• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
Catawba said:
You may not want to talk about wealth, but there it is just the same.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't want to talk about it, it's that it's irrelevant to a discussion on income tax, because it's untaxable.

"The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
Click to expand...

Bush was in office from 1980-2007? Interesting.

"The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures."
Click to expand...

The fact that the IRS can tax all reported wage income does not mean that it taxes all wage income. When you factor in the tens of millions of people who work under the table or otherwise underreport their self-employment, I doubt it's that different.
 
RightinNYC said:
.....

But didn't Bush cut taxes for the rich, shouldering the burden for running the country onto the poor? Let's look at the numbers.

In 2000, the richest 1% paid 37.42% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 50% paid 3.91%. In 2007, the richest 1% paid 40.42% while the bottom 50% paid 2.89%. Under 7 years of George Bush, the richest 1% saw its share of federal income tax increase by 8.02% while the poorest 50% saw its share drop by 26.01%.
....
Click to expand...
Small detail....

Bush cut Taxes DRAMATICALLY for the Rich.

Note RInyc uncludes "income taxes" only.

Under Bush, Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends nearlly HALVED from 28% to 15%. Most truly wealthy people don't get taxed much on payroll deduction/income tax.

(Thanks W, me and my old friends invest for a living and we did by Far the best under Bush. I post here while/between/after managing my and other money)

That's right (in any city), If you just sit collecting 5% interest on your $100,000,0000 your taxes went from $1.4 million to $750,000.
At a still modest 10% interest/divs/Cap Gains that's a TAX CUT from $2.8 million to $1.5 million.
And so on, Up the line.

And of course, also Slashed the Estate tax to pass on true wealth to the next generation to do the same.

And When one speaks of the Bush Years vs the Clinton Years, one must realize that Clinton basically ran Balanced Budgets, while Bush Tremendously increased the Deficit to Pay FOR those tax cuts for the rich.
That's right, Bush' tax rates were only possible while BORROWING money to pay for them.

These high Deficits directly Result in Inflation/THE Hidden but huge Tax effecting especially those who spend all their money for necessities.
ie, Half of oil's 'rise' was really just the **** dollar Bush created.
Think about THAT Unstated tax alone.

Taxes will go up no matter who's president over the next 20 years because rates right now, are too low to maintain even the non-discretionary portion of the budget/now by far the largest part of the Budget, and a reasonable amount of non-discretionary spending (like Military).
-

"There is class warfare and my side is winning"
-Warren Buffett 5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Small detail....

Bush cut Taxes DRAMATICALLY for the Rich.

Note RInyc uncludes "income taxes" only.

Under Bush, Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends nearlly HALVED from 28% to 15%. Most truly wealthy people don't get taxed much on payroll deduction/income tax.

(Thanks W, me and my old friends invest for a living and we did by Far the best under Bush. I post here while/between/after managing my and other money)

That's right (in any city), If you just sit collecting 5% interest on your $100,000,0000 your taxes went from $1.4 million to $750,000.
At a still modest 10% interest/divs/Cap Gains that's a TAX CUT from $2.8 million to $1.5 million.

And of course, also Slashed the Estate tax to pass on true wealth to the next generation to do the same.

And When one speaks of the Bush Years vs the Clinton Years, one must realize that Clinton basically ran Balanced Budgets, while Bush Tremendously increased the Deficit to Pay FOR those tax cuts for the rich.
That's right Bush' tax rates were only possible while BORROWING money to pay for them.

These high Deficits directly Result in Inflation/THE Hidden Tax effecting especially those who spend all their money for necessities.
ie, Half of oil's 'rise' was really just the **** dollar Bush created.
Think about THAT Unstated tax alone.

Taxes will go up no matter who's president over the next 20 years becaus rates right now, are too low to maintain even the non-discretionary portion of the budget/now by far the largest part of the Budget.
-

"There is class warfare and my side is winning"
-Warren Buffett 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

The figures I quoted include capital gains earnings and taxes.
 
