Fair tax ?

[Stone]

I see you are trying bury the posts...no problem I will just bring them to attention tomorrow as well.

Nothing has changed.....same answers as before.

 

[Stone]

Correct...but what I want is an honest answer.

Nothing has changed.....same answers as before.

 

[Stone]

I see you are trying bury the posts...no problem I will just bring them to attention tomorrow as well.

You'll get the same response over and over.......because I've already explained my self several times....thus:

Nothing has changed.....same answers as before.

And it will continue as long as you keep repeating the same distorted questions because there are no other answers than the ones I've given.

So....Nothing has changed.....same answers as before.
Don't like it....well....that's just too bad...


Nothing has changed.....same answers as before.

 

[Stone]

See you later in the day Bubba....

 

[Stone]

This thread excites me so much I just had to get up early and start copying this thread to my hard drive.

I'm expecting a lot more from you today, TM , so don't hold back and even if you need to endlessly repeat the same distorted questions and quote me out of context....I'm here to document it all and hope we go way past the post count of your chicken hawk thread.

So rise and shine Comrade Mansky

 

[Stone]

TM described in a single meme:

Indeed.
But what is amazing is that he just never seems to learn from the floggings he takes in debate.
I hadn't read much of what he's posted at this site until recently...and I do see why several of you guys got ticked off at me when I defended several of his past comments in other threads.
But he was correct ...
Luck is a fickle element in life.
All I can say is the law of averages will by chance make him correct once in a while.
Maybe we should celebrate those occurrences even as few and far apart as they seem to be?









( nah!....what fun would that be )

 

[Stone]

Dude I am not asking your opinion of what you think will work or not work.
I am asking what do you consider a fair tax applied evenly across all earning.
No options here...its a simple question.

In copying this thread to my hard drive, I noticed this post.

I know you'll start the day by misquoting me about my investments and how they relate to job creation.....but this was glossed over at the time and upon reflection, stands out. You can come back to this question after we've spent several hours of ridiculing your sophistry and misquoting of statements I more recently made....it's just looking back at your argument, before you started the bizarre Marxist argument...this is one heck of a conflict, also.

You started this thread with an all inclusive flat tax on spending. In your opening post: The tax occurs at the time of spending.,,not when funds are acquired.
But you posted this in the above post: I am asking what do you consider a fair tax applied evenly across all earning.
How can taxation be applied fairly across all levels of earnings if your tax formula ignores earnings?


Was your bizarre Marxist solution a rejection of the flat tax concept?

 

[Stone]

So stone
You retired at 48 and live from investments.
How many people do your investments provides jobs for?
You complain people are not supporting the infrastructure but appear to to be one of those people stone.

So stone
You retired at 48 and live from investments.

Yes, I worked hard and invested wisely.

How many people do your investments provides jobs for?

Many thousands, but I'm not aware of much job creation occurring in many of them......and job creation is the recent focus of your follies.

You complain people are not supporting the infrastructure but appear to to be one of those people stone.

You are confused......your tax plans are the ones regressive and negative to economic growth and this has been demonstrated through out this thread.
You argue in support of Marxist economic philosophy and cry in terror about socialist economic policy that's in place.
You are a horribly confused and angry man. Comrade Mansky

.

Go ahead, misquote it again

http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax&p=2272646&viewfull=1#post2272646

 

[Stone]

So you supply thousands of jobs and are retired.
How does one supply thousands of jobs while retired?
Do they get paid decent or have you kept the union out....if the union finds out about these thousands of employees you have you may have troubles

So stone are you good to them....or are you abusing them so you can be retired at such an early age.

This might break your relationship with john...he hates people that make money doing nothing...perhaps you should edit

So you supply thousands of jobs and are retired.
How does one supply thousands of jobs while retired?

Lots of investments.

Do they get paid decent or have you kept the union out

I'm not management, I'm what is called a share holder.
Most of my holding do have unionized labor....but I'm not involved in wage negotiations....as a share holder, I vote in a board of directors to make those decisions.
You'd know about this if you had investments......so you've just defined yourself as one of the working class that you so willingly want to rape with excessive taxation. When you said, fuck the middle class......you were actually arguing to fuck yourself.
You are a strange and interesting fellow
( emphasis on strange )

if the union finds out about these thousands of employees you have you may have troubles

Not my problem, Comrade......I don't hire. I invest in businesses that hire.

So stone are you good to them....or are you abusing them so you can be retired at such an early age.

I've been arguing with you to give the middle class a tax break while you post "fuck the middle class" and argue to tax them more.
That is rather telling

edit:
This might break your relationship with john...he hates people that make money doing nothing...perhaps you should edit

Nah....I'm comfortable being honest about my situation in life and how I got there. I don't need to lie to make a point



http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?86829-Fair-tax&p=2272659&viewfull=1#post2272659


If you need anything cleared up...just go ahead and ask

 

[The Man]

Doesnt look good Jack you can quote snip all you wish in an effort to favor yourself..but you still made many investments responsible for thousands of workers....why are you investing if there is no demand?

I am suspecting you are investing in shit that goes offshore..thus why you reject plans tuned to opening shop within our borders

 

[The Man]

In copying this thread to my hard drive, I noticed this post.

I know you'll start the day by misquoting me about my investments and how they relate to job creation....

Are you claiming I created quotes that you did not make?
This is a very strong allegation ...I am appalled at your constant displays of dishonesty ...fun and games is one thing jack...but falsehoods are not.

 

[Alien Allen]

I thought the fair tax was to replace income tax

Not a consumption tax

 

[Stone]

Doesnt look good Jack you can quote snip all you wish in an effort to favor yourself..but you still made many investments responsible for thousands of workers....why are you investing if there is no demand?

I am suspecting you are investing in shit that goes offshore..thus why you reject plans tuned to opening shop within our borders

Doesnt look good Jack

It looks very good for me because I've been using the term demand in the proper context and you haven't.
Where I use it correctly, you use the term with ignorance.

why are you investing if there is no demand?

The issue is supply and demand .
Demand is a relative concept, varying in value as a relationship between sales and supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

The four basic laws of supply and demand are:[1]

If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.
If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, a surplus occurs, leading to a lower equilibrium price.
If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, a shortage occurs, leading to a higher equilibrium price.

To have no demand is to have no request for the product or service

So the issue isn't about no demand...it's about demand that changes

I am suspecting you are investing in shit that goes offshore..thus why you reject plans tuned to opening shop within our borders

I don't support your scheme to rob from the poor to give to the rich in a flat tax scheme based on sales..... nor your socialist scheme to create unnecessary jobs funded by taxation.

 

[Stone]

Are you claiming I created quotes that you did not make?
This is a very strong allegation ...I am appalled at your constant displays of dishonesty ...fun and games is one thing jack...but falsehoods are not.

Well...yeah.
You are the king of 'disingenuous'.....

 

[The Man]

I thought the fair tax was to replace income tax

Not a consumption tax

I had designed my thread a question in general...after reading your post..I goggled fair tax.
Pow,,,turns out there is already a proposition on this before and it has come back up on occasion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

On consumption
Allowances for the poor by a "prebate"

The FairTax is a tax reform proposal for the federal government of the United States that would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 13) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level

Go look at the rates about a fourth of the way down...doesn't look bad really
Considering this takes care of the social tax as well..which is what an employer pay for an employee..so in effect would also be getting a raise of about 15 percent.

As defined in the legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[4]

Bad news sounds like we would still have property tax...local sales tax..state tax
Beings that state and local govt spending is almost as much again as fed we would be at close to 60 percent tax in the end that our earnings went to

Since corps dont pay anything close to that 60 percent.....that raises the burden even higher on the individual.
Then we still have gas tax etc all the fees on the phone and utilities etc...they literally take about everything we make.
It is safe to say a person is taxed about 65 to 75 percent or more.
The govt spends 50 k a household...and the average household earnings are not much more.

 

[Stone]

I thought the fair tax was to replace income tax

Not a consumption tax

He often changes his argument when ever it gets in trouble. He debates out of convenience of the moment rather than addressing the moment. ( Bullshitting )
He often unknowingly changes his argument as he tries to further explain it .

In this thread, TM went from arguing for a flat tax based on consumption to tax credits on investments that generate new jobs( even though legislation already exists and hasn't added many new jobs) to the government creating jobs in a socialist manner with out the demand for increased consumption nor need for the job.

I am copying this thread to my hard drive.....it's even stranger than TM's chicken hawk defense.

 

[Stone]

I had designed my thread a question in general...after reading your post..I goggled fair tax.
Pow,,,turns out there is already a proposition on this before and it has come back up on occasion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

On consumption
Allowances for the poor by a "prebate"



Go look at the rates about a fourth of the way down...doesn't look bad really
Considering this takes care of the social tax as well..which is what an employer pay for an employee..so in effect would also be getting a raise of about 15 percent.



Bad news sounds like we would still have property tax...local sales tax..state tax
Beings that state and local govt spending is almost as much again as fed we would be at close to 60 percent tax in the end that our earnings went to

Since corps dont pay anything close to that 60 percent.....that raises the burden even higher on the individual.
Then we still have gas tax etc all the fees on the phone and utilities etc...they literally take about everything we make.
It is safe to say a person is taxed about 75 percent or more.
The govt spends 50 k a household...and the average household earnings are not much more.

It is safe to say a person is taxed about 75 percent or more.

The govt spends 50 k a household...and the average household earnings are not much more.

And we're back to TM logic all over again.

 

[Stone]

TM.......You forgot to mention that 'Fair Tax' was not a flat tax and it is regressive in regards to income.

From your link:

With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[SUP][2][/SUP] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income)

Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high-income earners and increase it on the middle class

Pretty much the way the argument went against you.

 

[Stone]

So....TM......how would a 'fair tax' plan work in conjunction with further tax credits on investments while your socialist model is in place to generate new jobs when supply and demand pressures are negative to increasing supply?

This looks like a nightmare scene.

 

[Stone]

fuck you stone......just tell me why you invest where there is no demand :mad

(sigh!)




........