We have to get to the bottom of this... - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15224365
Two scenarios...

A population that pays twenty percent of their earnings to the government, regardless of how much they earn. A flat 20% of whatever they earn, regardless of how much they earn.

OR

A population that pays a certain percentage of their earnings to the government based on how much they earn (graduated tax AKA a progressive tax). The more you earn, the higher percentage you pay.

Which is "fair" and why?
#15224372
An income tax is precisely the opposite of what it claims to be. It's not a tax on income at all. It's a tax on spending.

Generally, people spend the first few thousand dollars they earn on basic necessities such as food, water, shelter, clothes, etc. Then the next few thousand on less important things. Finally, you get to a point where they're just pissing money away on luxuries.

A flat tax guarantees that you will make it harder for poor people to afford basic necessities while making it easier for rich people to spend money on luxuries. At the same time, the government is generating far less tax revenue overall because it's almost impossible to justify increasing taxes on the poor. So you are doing enormous damage to the most essential component of your economy while failing to take maximum advantage of the least essential component. Absolutely retarded.
#15224375
BlutoSays wrote:Two scenarios...

A population that pays twenty percent of their earnings to the government, regardless of how much they earn. A flat 20% of whatever they earn, regardless of how much they earn.

OR

A population that pays a certain percentage of their earnings to the government based on how much they earn (graduated tax AKA a progressive tax). The more you earn, the higher percentage you pay.

Which is "fair" and why?


Progressive tax system as the rich fundamentally get more of the benefits of society.
#15224385
pugsville wrote:Progressive tax system as the rich fundamentally get more of the benefits of society.


Bluto, pugsville and Saeko have gotten it exactly right. The rich now see to it that the poor can just subsist on 1 job and there usually are not jobs open so everyone can have 2 jobs. Right now AFAIK there are IIRC 10 M empty jobs, but google says there a 157 M people in America working. Doing the math gives enough jobs now for about 1/6 to have 2 full time jobs.

The rich have rigged the system so that the working poor can't pay another 20% of their income. They already pay 14% FICA tax on every dollar they earn. No deductions for anything.

There is no way the economy will work if a flat 20% income tax is stacked on top of the 14% FICA and state and local taxes, WITHOUT a huge pay increase for the working poor.

Bluto, this plan without any changes will result in mass riots. People will not see their kids starve while the food stores are full of food.

Bluto, I can't understand your POV. The US is the richest large nation the world has ever known. And it has more homelessness than it ever did in the past. It is a huge problem. Tenn. just made it a felony to camp out in most places. A felony. Tenn. would not be doing this unless homelessness was a big problem. This is going to cost taxpayers big money to arrest, jail, try in court, and often send to prison (prison costs about $40 K/year, at least).

.
#15224565
All three of you are wrong as can be.

We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.

That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.

"People will not see their kids starve while the food stores are full of food."

Stores are less full of food than they used to be. That trend will drop further, and we'll have shortages because people like you are running the government. See 1960's East Germany. We're headed that way.

You have this idea that we're the richest nation, but then again, you couldn't find your butt with 10 mirrors, a flashlight and ten hands.

WE ARE A DEBTOR NATION. Get that thru your thick head. We are NOT a rich nation. We have a debt of $91K per person. ( http://www.usdebtclock.org )

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/57perce ... study.html



When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Image
#15224579
BlutoSays wrote:
All three of you are wrong as can be.

We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.



You're suddenly concerned about government's *well-being* now -- ?

Are you flip-flopping on what the size of government should be?

Are you professionally *affiliated* with government?

And, anyway....


19 of America's biggest companies paid little — or zero — income tax: "The tax code is broken"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate- ... companies/


---


BlutoSays wrote:
That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.



Flat-tax is how things *used* to be, but that's *regressive* because those who privatize / accumulate the most should have to give-back the most, through *progressive* taxation rates, indexed to income levels.


BlutoSays wrote:
"People will not see their kids starve while the food stores are full of food."

Stores are less full of food than they used to be. That trend will drop further, and we'll have shortages because people like you are running the government. See 1960's East Germany. We're headed that way.



You're thinking of *Afghanistan*, currently -- an uptick in consumer prices will *not* be causing famines in the First World, contrary to your alarmism.


BlutoSays wrote:
You have this idea that we're the richest nation, but then again, you couldn't find your butt with 10 mirrors, a flashlight and ten hands.

WE ARE A DEBTOR NATION. Get that thru your thick head. We are NOT a rich nation. We have a debt of $91K per person. ( http://www.usdebtclock.org )

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/57perce ... study.html



Your nationalistic concerns are leading you into seeing only *exchange values* / money as the going yardstick -- it's an alarmist economistic political line, for lack of any socio-political *substance*. All you want to do is make political 'hay' out of anything you can get your hands on -- sad.


BlutoSays wrote:
When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Image



More bluster.
#15224593
ckaihatsu wrote:You're suddenly concerned about government's *well-being* now -- ?

Are you flip-flopping on what the size of government should be?

Are you professionally *affiliated* with government?

I am NOT professionally affiliated with gubmint. I always wanted small govt.

And, anyway....


19 of America's biggest companies paid little — or zero — income tax: "The tax code is broken"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/corporate- ... companies/

No, YOU are broken. You believe you are "owed" by virtue of your existence. You aren't, ya little marxist.


---





Flat-tax is how things *used* to be, but that's *regressive* because those who privatize / accumulate the most should have to give-back the most, through *progressive* taxation rates, indexed to income levels.


