go from 38% to 3.8% and someone is going to pay for that.

    Who do y'all thinlk that will be?
    Do y'all think you are frugal and will buy less [enough] to lower yo taxes and make "Them" pay?
    Exactly right mbig!

    Since lower income families spend almost every penny they earn on subsistence items, they would pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    That the authors are liberal doesn't make their analysis wrong or under suspicion. A rate of 50% will create a black market.

    The problem is that we spend too much money at the federal level. We ought to shift all entitlement programs to the states. That would cut the federal budget by more than half.
    Can't do that the states don't have the money and can't run a deficit like the feds.
    We could get rid of some of the entitlement programs if Obama ever lets the economy recover.
    I would dispute those figures. One is a liberal that will not acknowledge it as good because it comes from the GOP. The other seems to be disgruntled by the party he used to work for.

    It seems Bartlett was confusing 2 different tax plans as the same thing.
    Last edited by ptif219; 01-08-10 at 09:29 PM.

  8. #158
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Guess who became president in 1980, and what he did?
    Yea, and there were 8 years in the middle with a Democratic president. What's your point?

    Can you say Reagan and his drastic tax cuts for the rich? Bush continued with further tax cuts for the rich.

    "From 2003 to 2005, the average household income of the top 1 percent grew at a much faster rate than the the four lowest quintiles."
    Why just look at that 2 year period? The link I provided has data for the past 27 years. As I showed above, income inequality between the richest 1% and the poorest 50% grew approximately five times faster under Clinton than under Bush.

    I know that's not what you want to hear, because it's not what you think is true in your heart of hearts, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

    "Few economists would dispute that US society is becoming increasingly unequal. National income is being redistributed away from the majority earning the least to the privileged owners and controllers of capital. Legislative policies authored by and for the super-rich have, over the last 25 years, led to the systematic transfer of tax burden off the richest 5% onto working people.
    And never was it as dramatic as under Clinton.

    President Bush makes no bones about whose interests he represents, hence his statement at a dinner fundraiser of the rich and wealthy… ‘"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."
    It’s growing: the gap between rich and poor


    That was a joke he made at the Al Smith Dinner, which is where political leaders traditionally poke fun at themselves. Here's McCain and Obama doing the same thing in 08:

    Obama and McCain Yuk it Up at Al Smith Dinner - Political Punch

    Nice work.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #159
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Exactly right mbig!

    Since lower income families spend almost every penny they earn on subsistence items, they would pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes.
    No you need to know how it works and the exemptions built in for the poor.

    The rich will no longer buy luxuries?

  10. #160
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    That's NOT what it looks like to me,
    If you had bothered to read the link, then it would be much clearer:

    The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates.
    The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, and although tax rates are lower, the federal income tax still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2007 ranges from around 3 percent of income for the bottom half of tax returns to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. Since 2001, the average tax rate has fallen from 4.09 percent to 2.99 percent for the bottom 50 percent, and it has fallen from 28.20 percent to 21.46 percent for the top 0.1 percent and 27.5 percent to 22.45 percent for the top 1 percent. This large drop-off for the very top is largely due to the reduction in capital gains and dividends taxes, as well as the drop in ordinary tax rates.
    The data obviously includes individual income from capital gains and dividend taxes.


    nor have you even now claimed other things such as the gutting the Estate tax.
    Which has what to do with a discussion of the income tax? Also, how much impact do you think Bush's cuts to the estate tax actually had? Compare that to the amount collected in income tax each year and let me know how much it changes the figures.

    NOR, even if true, Does it mitigate the Burden Shift I pointed out by the HALVING of the Capital Gains/Div taxs...
    Again, what burden shift? The numbers I used include income and taxes from capital gains. After accounting for that, the burden was shifted significantly onto the rich.

    NOR mitigate those tax Cuts for the Rich under Bush were Financed by Borrowing/Deficits.... Causing a Large Hidden Tax/Inflation on All.. especially those who spend 80% or more of their income to live. (the bottom 50% and more).
    The premise of this thread is to discuss tax rates, not spending. If we spend more than we take in, we will run a deficit regardless of how the tax system is organized. The fact that we ran large deficits during those years is not an indication of the value of the tax system.

    Top Marginal rates are near All time LOWS in historical terms.
    Throughout the 50s to early 80's it was 70-90%.... you remember!
    And the top marginal rates applied to far fewer people. What's your point?

    When we were a "communist country" and we actually had a larger percent Middle Class Because of that higher Progressivity. (and less greed)

    This whole Idiocy with a 'Pay Czar' is ridiculous and unneeded. If you just boost the top marginal rate it doesn't matter if someone makes a $30 mil bonus.. he'll pay $20 mil to the govt, so they can bail his greedy Bank/Brokerage firm out next time they push it too hard/next bust cycle.
    And now you've completely lost the topic and are just ranting.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 01-08-10 at 09:54 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 16 of 90 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •