Eliminate Payroll Taxes and Flat Tax Everything Sold

jaeger19 said:

No offense but you make no sense. So we should not compete with other companies? So if another country produces cars for import to the US... Companies that produce cars in the US should close?

I produce agricultural products that I market to the US and to other countries. I have competitors from Mexico and Canada... so you think I should close my business.. so we don't compete? What the heck are you thinking.????

So no.. it does not make sense. IF I don't compete.. it means I have to close.. cuz there is no way that the US can tell CAnada growers not to send their products to the international markets that I send my products to.
more
A flat tax makes no sense. It makes us less competitive..it would cost jobs in the US.. it would cause lower salaries.. it would cause higher unemployment more outsourcing , more automation so on and so forth. Everything you claim you don't like about the direction the US is heading.. would accelerate with a flat tax on sales.

Click to expand...

So because another country can make the same product we make here in the US for less and Companies here are allowed to leave to countries with no work ethics, bad air and water. We need to be like them (Compete) so you can have a business? Then let's just do it. Let's work for a quarter an hour. No EPA, No OSHA, No FDA, No oversighte at all, So you can sell something to another country. Cause that's where we are going anyway. We Now Will Do Anything For A Profit?

MrWonka said:

Ummm...no, not at all. A flat VAT is absolutely regressive. Almost everything that a poor person spends their money on is a consumable good. A rich person doesn't really eat any more food than a poor person has to. He goes through the same amount of toilet paper. His clothing might be more expensive, but doesn't necessarily have way more of it.

Click to expand...

That's why I said "depending on what you apply it to."

A VAT doesn't need to be applied to food or clothing. It can be applied to new automobiles without being applied to used automobiles. It can be applied to plane tickets without being applied to bus tickets. And so on, in many ways that actually make it progressive, rather than regressive.

Jimmy Who said:

So because another country can make the same product we make here in the US for less and Companies here are allowed to leave to countries with no work ethics, bad air and water. We need to be like them (Compete) so you can have a business? Then let's just do it. Let's work for a quarter an hour. No EPA, No OSHA, No FDA, No oversighte at all, So you can sell something to another country. Cause that's where we are going anyway. We Now Will Do Anything For A Profit?

Click to expand...

WTF? No one.. and certainly not me.. ever ever ever said lets do away with the EPA. HOWEVER... there is no getting around the economic fact that we DO have to compete with other countries. There really is no getting around that. And that means there has to be a balance to what we do. Following EPA does have a cost to companies and makes them less competitive especially in the short run. However, the EPA has many other advantages.. even economically. For example.. when the EPA prevents the local mining company from dumping mercury into the water supply... it helps my business because my cows don't get sick and die.

So there is also a benefit to having the EPA. And a balance always has to be struck between the advantage of the EPA..and the potential disadvantage of the EPA regarding US companies being competitive.

You sir are proposing a Flat sales tax that has a huge disadvantage to American companies and the American consumer. HUGE.. and what advantage.? Really there is none. In fact.. we have tried sales taxes like the luxury tax on yachts... and what happened.. more unemployed people and lower salaries.

So. the point is.. your flat sales tax simply will hurt the US economy.. and gain no advantage what so ever.

Tlrmln said:

That's why I said "depending on what you apply it to."

A VAT doesn't need to be applied to food or clothing. It can be applied to new automobiles without being applied to used automobiles. It can be applied to plane tickets without being applied to bus tickets. And so on, in many ways that actually make it progressive, rather than regressive.

Click to expand...

It's not how they work in practice, though. The advantage of a VAT or RST or equivalents is the broad base, and if you exempt huge categories of spending, like food and clothing, to raise equivalent revenue, you have to jack up the rates on what's left. The other problem is we don't really WANT to exclude 'clothing' because that would apply to a basic jacket from Walmart AND to a $8,000 leather, mink lined, jacket from Macy's or whatever, and there's no reason to exclude the latter. And I don't need help buying clothes because we're not poor, so why should my jeans be exempt, or a new sweater, if the goal is to help a struggling family making $18k with three kids?

The way they work and should work is tax a very broad base, and take care of the poor directly, with things like EBT, EITC. So you tax all those clothing purchases, collect taxes from families like mine that don't need assistance, and distribute actual help to people who NEED it using funding provided by broad based taxes like VATs.

JasperL said:

The way they work and should work is tax a very broad base, and take care of the poor directly, with things like EBT, EITC. So you tax all those clothing purchases, collect taxes from families like mine that don't need assistance, and distribute actual help to people who NEED it using funding provided by broad based taxes like VATs.

Click to expand...

Except that is extremely inefficient. So you collect taxes on purchased from poor people.. making it harder for them to purchase for most of the year.. then turn around and give money back to them in the form of EITC. Which means you collect the money.. then have to process it..so on and so forth to then give it back.. all that basically takes money to do.

The same with other benefits. So you tax poor people when they purchased things.. then turn around and give them a card that only allows them to purchases certain things from certain stores.

It really doesn't make much sense unless your broad base.. is very equitably distributed when it comes to income.

jaeger19 said:

Except that is extremely inefficient. So you collect taxes on purchased from poor people.. making it harder for them to purchase for most of the year.. then turn around and give money back to them in the form of EITC. Which means you collect the money.. then have to process it..so on and so forth to then give it back.. all that basically takes money to do.

The same with other benefits. So you tax poor people when they purchased things.. then turn around and give them a card that only allows them to purchases certain things from certain stores.

It really doesn't make much sense unless your broad base.. is very equitably distributed when it comes to income.

Click to expand...

I don't agree about efficiency, because of the alternatives. So we exempt food, which is critical, but so is housing, energy, transportation, clothing, and healthcare. If you start exempting the essentials, there's little left TO tax, and so the rates required to raise $X in revenue have to be triple, quadruple or more that of a broad base.

So you start defining food like states do, as "food for home consumption" so that $150/person steak dinner out with wine and 4 appetizers, isn't exempt. But what about a frozen pizza from the grocery? Not taxed, in most cases? How about if the store cooks 40 of them far more efficiently than that poor family can cook ONE, so it's cheaper to buy it cooked than frozen? Well that's prepared food, so taxed, right? But it doesn't make sense. I can buy a frozen whole chicken for $4.99 or buy it cooked for $5.99 - it's a great deal we do all the time. I can MAYBE prepare it for a $1 in energy costs to cook it for an hour, but I'm not sure, but the typical is to tax the cooked chicken and not the frozen, but then exempt a $28/lb ribeye from the same store because it's uncooked....

So the attempts to somehow narrow the exemptions to food for regular people require these stupid, arbitrary distinctions that don't jive with real life, but they're necessary to not gut the tax base entirely. All that increases complexity across the system, and skews choices because of the arbitrary distinctions. In some states Kit Kat bars (with wheat) are "food" and untaxed, but a Snickers (no wheat) is candy and taxed. Stupid, right? Do this 10,000 times and that's the picture of a dumb system IMO.

As to the costs of providing assistance, we already do it. EBT is common as is the EITC and Medicaid. So the poor are GETTING assistance, and providing $1,000 costs about as much as providing $2,000 or $5,000 in admin costs. And in the meantime, you and me who don't need help with food purchases don't get the advantage of tax exempt food because we don't need it, and those taxes you and me pay fund that EBT or EITC and Medicaid.

In Europe, VATs are broad based, apply to most every purchase, including services in most countries, and that broad base tax is regressive, but the SYSTEM is progressive because of UHC and family leave and all the rest. It's ultimately the system's progressivity that matters, not one piece of it.

JasperL said:

I don't agree about efficiency, because of the alternatives. So we exempt food, which is critical, but so is housing, energy, transportation, clothing, and healthcare. If you start exempting the essentials, there's little left TO tax, and so the rates required to raise $X in revenue have to be triple, quadruple or more that of a broad base.
.

Click to expand...