No, everyone should be taxed at a flat rate. Everyone should have an equal share percentagewise or we get people who feed on the govt tit their whole lives and that policy also promotes intergenerational welfare.


You're thinking of *Afghanistan*, currently -- an uptick in consumer prices will *not* be causing famines in the First World, contrary to your alarmism.


No, I'm thinking of what JOE BIDEN stated a few days ago. Got it?




Your nationalistic concerns are leading you into seeing only *exchange values* / money as the going yardstick -- it's an alarmist economistic political line, for lack of any socio-political *substance*. All you want to do is make political 'hay' out of anything you can get your hands on -- sad.


I want democrats to stop playing one group against another for votes, like they've done for the last 50 years. Time for everyone to have a stake in the game, not have professional leftists become takers their whole lives.


More bluster.
#15224602
BlutoSays wrote:
No, YOU are broken. You believe you are "owed" by virtue of your existence. You aren't, ya little marxist.



Please, do elaborate.


BlutoSays wrote:
No, everyone should be taxed at a flat rate. Everyone should have an equal share percentagewise or we get people who feed on the govt tit their whole lives and that policy also promotes intergenerational welfare.



Quick reminder (which I'll have to do increasingly more often) -- those who aren't paid a wage or salary for their own work alone have found some *other* economic ways of providing for themselves, and then where does *that* value, for their consumption, come from, exactly -- ?

Why critique '[big] gubmint' and then stop-short by not focusing on government *giveaways* to private-sector interests -- like tax breaks for the rich, primarily.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_ ... age_impact

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_ ... inequality
#15224604
BlutoSays wrote:All three of you are wrong as can be.

We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.

That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.


And yet the unemployment rate is only 3.6%. This means that the vast majority of your so called "takers" are working people who are severely underpaid.
#15224612
BlutoSays wrote:
We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.

That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.



Rancid wrote:
I like the idea of giving more tax breaks to the top 1%.



Maybe, if our nationalistic concern is so focused on the U.S. balance sheet, how about let's *not* give public money away to those who already have plenty of it.
#15224613
ckaihatsu wrote:Maybe, if our nationalistic concern is so focused on the U.S. balance sheet, how about let's *not* give public money away to those who already have plenty of it.


If we shower those that have money, with more money, eventually we a tiny bit of the money might make it down to those at the bottom. They will be grateful.
#15224614
Rancid wrote:If we shower those that have money, with more money, eventually we a tiny bit of the money might make it down to those at the bottom. They will be grateful.


I still can't believe that con actually worked. If the whole justification for trickle-down economics was that the money would eventually trickle down, then why not just cut out the middle man and put more money directly in the hands of those at the bottom and then wait for it to trickle up?

You'd think this thought would occur to almost anyone immediately, but maybe I vastly overestimate the intelligence of the general public.
#15224615
Saeko wrote:And yet the unemployment rate is only 3.6%. This means that the vast majority of your so called "takers" are working people who are severely underpaid.


That's because the labor force participation rate has been dropping for the last 25 years. The people who drop out, they don't count.

Your unemployment rate doesn't take that into account.

US Labor Force Participation Rate by Year

https://www.multpl.com/us-labor-force-p ... le/by-year
#15224616
BlutoSays wrote:
That's because the labor force participation rate has been dropping for the last 25 years. The people who drop out, they don't count.

Your unemployment rate doesn't take that into account.

US Labor Force Participation Rate by Year

https://www.multpl.com/us-labor-force-p ... le/by-year



Isn't this where you hold up your finger pointing skyward and say 'Time to *incentivize*.'
#15224619
ckaihatsu wrote:Isn't this where you hold up your finger pointing skyward and say 'Time to *incentivize*.'


Just so we're clear, do the employment numbers Saeko cited take the labor participation rate into account or not?
#15224620
BlutoSays wrote:All three of you are wrong as can be.

We have a system now where 57% of households pay no income taxes (those are IRS numbers)*. They vote for free shit because they know they won't have to pay for it and don't have a stake in paying for it, but they'll gladly continue to be takers.

That's why we need a flat-tax where everyone "feels" the effects of their voting choices. Anything else is self-destructive.

"People will not see their kids starve while the food stores are full of food."

Stores are less full of food than they used to be. That trend will drop further, and we'll have shortages because people like you are running the government. See 1960's East Germany. We're headed that way.

You have this idea that we're the richest nation, but then again, you couldn't find your butt with 10 mirrors, a flashlight and ten hands.

WE ARE A DEBTOR NATION. Get that thru your thick head. We are NOT a rich nation. We have a debt of $91K per person. ( http://www.usdebtclock.org )

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/25/57perce ... study.html



When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Image


Your argument is wrong.

People at the bottom feel the pain of poor economic management by the government much more strongly than rich people, they are in the real world not insulated by money,

The USA is a rich nation.
#15224621
pugsville wrote:Your argument is wrong.

People at the bottom feel the pain of poor economic management by the government much more strongly than rich people, they are in the real world not insulated by money,

The USA is a rich nation.


Poor economic management? They also feel the pain of their poor life decisions. The USA is NOT a rich nation.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 12
Is it a court, or our new junta?

White 'Americans' are the new Palestinians it seem[…]

JINO, judge in name only

you like the choo? No sir, find i like it too muc[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Let me know another example when a perfectly heal[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why did Lysychansk fall so fast? https://i[…]