Fair tax ?

[The Man]

TM is stuck on tax cuts, so an additional tax wouldn't work.
And war bonds are really only a supplement, not a standalone solution.
The only war I'm aware of that had tax cuts occur is the recent one in Iraq and all that did was add to large debt.



A lot......if you fix a rate and war occurs, not only is there generally a drop in consumer spending, there is a need to finance that war from a new source, or raise the tax rate.



Indeed....that was to be my next argument

TM is stuck on tax cuts, so an additional tax wouldn't work.

Yes I want tax cuts.......what I really after though is reduced spending..which lets us operate on less tax.

The only war I'm aware of that had tax cuts occur is the recent one in Iraq and all that did was add to large debt.

Revenues did not go down with that tax cut...however spending went up.
History has shown us time and time again that tax cuts do not always mean less revenue and hikes do not always mean more revenue.
With tax cuts the consumer spends more...the increased trading increases revenues.
Tax hikes can lead to less trading thus less tax revenues.
The growth of the economy is determined by non essential items ...not by paying the bills of necessity.
Its the "junk' we buy that is growth as necessity items stay the same...having an extra 30 bucks in your pocket as well as 19 other people having the same..is 600 bucks..this 600 bucks gets spent on other things besides rent.
These items are taxed...the employees that made the items are taxed..the corp is taxed...the remained is often spent again and so goes the cycle...as we can see the 600 is quickly recuperated.

With tax hikes...one doesnt have this money to spend...the economy slows..then they have to raise taxes again to obtain the same revenues.

Look at it like this...if we took 50 percent more of a paycheck{tax} than we currently are now {just for demonstration}
Retail sales as well as services will greatly be slowed...many people will close the doors...we will become a third world country.
Now lets get 25 percent more of our check{less tax} than we currently are {again just for demonstration}..current retail and services could not keep with the demand....we have to grow...this causes more jobs...more trading..more revenues.
This doesn't even include all the construction involved...which in itself will require more materials ..more jobs..thus even more revenues.

A lot......if you fix a rate and war occurs, not only is there generally a drop in consumer spending, there is a need to finance that war from a new source, or raise the tax rate.

How does a fixed rate and war equate to less consumer spending?{other that the soldiers them selves being gone}

 

[The Man]

Do you think we should be taxed on wars that haven't happened?

Thats what you are presenting

 

[Stone]

you missed my point. we have paid for wars, disaster damage, etc. on a charge card all along.

what is the difference

you make it sound like we had not been running up a deficit and debt and that there would be a new loss of revenue in the event of a war.

For the record I would favor a fair tax. with there being exceptions for some things such as food.

I don't buy the argument that rich will make out better. The rich peoples houses I work at spend like there is no tomorrow.

The current tax system is smoke and mirrors. People are nickle and dimed to death. A flat tax would make things more above board.

you missed my point. we have paid for wars, disaster damage, etc. on a charge card all along.

And I pointed out that a fixed rate tax would not address future conflicts.
Wars, economic collapses, disasters are not calendar events.
Tax rates adjust to need, not the whims of a loon

what is the difference

Difference between what?

you make it sound like we had not been running up a deficit and debt and that there would be a new loss of revenue in the event of a war.

You are confused......we did run up a debt and deficit problem. As shown....a flat tax fixed as TM presents, not only is regressive, it won't adjust to revenue needs in times of disaster.
That's not the same as saying the current progressive tax rates provided the needed revenue.
I asked how TM would address disaster with a 25% sales tax and he reneged.
You didn't.....it's obvious tax more.

I don't buy the argument that rich will make out better.

That's already been addressed....as wealth increases, the proportion of consumer sales to income declines, putting the greater burden on those that make less.
TM gave linkage to that.
For instance..the lower middle class spends most of their income just to live.....with TM's plan, that's a 25% reduction in their ability to survive. Give them credits to make up the difference and all you accomplish is a welfare class on entitlements with an even greater burden on middle and upper middle class.
There's no fair tax plan, imo.....just some worse than others.
With a progressive plan that's justly administered.....those that benefit pay a relatively greater amount of taxes than those that don't benefit as much.
It's an ethical and moral situation.
Something I've not seen put in practice to please everyone..

The rich peoples houses I work at spend like there is no tomorrow.

Ask them which plan they'd rather choose

 

[Stone]

Thats what you are presenting

No....that's what you are avoiding and yet argue to go to war with a nation that has nuclear capabilities.

AA had the balls to call for a tax increase if necessary.....you didn't.

 

[Stone]

Yes I want tax cuts.......what I really after though is reduced spending..which lets us operate on less tax.