Again.. so you end up having to tax the poor..and then turn around and give them housing, heating, clothing and healthcare assistance. That's extremely inefficient.

As to the costs of providing assistance, we already do it. EBT is common as is the EITC and Medicaid. So the poor are GETTING assistance, and providing $1,000 costs about as much as providing $2,000 or $5,000 in admin costs

Click to expand...

That's not true.. because we don't simply send you a check.. we have all sorts of assistance you have to apply for .. from Medicaid.. to heating assistance to assistance with your telephone bill. Many times with separate administrations handling a myriad of assistance programs. All at a cost. AND in all likelihood.. if we went to a VAT system of taxing.. we would have to increase administration because of the increase of people that would need assistance. Certainly there are a numerous working poor.. that are NOT getting assistance continuously or not getting it at all... who are just a few dollars are month short of needing assistance. Imagine what a 22 percent VAT added to everything they purchase would do to their household. (22 percent is about the average of European VAT rates). Suddenly a lot more people would be needing assistance that didn't need it before.

o the attempts to somehow narrow the exemptions to food for regular people require these stupid, arbitrary distinctions that don't jive with real life, but they're necessary to not gut the tax base entirely. All that increases complexity across the system, and skews choices because of the arbitrary distinctions. In some states Kit Kat bars (with wheat) are "food" and untaxed, but a Snickers (no wheat) is candy and taxed. Stupid, right? Do this 10,000 times and that's the picture of a dumb system IMO.

Click to expand...

Great argument for why VAT's and a National Sales Tax makes no sense. Of course. if your real purpose was to control the average persons spending.... it would make a good system. Then the government could dictate peoples buying behavior much easier by controlling the tax code.

In Europe, VATs are broad based, apply to most every purchase, including services in most countries, and that broad base tax is regressive, but the SYSTEM is progressive because of UHC and family leave and all the rest. It's ultimately the system's progressivity that matters, not one piece of it.

Click to expand...

Not true. Say for a young healthy person... they have more of their money taken away because of the VAT. When they "get healthcare"...sure the supposed ""value" of that healthcare makes it more progressive... but... it really isn't; because if they don't need that healthcare.. it really doesn't have value.

that money could have perhaps used BETTER.. by the young person. Perhaps saved to start a business down the road. Or get extra training or schooling (even with public schools you have to eat when studying). OR a myriad of other things that would actually have MORE value than healthcare they don't need or some other benefit that they don;t need or need as much of.

Its really why Europeans system often have a VAT type of system. Because their culture and government usually stems from a monarchy.. then a constitutional monarchy and still contains the old cultural underpinning that the masses just can't be trusted to make the right decisions..and thus the government must tax them and provide what the government (i.e. the wealthy).. deem appropriate for them.

jaeger19 said:

WTF? No one.. and certainly not me.. ever ever ever said lets do away with the EPA. HOWEVER... there is no getting around the economic fact that we DO have to compete with other countries. There really is no getting around that. And that means there has to be a balance to what we do. Following EPA does have a cost to companies and makes them less competitive especially in the short run. However, the EPA has many other advantages.. even economically. For example.. when the EPA prevents the local mining company from dumping mercury into the water supply... it helps my business because my cows don't get sick and die.

So there is also a benefit to having the EPA. And a balance always has to be struck between the advantage of the EPA..and the potential disadvantage of the EPA regarding US companies being competitive.

You sir are proposing a Flat sales tax that has a huge disadvantage to American companies and the American consumer. HUGE.. and what advantage.? Really there is none. In fact.. we have tried sales taxes like the luxury tax on yachts... and what happened.. more unemployed people and lower salaries.

So. the point is.. your flat sales tax simply will hurt the US economy.. and gain no advantage what so ever.

Click to expand...

I am not saying we should not have trade. We are the US we set the balance. It is good to know you can see the good of the EPA. but you have more faith than I do about the word balance. Why do you think companies leave the us, because they don't like balance.

I did not say a flat tax would be better. I said I would like to know if a flat tax would be better. I really don't think what we have now is working. Before anyone can say if a flat sales tax will work or not do they know how much money is spent in the US Per day or year on everything?

jaeger19 said:

Again.. so you end up having to tax the poor..and then turn around and give them housing, heating, clothing and healthcare assistance. That's extremely inefficient.

That's not true.. because we don't simply send you a check.. we have all sorts of assistance you have to apply for .. from Medicaid.. to heating assistance to assistance with your telephone bill. Many times with separate administrations handling a myriad of assistance programs. All at a cost. AND in all likelihood.. if we went to a VAT system of taxing.. we would have to increase administration because of the increase of people that would need assistance. Certainly there are a numerous working poor.. that are NOT getting assistance continuously or not getting it at all... who are just a few dollars are month short of needing assistance. Imagine what a 22 percent VAT added to everything they purchase would do to their household. (22 percent is about the average of European VAT rates). Suddenly a lot more people would be needing assistance that didn't need it before.

Great argument for why VAT's and a National Sales Tax makes no sense. Of course. if your real purpose was to control the average persons spending.... it would make a good system. Then the government could dictate peoples buying behavior much easier by controlling the tax code.

Click to expand...

Actually a broad based consumption tax with few or no exceptions is the least distortionary. I don't have to decide between a frozen pizza (tax free) or a cooked pizza (taxed), or that frozen whole chicken or the cooked one. Once you start adding arbitrary exceptions is when the tax code starts dictating decision making.

And the fact is almost every industrialized country has a VAT, all of them in Europe do, and it's because it's a good way to raise money because of the broad base and few exceptions. You also rebate it at the border so VATs aren't embedded like income taxes in the cost of exports, and all imports are subject to the VAT, so they are neutral to imports/export decisions. And the regressive nature of the tax is offset by progressive benefits, like our SS or Medicare taxes.

Not true. Say for a young healthy person... they have more of their money taken away because of the VAT. When they "get healthcare"...sure the supposed ""value" of that healthcare makes it more progressive... but... it really isn't; because if they don't need that healthcare.. it really doesn't have value.

Click to expand...

That's just wrong. Mothers don't need healthcare? A good friend of ours just had a baby 7 weeks early. Before that she and baby had serious issues and she was bedridden for weeks. Her bill will run into the $100s of thousands, easy.

And everyone doesn't need healthcare...until they do. That doesn't mean insurance/coverage is worthless even if not used. That's just terrible logic.

that money could have perhaps used BETTER.. by the young person. Perhaps saved to start a business down the road. Or get extra training or schooling (even with public schools you have to eat when studying). OR a myriad of other things that would actually have MORE value than healthcare they don't need or some other benefit that they don;t need or need as much of.

Click to expand...

So are you arguing for freeloading, then, and everyone not getting costly insurance and spending it on a new business, and if momma has that premature baby, we pay off the downside? Or do we just let that baby and mom die as the downside of that bet? Same with cancer, or a bad car wreck - we pay off their losing bet or let them die? It's one of the two, and arguing either as a matter of POLICY isn't very persuasive.

Its really why Europeans system often have a VAT type of system. Because their culture and government usually stems from a monarchy.. then a constitutional monarchy and still contains the old cultural underpinning that the masses just can't be trusted to make the right decisions..and thus the government must tax them and provide what the government (i.e. the wealthy).. deem appropriate for them.

Click to expand...

LOL, it's not just Europe.... You know this. EVERY industrialized country has UHC and almost all of them have a VAT. That's across countries, across continents, across cultures.

Jimmy Who said:

I am not saying we should not have trade. We are the US we set the balance. It is good to know you can see the good of the EPA. but you have more faith than I do about the word balance. Why do you think companies leave the us, because they don't like balance.

I did not say a flat tax would be better. I said I would like to know if a flat tax would be better. I really don't think what we have now is working. Before anyone can say if a flat sales tax will work or not do they know how much money is spent in the US Per day or year on everything?

Click to expand...

Yeah.. we don't "set the balance"...international trade is what it is.

Why do companies leave us? Because the balance has tipped in favor of leaving. The advantages of being in the US.. are not as great as the advantages of being in another country. Its that simple.

Before anyone can say if a flat sales tax will work or not do they know how much money is spent in the US Per day or year on everything?

Click to expand...

Honestly.. that's largely irrelevant. That would change the minute that a flat sales tax was put on. So its largely irrelevant. you cannot base what your sales tax will bring in.. based on whats spent now.. only on what would be spent in the future and on what.

What you have to know.. is how a flat sales tax works. How it has worked and what has happened when it has been applied to the US.. etc.

JasperL said:

Actually a broad based consumption tax with few or no exceptions is the least distortionary. I don't have to decide between a frozen pizza (tax free) or a cooked pizza (taxed), or that frozen whole chicken or the cooked one. .

Click to expand...

Well.. you seem extremely focused on this the VAT and exceptions.. Which I am not arguing. However.. I will point out. In your example.. it is distortionary.

So you do have to decide. Lets say the frozen pizza is 5 dollars... apply a 22% dollar tax to that. ITs now 6.10

The cooked pizza (because of the extra folks fixing it) was 16 dollars. Apply a 22% tax and its now 19.52.

Now.. initially the difference was 11 dollars. And based on convenience, taste, etc.. that price break might have pushed toward the cooked pizza.
But now after a VAT ttax.. the difference is now 13.42. And NOW..that difference might switch the push toward the frozen pizza.

Its one of the issues with a sales tax. Higher priced items.. (which are often American made).. will have a greater increase in price than lower priced products. This gives a competitive advantage to the lower priced products as they are less effected by the VAT.

And the fact is almost every industrialized country has a VAT, all of them in Europe do, and it's because it's a good way to raise money because of the broad base and few exceptions

Click to expand...

But.. I point out.. its NOT a "good way to raise money". ITs extremely inefficient if you are going to try and counteract the regressive nature of the VAT.

hat's just wrong. Mothers don't need healthcare? .

Click to expand...

Nope.. sorry but I am right. Yes.. THAT mother needed it. How about the thousands of young men.. who DON"T NEED IT.. because they aren't sick. ITs why the value of healthcare is really hard to quantify. YEs.. there is some value in having preventative medicine.. etc.. but in all likelihood.. a young person.. doesn't get the value out of a healthcare policy.. like a 80 year old man.. its just the economics.

That doesn't mean insurance/coverage is worthless even if not used.

Click to expand...

Its not terrible logic.. its simple economic fact. According to your premise.. since there is TANF in this country.. we should calculate TANF as part of my income. because even though I don't get it.. and in all likelihood.. won't EVER get it.. I could still in the remotest possibility still get it.. so its value to me.. should be dollar for dollar.

See.. the reality is that things don't work like that. Yes.. safety nets have a value. But that value is proportional to the likelihood that you will need that safety net. For the vast majority of people.. the economics of the safety net don't really work out. ITs why safety nets can exist.. if everyone used it all the time.. well it couldn't get paid for.
Most of the time, we are not dealing with real economic value (dollars).. but PERCIEVED value. So.. a person in Europe may be perfectly content to not have four wheelers, because he would rather have what he considers free healthcare. A person in America. may value that time spent going fourwheeling with his children, with the risk that they may have to pay out 6000 dollars at some date IF he gets sick.

So are you arguing for freeloading, then, and everyone not getting costly insurance and spending it on a new business, and if momma has that premature baby, we pay off the downside? Or do we just let that baby and mom die as the downside of that bet? Same with cancer, or a bad car wreck -

Click to expand...

Pooh.. because its NOT 'one or the other". We don't have a vat now do we? And yet.. golly be.. if that mother is poor.. she has Medicaid. And if she doesn't have insurance and goes to the hospital.. she and the baby have their lives saved.