RightinNYC said:
Prosecuting juveniles in the south bronx, which contains the poorest Congressional district in the country, the #1 crime that we dealt with was the theft or robbery of T-Mobile Sidekicks from other kids. I'm sitting there taking statements from a 13-year old who had his sidekick jacked, while checking the time on my boot-ass $40 phone that I got with my 2-year $10/month family plan. Absolutely surreal.
Click to expand...

Hehe. Tell me about it. I don't even own a phone right now. Girls look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them that.

Girl: Okay, what's your number? *Takes out her I-Phone*

Me: I don't have a phone. Just give me your number.

Girl: :confused:
 
RightinNYC said:
Bush was in office from 1980-2007? Interesting.
Click to expand...

Guess who became president in 1980, and what he did? 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."

"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.

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
 
RightinNYC said:
And again, the top 20% pays more than 80% of all federal income taxes. Also, why don't you go back and reread what you just wrote. How exactly has the disparity grown under Bush if it went from 83% in 1998 to just over 80% in 2003?
Click to expand...

We all know it's obviously pointless to attribute a change like that entirely to the current president, but given that liberals have pointed to stats like that for so long, I can't wait to see how they'll react when it turns out the disparity has grown tremendously under saviour Obama- after all, he took over the presidency one month before a huge bottom in stock prices, and that is really what impacts the difference more than anything.

Not that he didn't try as hard as he could to keep stock prices down, though.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Guess who became president in 1980, and what he did? 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."

"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.
Click to expand...

A tax cut for the rich is not the same thing as a tax increase on the poor.

EDIT: It's kind of interesting how you continue to even say such things when pretty much everything you've said so far has been thoroughly discredited, and when you have completely ignored most of this discrediting.
 
The gap may be growing, but the poor have more in this country than the middle class do in other countries. Here, the poor have flat screen TVs, playstations and XBoxes, $100 shoes, computers, cell phones, etc. When the gap is growing, yet the level of poverty includes those amenities, we don't have poor as they have in other countries. Combined with assistance programs, the poor are well off in this country and arguments that taxation favors the rich is not at the detriment of the poor.
 
EmpiricalTruth said:
the idea of a flat tax seems ok, but i think percentages should change based on income.
Click to expand...
That is the funniest thing I have read in a loooooooonnnnngggggg while. :rofl

I also think there should be direct democratic control over where our taxes goto
Click to expand...
You think every spending bill should be voted on by the dumbmasses? Now there is a novel idea (stupid, but novel). :rofl

.
 
TOJ said:
That is the funniest thing I have read in a loooooooonnnnngggggg while.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if it was a joke or not.
 
Well the ignorance of someone claiming to like the flat tax except that they want to make it progressive is fairly amusing...
 
Some seem to forget, or choose to ignore, that our forefathers instituted the progressive tax 96 years ago for the same reason we continue to use it today, to prevent the concentration of wealth among just a few at the expense of the many.

"In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a group of super wealthy American capitalist known as the Robber Barons. Our elected leaders realized that if they did not pass some major legislation the Robber Barons would eventually own every inch of land in America and our founding fathers vision of an egalitarian democratic republic would be destroyed, and our Constitution would be worthless. So in 1913 they passed the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution and a highly progressive tax system."
History Of America's Highly Progressive Tax System

I also wonder why people that are not millionaires defend the robber barens of today we have given tax money to in the form of bailouts and then want to cut their taxes further through a flat tax or one its variants? It makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
gopman said:
I can't tell if it was a joke or not.
Click to expand...
Considering the second part of the that post, I don't think it was intended to be a joke. :shock:

I think it could probably be blamed on the government schools in the USA.

.
 
Catawba said:
And which politicians are making claims today that their plans are to do away with SS and Medicare?



Exactly, that is why no one except the fringe far right is calling for their removal.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've understood a thing I've said or you are intentionally misrepresenting it. So, I'll wish you a good weekend until you are willing to consider my side of the argument as I present it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't think you've understood a thing I've said or you are intentionally misrepresenting it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I did misunderstand what you were trying to say. If so, I am sorry. I understood you to mean that the General Welfare clause in the constitution should not include SS, Medicare, and government regulation of health insurance.

My response was that since the courts have never been successfully challenged on these matters of constitutional law, they are in accordance with the rule of law and the constitution.