Revenues did not go down with that tax cut...however spending went up.
History has shown us time and time again that tax cuts do not always mean less revenue and hikes do not always mean more revenue.
With tax cuts the consumer spends more...the increased trading increases revenues.
Tax hikes can lead to less trading thus less tax revenues.
The growth of the economy is determined by non essential items ...not by paying the bills of necessity.
Its the "junk' we buy that is growth as necessity items stay the same...having an extra 30 bucks in your pocket as well as 19 other people having the same..is 600 bucks..this 600 bucks gets spent on other things besides rent.
These items are taxed...the employees that made the items are taxed..the corp is taxed...the remained is often spent again and so goes the cycle...as we can see the 600 is quickly recuperated.

With tax hikes...one doesnt have this money to spend...the economy slows..then they have to raise taxes again to obtain the same revenues.

Look at it like this...if we took 50 percent more of a paycheck{tax} than we currently are now {just for demonstration}
Retail sales as well as services will greatly be slowed...many people will close the doors...we will become a third world country.
Now lets get 25 percent more of our check{less tax} than we currently are {again just for demonstration}..current retail and services could not keep with the demand....we have to grow...this causes more jobs...more trading..more revenues.
This doesn't even include all the construction involved...which in itself will require more materials ..more jobs..thus even more revenues.



How does a fixed rate and war equate to less consumer spending?{other that the soldiers them selves being gone}

Yes I want tax cuts.......what I really after though is reduced spending..which lets us operate on less tax.

Doesn't work well in times of war.....you failed on that point miserably, TM

Revenues did not go down with that tax cut...however spending went up.

When the economy tanked, an economic disaster, spending did not go up, it went down, that's why it was called the great recession.

History has shown us time and time again that tax cuts do not always mean less revenue and hikes do not always mean more revenue.

But your argument with a sales tax is to put greater tax burden on the middle and upper middle class......as you once posted....'fuck the middle class'.

With tax hikes...one doesnt have this money to spend

All taxes reduce potential spending.......including your sales tax plan......the difference being your plan taxes the consumer base heavily and the greater part of it is the middle and upper middle class.

The growth of the economy is determined by non essential items

Please stop acting stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

How does a fixed rate and war equate to less consumer spending?

That's not the question.....it's how to finance a war with a fixed tax rate that hasn't been factored for an unknown future war......and that was your tax model.

 

[Stone]

The opening post:

What would be a fair tax if it was applied equally to all earners across the board{all tax brackets}
This include corps, capital gains,everything..all earnings.
No property tax ...extra gas tax...tobacco tax ... beer tax...just one tax even across the board for all earners...regardless of how the earnings are obtained or what they are spent on.
The tax occurs at the time of spending.,,not when funds are acquired
This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

excerpt>

This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

How do you intend to fund invasions into foreign countries like your proposed chickenhawk argument to invade Pakistan?

http://forums.techguy.org/controvers...-pakistan.html

If a 25% tax covers the current expenditures of the Federal Government, increased military spending will increase the need for additional revenue.
So.....where do you propose it comes from?


My question continues unless TM admits his tax plan would need an increase in the taxation rate.
And then his recent argument turns against him.

Yes I want tax cuts.......what I really after though is reduced spending..which lets us operate on less tax.

Hmmm?

 

[The Man]

No....that's what you are avoiding and yet argue to go to war with a nation that has nuclear capabilities.

AA had the balls to call for a tax increase if necessary.....you didn't.

I stated I feel a 25 tax would be fair...I dont care how they spend it...war, space exploration, or carve more presidents heads out of rock.
The point of this thread is how much of our money should the govt take as a whole in general and be fair.
I even stated earlier I would will willing to go 28 percent.
The point here is govt spending is 50k a year per household {fed state and local combined}
The govt spends 10k a year per student on the average.....little high.
Some places operate on about 6k a year per student while others are 19k
Its just one example...we actually spend less on defense that education.
I am not proposing for the govt to live bare bones...but we need some efficiency.

So let me ask you stone..how much of our total earnings combined should the govt be able to tax to function.
Where do we draw the line?
We are taxed at every turn...all the little taxes make for some huge revenues.
Something else to consider...people are always whining about the rich....tax the rich tax the rich.

Now just for a moment lets spread that wealth and let everyone pay that 50k a year to the govt agencies themselves..you will hear alot of whining.

If it wasn't for the rich..the rest would take a good hard fucking.
Would you be happy spending 50k a year in taxes?....No
The rich are doing it for you.
You might want to be thankful for this income inequality we have

 

[The Man]

No....that's what you are avoiding and yet argue to go to war with a nation that has nuclear capabilities.

AA had the balls to call for a tax increase if necessary.....you didn't.

Where in this thread Have I argued to go to war.
Second it makes no difference as to what one feels is a fair tax.
Are you really struggling to figure this out?

 

[The Man]

Doesn't work well in times of war.....you failed on that point miserably, TM


When the economy tanked, an economic disaster, spending did not go up, it went down, that's why it was called the great recession.



But your argument with a sales tax is to put greater tax burden on the middle and upper middle class......as you once posted....'fuck the middle class'.



All taxes reduce potential spending.......including your sales tax plan......the difference being your plan taxes the consumer base heavily and the greater part of it is the middle and upper middle class.



Please stop acting stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth



That's not the question.....it's how to finance a war with a fixed tax rate that hasn't been factored for an unknown future war......and that was your tax model.

Doesn't work well in times of war.....you failed on that point miserably, TM

I never stated to cut taxes during war...thats a lie.

When the economy tanked, an economic disaster, spending did not go up, it went down, that's why it was called the great recession.

You are confusing {govt}revenues with consumer spending.....thus your confusion

But your argument with a sales tax is to put greater tax burden on the middle and upper middle class......as you once posted....'fuck the middle class'.

And here you post whatever fits your argument at the time..as you have argued prior that the fair tax would favor those with wealth and harm the poor.
Minor axis is right...you are full of shit..."A fake christian"
I can see why he has lost respect for you.

All taxes reduce potential spending.......including your sales tax plan......the difference being your plan taxes the consumer base heavily and the greater part of it is the middle and upper middle class.

Here you agree that taxes reduce spending...but yet claim in another thread that lower taxes would not have an increase in demand of goods and services.
Just whatever fits your argument at the time.....Not very Christian stone.

Please stop acting stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

You should understand your links before you post them as it supports my prior post.....thanks I will use it later if need be.

That's not the question.....it's how to finance a war with a fixed tax rate that hasn't been factored for an unknown future war......and that was your tax model.

Here is what you stated below

f you fix a rate and war occurs, not only is there generally a drop in consumer spending,

I then asked
How does a fix rate and war equate to less consumer spending {other than the soldiers themselves being gone}

You dodged that with your response above.

 

[The Man]

My question continues unless TM admits his tax plan would need an increase in the taxation rate.
And then his recent argument turns against him.

Not at all as you fail to state what you feel is a fair tax or what is needed to operate by the govt...you have already disqualified yourself from being able to take such position
As you can not state 25 percent inst enough..

Anyway...I am done wasting my bandwidth on you for a while

 

[Stone]

I stated I feel a 25 tax would be fair...I dont care how they spend it...war, space exploration, or carve more presidents heads out of rock.
The point of this thread is how much of our money should the govt take as a whole in general and be fair.
I even stated earlier I would will willing to go 28 percent.
The point here is govt spending is 50k a year per household {fed state and local combined}
The govt spends 10k a year per student on the average.....little high.
Some places operate on about 6k a year per student while others are 19k
Its just one example...we actually spend less on defense that education.
I am not proposing for the govt to live bare bones...but we need some efficiency.

So let me ask you stone..how much of our total earnings combined should the govt be able to tax to function.
Where do we draw the line?
We are taxed at every turn...all the little taxes make for some huge revenues.
Something else to consider...people are always whining about the rich....tax the rich tax the rich.

Now just for a moment lets spread that wealth and let everyone pay that 50k a year to the govt agencies themselves..you will hear alot of whining.

If it wasn't for the rich..the rest would take a good hard fucking.
Would you be happy spending 50k a year in taxes?....No
The rich are doing it for you.
You might want to be thankful for this income inequality we have

I stated I feel a 25 tax would be fair...I dont care how they spend it...war, space exploration, or carve more presidents heads out of rock.

In other words, you have no interest in cutting out waste.
That is tax and spend philosophy..........( from Marx to the current Democrat economic policies....you embrace 'em all )

The point of this thread is how much of our money should the govt take as a whole in general and be fair.

NO!

your OP:

What would be a fair tax if it was applied equally to all earners across the board{all tax brackets}
This include corps, capital gains,everything..all earnings.
No property tax ...extra gas tax...tobacco tax ... beer tax...just one tax even across the board for all earners...regardless of how the earnings are obtained or what they are spent on.
The tax occurs at the time of spending.,,not when funds are acquired
This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

This was your argument:

This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

To add to the muddled shit you posted:

What would be a fair tax if it was applied equally to all earners....
....just one tax even across the board for all earners...regardless of how the earnings are obtained or what they are spent on.......
.....The tax occurs at the time of spending

How the hell can a tax be applied equally to earners when you base the tax rate on spending that is inversely proportional to earnings?

Your OP was shit, TM......S H I T !
And changing your claims as you go is.....drumroll........arguing out of the convenience of the moment.

I even stated earlier I would will willing to go 28 percent.

It doesn't matter ....where ever you are is not necessarily what you need in the future with a fixed rate....AND.....you're fucking the middle class with a regressive tax plan......you even inadvertently linked to that fact earlier and I did point it out.

So let me ask you stone..how much of our total earnings combined should the govt be able to tax to function.
Where do we draw the line?

That is a good question.
Wish I could give you the honest answers that you do not allow me.
But this thread is about tax plans to achieve needed revenue, not the necessary revenue needed....and I've been showing you your plan is not acceptable because of it's design.

We are taxed at every turn

Yes.

all the little taxes make for some huge revenues.

Indeed.

Something else to consider...people are always whining about the rich....tax the rich tax the rich.

The lefties chant tax the rich......my position is taxing them in a just manner.....ie. not the 'free ride' you keep arguing for with a flat rate sales tax.

Now just for a moment lets spread that wealth and let everyone pay that 50k a year to the govt agencies themselves..you will hear alot of whining.

That's not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.
It's 'sharing the wealth' and being taxed 50K a year.

Would you be happy spending 50k a year in taxes?....No

That's still not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.

If it wasn't for the rich..the rest would take a good hard fucking.

That's still not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan......just rhetoric.

Would you be happy spending 50k a year in taxes?....No
The rich are doing it for you.

That's not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.

You might want to be thankful for this income inequality we have

.

 

[Stone]

I never stated to cut taxes during war...thats a lie.


You are confusing {govt}revenues with consumer spending.....thus your confusion


And here you post whatever fits your argument at the time..as you have argued prior that the fair tax would favor those with wealth and harm the poor.
Minor axis is right...you are full of shit..."A fake christian"
I can see why he has lost respect for you.



Here you agree that taxes reduce spending...but yet claim in another thread that lower taxes would not have an increase in demand of goods and services.
Just whatever fits your argument at the time.....Not very Christian stone.


You should understand your links before you post them as it supports my prior post.....thanks I will use it later if need be.


Here is what you stated below


I then asked
How does a fix rate and war equate to less consumer spending {other than the soldiers themselves being gone}

You dodged that with your response above.

I started going point by point and quickly realized you were making up a lot of claims and quoting out of context.....:eek(Not!)

It's just easier to address the whole post as poorly written fiction.
Don't like it....tough


As posted, your tax plan sucks

 

[Stone]

Not at all as you fail to state what you feel is a fair tax or what is needed to operate by the govt...you have already disqualified yourself from being able to take such position
As you can not state 25 percent inst enough..

Anyway...I am done wasting my bandwidth on you for a while

This is your opening argument:

The tax occurs at the time of spending.,,not when funds are acquired
This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

And my question is still relevant:


How do you intend to fund invasions into foreign countries like your proposed chickenhawk argument to invade Pakistan?

http://forums.techguy.org/controvers...-pakistan.html

If a fixed rate sales tax covers the current expenditures of the Federal Government, increased military spending of a future war like the one you propose, will increase the need for additional revenue.
So.....where do you propose it comes from?

You do argue tax cuts while arguing to go into another war.

 

[The Man]

In other words, you have no interest in cutting out waste.
That is tax and spend philosophy..........( from Marx to the current Democrat economic policies....you embrace 'em all )



NO!

your OP:


This was your argument:





To add to the muddled shit you posted:


How the hell can a tax be applied equally to earners when you base the tax rate on spending that is inversely proportional to earnings?

Your OP was shit, TM......S H I T !
And changing your claims as you go is.....drumroll........arguing out of the convenience of the moment.



It doesn't matter ....where ever you are is not necessarily what you need in the future with a fixed rate....AND.....you're fucking the middle class with a regressive tax plan......you even inadvertently linked to that fact earlier and I did point it out.


That is a good question.
Wish I could give you the honest answers that you do not allow me.
But this thread is about tax plans to achieve needed revenue, not the necessary revenue needed....and I've been showing you your plan is not acceptable because of it's design.



Yes.


Indeed.


The lefties chant tax the rich......my position is taxing them in a just manner.....ie. not the 'free ride' you keep arguing for with a flat rate sales tax.



That's not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.
It's 'sharing the wealth' and being taxed 50K a year.



That's still not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.



That's still not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan......just rhetoric.



That's not an argument for a fixed rate sales tax plan.



.

How the hell can a tax be applied equally to earners when you base the tax rate on spending that is inversely proportional to earnings?

Your OP was shit, TM......S H I T !
And changing your claims as you go is.....drumroll........arguing out of the convenience of the moment.

A flat rate is proportional to earning needle head....great not only do you post out of convenience you get confused out of convenience as well.

It doesn't matter ....where ever you are is not necessarily what you need in the future with a fixed rate....AND.....you're fucking the middle class with a regressive tax plan......you even inadvertently linked to that fact earlier and I did point it out.

What link?....here we go again...and how is a flat rate fucking anybody?

That is a good question.
Wish I could give you the honest answers that you do not allow me.
But this thread is about tax plans to achieve needed revenue, not the necessary revenue needed....and I've been showing you your plan is not acceptable because of it's design.

You have been allowed,,,but you will not respond
What is a fair rate?...you claim you do not know..but yet claim 25 percent cant work.
You just like to argue....I take it the wife is the "man" of the house and quickly shuts you down.

The lefties chant tax the rich......my position is taxing them in a just manner.....ie. not the 'free ride' you keep arguing for with a flat rate sales tax.

Earlier you stated they would be over taxed...now you are claiming a free ride...you either are forgetting what you post...or just make up shit as you go along...the second being more accurate.

The more you post the worse it looks....Thats not an attack...just some free education

 

[The Man]

I started going point by point and quickly realized you were making up a lot of claims and quoting out of context.....:eek(Not!)

It's just easier to address the whole post as poorly written fiction.
Don't like it....tough


As posted, your tax plan sucks

Thats just your way of saying "I stone have been caught in multiple lies and still must get in the last word"

Not a problem

 

[The Man]

This is your opening argument:





And my question is still relevant:


How do you intend to fund invasions into foreign countries like your proposed chickenhawk argument to invade Pakistan?

http://forums.techguy.org/controvers...-pakistan.html

If a fixed rate sales tax covers the current expenditures of the Federal Government, increased military spending of a future war like the one you propose, will increase the need for additional revenue.
So.....where do you propose it comes from?

You do argue tax cuts while arguing to go into another war.

I never stated 25 percent covers current expenditures..I stated a 25 percent tax should be fair.
You cant come up with a number...claiming you honestly have no idea...you have disqualified yourself from saying 25 percent isnt fair or will not work.

 

[The Man]

I suggest you go get your helper stone...you are failing here.

 

[Stone]

A flat rate is proportional to earning needle head....great not only do you post out of convenience you get confused out of convenience as well.


What link?....here we go again...and how is a flat rate fucking anybody?


You have been allowed,,,but you will not respond
What is a fair rate?...you claim you do not know..but yet claim 25 percent cant work.
You just like to argue....I take it the wife is the "man" of the house and quickly shuts you down.


Earlier you stated they would be over taxed...now you are claiming a free ride...you either are forgetting what you post...or just make up shit as you go along...the second being more accurate.

The more you post the worse it looks....Thats not an attack...just some free education

A flat rate is proportional to earning needle head....great not only do you post out of convenience you get confused out of convenience as well.

Not a sales tax ....that's regressive....inversely proportional.

What link?....here we go again...and how is a flat rate fucking anybody?

You posted it, not me....Wikipedia......a flat sales tax is regressive.

You have been allowed,,,but you will not respond

I'm not an economist...... I have no intention of lying to the forum as you do.

.but yet claim 25 percent cant work.

A fixed rate sales tax is regressive.
It favors the wealthy unjustly.
You posted the link to it.

You just like to argue

Of course.....and being correct is just that much more enjoyment

Earlier you stated they would be over taxed...now you are claiming a free ride...you either are forgetting what you post...or just make up shit as you go along...the second being more accurate.

The more you post the worse it looks....Thats not an attack...just some free education

Just more of your gibberish

 

[Stone]

I never stated 25 percent covers current expenditures................
.....................................

Your argument in the opening post:

This tax will cover all combined govt spending.

I say 25 percent is fair

And my question is still relevant.

You argue tax cuts while arguing to go into another war.


How do you intend to fund invasions into foreign countries like your proposed chickenhawk argument to invade Pakistan?

http://forums.techguy.org/controvers...-pakistan.html

If a fixed rate sales tax covers the current expenditures of the Federal Government, increased military spending of a future war like the one you propose, will increase the need for additional revenue.
So.....where do you propose it comes from?

 

[Stone]

I suggest you go get your helper stone...you are failing here.

< yawn >


.

You gotta admit you look bad arguing for tax cuts and war at the same time