Think about what YOUR policy is.. you would TAX that mother 22% on everything she needs to have a healthy child.. 22% on food.. 22% on prenatal vitamins.. 22% on safe housing.. etc.. which what? Makes it MORE likely she is going to have more stress, eat worse, have to work harder, have less safe environment etc.. and more likely to have a problem with birth...

And in exchange for what? the coverage SHE ALREADY HAS? The coverage that she already has with our income tax system?

Now.. you please explain the logic behind that. I'd love to hear it.

.... You know this. EVERY industrialized country has UHC and almost all of them have a VAT.

Click to expand...

.

Whiskibibble.. we are roughly 10-13 percent away from having UHC. and we certainly don't need a VAT for that. Because ultimately.. the Vat really makes no fiscal sense.

AS I have logically pointed out. The VAT is more of a political vehicle.. than a logical, economic one.

Here is some food for thought:

jaeger19 said:

Yeah.. we don't "set the balance"...international trade is what it is.

Why do companies leave us? Because the balance has tipped in favor of leaving. The advantages of being in the US.. are not as great as the advantages of being in another country. Its that simple.

Honestly.. that's largely irrelevant. That would change the minute that a flat sales tax was put on. So its largely irrelevant. you cannot base what your sales tax will bring in.. based on whats spent now.. only on what would be spent in the future and on what.

What you have to know.. is how a flat sales tax works. How it has worked and what has happened when it has been applied to the US.. etc.

Click to expand...

What are the advantages of a company moving to another country?

The amount of all money spent in the US is relevant because that tells us how much to tax as to how much we spend. If the percentage of the tax is low it may work. That is why I would like to know how much money is spent? All sales tax that I have found never is based on all money spent.

Jimmy Who said:

What are the advantages of a company moving to another country?

Click to expand...

Some advantages

1. Better taxes
2. Lower cost of employees
3. Better access to technology and infrastructure
4 To avoid trade tariffs
5 Better educated employees
6 Less regulatory costs

Just to name a few reasons

The amount of all money spent in the US is relevant because that tells us how much to tax as to how much we spend

Click to expand...

You aren't getting it. That number will change when a tax is applied. So you cannot go with that.

For example.. its like what happened in a state I hunt in.

The legislature there saw that 120,000 out of state licenses were sold in the previous year.

So.. to balance their budget.. they did a 100% raise in out of state license fees. Because in their wisdom..like yours.. they assumed that 120,000 license this year would translate to 120,000 licenses the next year after the raise.

BUT the number of out of state licenses dropped precipitously after the increase.. to 40,000 the following year. So they ended up bringing in less money.

jaeger19 said:

Some advantages

1. Better taxes
2. Lower cost of employees
3. Better access to technology and infrastructure
4 To avoid trade tariffs
5 Better educated employees
6 Less regulatory costs

Just to name a few reasons



You aren't getting it. That number will change when a tax is applied. So you cannot go with that.

For example.. its like what happened in a state I hunt in.

The legislature there saw that 120,000 out of state licenses were sold in the previous year.

So.. to balance their budget.. they did a 100% raise in out of state license fees. Because in their wisdom..like yours.. they assumed that 120,000 license this year would translate to 120,000 licenses the next year after the raise.

BUT the number of out of state licenses dropped precipitously after the increase.. to 40,000 the following year. So they ended up bringing in less money.

Click to expand...

So why not do everything they are doing to keep companies from moving? Let's just do it right. No taxes for a business, No regulations, No tariffs, No wages for employees, Don't let us go home and Work us until we die, etc. That's what they are willing to do t o their people.

And I do get it. Payroll taxes change, the economy changes. Sales will go up sales will go down. There are more people working and not working, spending money everyday then just the working.

Jimmy Who said:

So why not do everything they are doing to keep companies from moving? Let's just do it right. No taxes for a business, No regulations, No tariffs, No wages for employees, Don't let us go home and Work us until we die, etc. That's what they are willing to do t o their people.

And I do get it. Payroll taxes change, the economy changes. Sales will go up sales will go down. There are more people working and not working, spending money everyday then just the working.