What is it you are trying to say that was different than my understanding?
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
The figures I quoted include capital gains earnings and taxes.
Click to expand...

That's NOT what it looks like to me, nor have you even now claimed other things such as the gutting the Estate tax.

in 2000, the richest 1% paid 37.42% of all federal income taxes
Click to expand...

NOR, even if true, Does it mitigate the Burden Shift I pointed out by the HALVING of the Capital Gains/Div taxs...

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).

Top Marginal rates are near All time LOWS in historical terms.

Throughout the 50s to early 80's it was 70-90%.... you remember! 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.

-
 
Last edited:
For the many who voted for a National Sales Tax.. any idea on Rate?

The Govt needs the same amount to run under any system. (unless you want to change issues) If the rich pay less/Much less, YOU pay more.
Got it?

'Fairtax' as scored independently (not their own Bogus 23/30%) comes in around the mid 50s% range.
Add that to State sales taxes, and state income taxes converted (for uniformity/simplicity) to sales taxes and you it the mid 60s% on purchases.
In NYC we already have a 9.375 sales tax and a 3+% Income tax to add to a federal rate.

With the inevitable shifting of the economy underground to avoid that tax, it goes closer to 100%.

Still for it? how can you be 'for' a tax until /unless you know at least an approximate rate?
I know, You think "15% is fair" and that's it. Great. Except it's NOT EVEN CLOSE to that.

We know who's taxes will go down.
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?

Rongu.
-

Same with 'Flat Tax'
The system loses progressivity and you just can't take 25-30% from those who make 15k a year... while lowering the tax on people who are now in the top bracket/38%.
(and also eliminating taxes of Dividends/Cap gains falling NOW mainly on the rich)

We already have to send out unanimously approved, stimulous checks (Proof of the Pudding) because they have Nothing left (and can't buy goods/computers/cars, etc to support the stock prices of the rich).... because the system, Obviously, isn't progressive Enough now!
you want to tax them more/make it regressive/flatter?
Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
For the many who voted for a National Sales Tax.. any idea on Rate?

The Govt needs the same amount to run under any system.

'Fairtax' as scored independently (not their own Bogus 23/30%) comes in around the mid 50s% range.
Add that to State sales taxes, and state income taxe converted (for uniformity) to sale taxes and you it the mid 60s% on purchases.

With the inevitable shifting of the economy underground to avoid that tax, it goes closer to 100%.
Click to expand...

Got a link to this study?

I do want a tax that is less progressive, you betchya. Investment creates jobs.
 
mbig said:
For the many who voted for a National Sales Tax.. any idea on Rate?

The Govt needs the same amount to run under any system. (unless you want to change issues) If the rich pay less/Much less, YOU pay more.
Got it?

'Fairtax' as scored independently (not their own Bogus 23/30%) comes in around the mid 50s% range.
Add that to State sales taxes, and state income taxes converted (for uniformity/simplicity) to sales taxes and you it the mid 60s% on purchases.
In NYC we already have a 9.375 sales tax and a 3+% Income tax to add to a federal rate.

With the inevitable shifting of the economy underground to avoid that tax, it goes closer to 100%.

Still for it? how can you be 'for' a tax until /unless you know at least an approximate rate?
I know, You think "15% is fair" and that's it. Great. Except it's NOT EVEN CLOSE to that.

We know who's taxes will go down.
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?

Rongu.
-

Same with 'Flat Tax'
The system loses progressivity and you just can't take 25-30% from those who make 15k a year... while lowering the tax on people who are now in the top bracket/38%.
(and also eliminating taxes of Dividends/Cap gains falling NOW mainly on the rich)

We already have to send out unanimously approved, stimulous checks (Proof of the Pudding) because they have Nothing left (and can't buy goods/computers/cars, etc to support the stock prices of the rich).... because the system, Obviously, isn't progressive Enough now!
you want to tax them more/make it regressive/flatter?
Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You got a link where this came from?
 
ptif219 said:
You got a link where this came from?
Click to expand...
reefedjib said:
Got a link to this study?

I do want a tax that is less progressive, you betchya. Investment creates jobs.
Click to expand...

Several.