Click to expand...

No you don't get it.. sheesh.

Okay. why don't we just do everything to keep companies leaving. What do we need them for right? If they can't make it against competitors that pay 1/10 the labor cost they do... too bad.

Lets just tax companies 100%.. why should they make a profit? Lets regulate every aspect of their business and increase their costs exponentially.. Wages should be based on what the employees want.. not on market. Hey.. lets have a law that lets and employee ask for whatever wage they want and the company has to pay for it. In fact.. companies should be forced to pay employees.. and the employees can decide whether they want to come in or not..because either way they get paid.

There.. happy now?

Yeah.. if you are going to be asanine with your posts.. there is no value in responding to you.

Sheesh.

I can't think of a better way to both destroy the working class AND stifle business.

The fundamental issue is that people in this country want government services and don't want to pay for them, it is really that simple. Look at the mood on the left side of politics right now. Everyone is pitching EU style social welfare programs but pretending you can pay for them by taxing the top few % of taxpayers. The reality is that if you want social welfare programs like the EU then you are going to end up with the lower portion of the economic spectrum getting hit with taxes like they have never seen before.

The proper way to compare taxation is total effective tax burden, if you compare many of the most generous nations in the EU their effective taxation rates on the wealthy are relatively marginally above their US counterparts. However their lower/middle class taxes are dramatically higher.

Then again, no one wants to hear that.

Jimmy Who said:

That way everyone pays?

Click to expand...

The fairness angle is right-wing bull****. It's about making poor people who can barely (if they can) avoid going further into the red each month pay money they don't have, so that you can lower taxes on yourself (and the richest).

Mr Person said:

The fairness angle is right-wing bull****. It's about making poor people who can barely (if they can) avoid going further into the red each month pay money they don't have, so that you can lower taxes on yourself (and the richest).

Click to expand...

So, am I to believe that you are ok with almost half the nation (45%) paying no federal income tax? Moreover, that you are also ok with 39% of households paying a *negative* federal income tax?

Jimmy Who said:

That way everyone pays?

Click to expand...

Women and minorities unfairly hit....

Mr Person said:

The fairness angle is right-wing bull****. It's about making poor people who can barely (if they can) avoid going further into the red each month pay money they don't have, so that you can lower taxes on yourself (and the richest).

Click to expand...

You wanted to be like Sweden, well there you go. The poor pay more over there.

Helix said:

The "fair" tax is just more right wing trickle down vomit.

Click to expand...

No, it would actually be a huge boon for people, not so much for Government running our lives, not a shock you're against it.

devildavid said:

So you don't. SNAP is a very tiny part of the budget.

Click to expand...

Which costs us more, Welfare and SS or the Military?

Renae said:

No, it would actually be a huge boon for people, not so much for Government running our lives, not a shock you're against it.

Click to expand...

it's trickle down nonsense. giving the hyper-wealthy more money doesn't make you "free." they just candy coat the bull**** with "freedom" and hope that people swallow it down while they run away with the money.

Helix said:

it's trickle down nonsense. giving the hyper-wealthy more money doesn't make you "free." they just candy coat the bull**** with "freedom" and hope that people swallow it down while they run away with the money.

Click to expand...

They don't run away with the money, that's the first mistake you make. What you think the wealthy just stick the money in a box and laugh? The invest, start businesses, invest again in other businesses. Where do you think companies get the capital to expand? Sales? Yes, partially and partially from investments. You have a severely wack view that using the GOVERNMENT to take from people is somehow "making life fair". LIFE ISN'T FAIR. Government, doubly so idiot socialist, aren't going to make your life more fair by "taxing the wealthy. They aren't doing that because they give a **** about you, it's a way to make YOU reliant on THEM. If your healthcare is through the Government, who are you going to vote for? The people that are providing your healthcare.

YOU, are the master of your future, when you wallow in Class warfare BS, you're just letting others put strings on you to tug and dance at their beckoning.