Here's one with TWO different estimates.. have another here somewhere- have to search old discssion on this and other boards.
Ben rehashed by me 100 times.

Fair Tax, Flawed Tax
Does adding 30% to the price of every house sold sound like a good idea to you?

by BRUCE BARTLETT
August 26, 2007
Wall Street Journal

[..............]

Rejecting all the Tricks of FairTax supporters and calculating the tax rate honestly--by including the higher spending that it mandates and by being realistic about what could actually be taxed--professional revenue estimators have always concluded that a national retail sales tax would have to be much, much higher than 23%.

A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%.

In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place.
But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%.

If the FairTax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).

I've emphasized problems with the FairTax rate because public opinion polls have long shown that support for flat-rate tax reforms is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate, with support dropping off sharply at a rate higher than 23%.

[..............]

Mr. Bartlett was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy from 1988 to 1993.
Click to expand...

Again, those of you voting for National Sales tax are DREAMING of a number I gaurantee is WAY too low.
-
-
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Several.

Here's one with TWO different estimates.. have another here somewhere- have to search old discssion on this and other boards.
Ben rehashed by me 100 times.



Again, those of you voting for National Sales tax are DREAMING of a number I gaurantee is WAY too low.
-
-
Click to expand...

Where is the link?
 
ptif219 said:

You got a link where this came from?
Click to expand...

reefedjib said:

Got a link to this study?
.....
Click to expand...
Answer 2:
this analysis 1998, but the economics are pretty much/remarkably the same in the recent analyses

This 56% my last link 57%
REAL Numbers tend to do that.

The 23 Percent Solution

NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED
JAN 23, 1998
By Robert S. McIntyre
Washington
Suppose a bunch of Rich people want to promote a national sales tax to replace the Federal income tax. How do they try to persuade the public to support such a plan? Simple: Play with the arithmetic.

Earlier this month, the well-financed group Americans for Fair Taxation, based in Texas, kicked off a sales-tax campaign with a full-page advertisement in several large newspapers. It called for replacing all the main Federal taxes--personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes and the estate tax--with a 23% national retail sales tax.
[....]
I was curious about how the group did its arithmetic, so I checked out its Web site--www.fairtax.org--and sent a note to the E-mail address to get further information about the group's calculations.

According to the group's figures, at 1995 levels a new sales tax would have to raise $1.36 trillion to replace all Federal income taxes, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes.
Under its plan, the group says, taxable spending would be $4.6 trillion (after accounting for rebates to partly protect lower-income families). So, $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion would be the required sales tax rate. Fine, except that $1.36 trillion divided by $4.6 trillion is not 23%. It's about 30%.

It turns out that the group's purported 23% tax rate is misleading and hypothetical. It came up with that number by dividing the sales tax by the cost of a purchase plus the tax. So if the tax on a $100 purchase is $30, the group prefers to call it a 23% "tax inclusive rate" ($30 divided by $130). Ever hear of computing a sales tax like that?

The fact that the group's sales tax, even by its own figures, entails a 30% tax rate is only the beginning of the math problems.
The group's backup materials also assert that almost a third of its projected sales-tax revenue is supposed to come from taxes the Government will pay to itself.
Build a road, pay Yourself a tax.
Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay Yourself some more. And so on.

Unfortunately, that shell game won't work. Without these Phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42% to break even.

A bit more digging reveals that a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, Free care at Veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-to-tax financial services like Free checking accounts.
If we discount the taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to an astronomical 56% to break even.

Apparently, the millions of dollars that Americans for Fair Taxation says it has spent on focus groups and polling have taught it an important lesson: giving people the real facts about a national sales tax is politically disastrous for its proponents. So the group is trying the only other available route: cooking the numbers.
Click to expand...

That's the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Deputy Asst Secretary of the Treasury, Joint Congressional tax committe, US Treasury dept, etc.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Where is the link?
Click to expand...

Here ya go!

Extra - WSJ.com

Sorry.
Was rushing to get it out/copied old post of mine from another board and neglected link.
Facts still the same and devastating for the Fairytax.
Pointing out many additional problems of 'Fairytax'.

Maybe those who votd for Natl sales tax will now reconsider!
Ya.
-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom