The honeymoon is ALREADY over? Shocking numbers

#129
#129
utgibbs said:
Explain.
Click to expand...

You nor anyone that you and your friends may elect has ANY RIGHT to the wealth legitimately accummulated by an individual. This very simple, just concept is PRECISELY why the Founders made direct taxation to include the income tax illegal. ALL taxes were rightly use/consumption taxes or tariffs up until the Progressives' illegitimate take over in the early 20th century.

There is NOTHING done by gov't any more profoundly immoral as the inheritance tax... followed not too far behind by the income tax itself. Both may be legitimized by statute but both are morally nothing more than stealing.
 
#130
#130
sjt18 said:
You nor anyone that you and your friends may elect has ANY RIGHT to the wealth legitimately accummulated by an individual. This very simple, just concept is PRECISELY why the Founders made direct taxation to include the income tax illegal. ALL taxes were rightly use/consumption taxes or tariffs up until the Progressives' illegitimate take over in the early 20th century.

There is NOTHING done by gov't any more profoundly immoral as the inheritance tax... followed not too far behind by the income tax itself. Both may be legitimized by statute but both are morally nothing more than stealing.
Click to expand...

Give me some details on your tax system. I'm intrigued.
 
#131
#131
utgibbs said:
Don't pretzelize yourself too much, droski. I was the one who wrote "Blah, blah, blah" in my Irish Tiger comment. You were the one pushing the red herring.

We are being bailed out by the Chinese as we speak. The Irish by the UK. Is there a difference - other than one is China and the other the UK? Big banking business was to blame for both.

I was in the labor force while in college. You published data (without link) concerning 18 - 24 year olds in the UK. I was just pointing out one must not throw stones in glass houses...
Click to expand...

ummmm we never asked the chinese to buy $1 trillion of our debt. hardly comparable. how is big banking business to blame for either?

i published data for people IN THE LABOR FORCE. you can't see the difference?
 
#132
#132
droski said:
ummmm we never asked the chinese to buy $1 trillion of our debt. hardly comparable. how is big banking business to blame for either?

i published data for people IN THE LABOR FORCE. you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...

We didn't???

Hillary Clinton pleads with China to buy US Treasuries as Japan looks on - Telegraph

You published data? I missed data. I saw a number written in a VN post. I will provide yet more information:

The dead end kids - NYPOST.com

53.4% unemployment for 16 - 24 year olds.
 
#133
#133
the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long.
Click to expand...

how do you count 16yo and exclude students at the same time? If you're 16-17yo and not in school then there's probably a reason you're not employed
 
#134
#134
#135
#135
utgibbs said:
Give me some details on your tax system. I'm intrigued.
Click to expand...

The Fair Tax plus a renewed emphasis on tariffs as a means of assuring trade equity/fairness and revenue generataion.

Direct taxation is a direct afront to the rights and freedoms of the individual. The Founders were concerned about those things... yes even when they so tragically failed to protect those of slaves. Progressives are interested in nullifying those things in favor of "group rights".
 
#136
#136
sjt18 said:
The Fair Tax plus a renewed emphasis on tariffs as a means of assuring trade equity/fairness and revenue generataion.

Direct taxation is a direct afront to the rights and freedoms of the individual. The Founders were concerned about those things... yes even when they so tragically failed to protect those of slaves. Progressives are interested in nullifying those things in favor of "group rights".
Click to expand...

I thought the Fair Tax was a flat tax. Could I get a link to a succinct Fair Tax proposal to learn more?

I'm not sure direct taxation is "a direct affront" to freedom (after all, you wouldn't be able to drive without the massive subsidy, among many more important things), BUT, I'm intrigued to find someone talking tariffs in today's world.

Could you point me to the "Fair Tax" - I had always heard this was a flat tax proposal (highly regressive, certainly not something I could support). If it is a Value-Added Tax, I'm intrigued again.
 
#137
#137
utgibbs said:
I thought the Fair Tax was a flat tax. Could I get a link to a succinct Fair Tax proposal to learn more?

I'm not sure direct taxation is "a direct affront" to freedom (after all, you wouldn't be able to drive without the massive subsidy, among many more important things), BUT, I'm intrigued to find someone talking tariffs in today's world.

Could you point me to the "Fair Tax" - I had always heard this was a flat tax proposal (highly regressive, certainly not something I could support). If it is a Value-Added Tax, I'm intrigued again.
Click to expand...

Here's the actual .org link.

Americans For Fair Taxation:
 
#138
#138
utgibbs said:
I thought the Fair Tax was a flat tax. Could I get a link to a succinct Fair Tax proposal to learn more?
Click to expand...
You can get it through virtually any search engine. I think it is fairtax.org though.

Basically, it would be a sales tax of 20-25% to replace all current federal taxes. It would apply to most or all purchases of new goods and services. It would not apply to any used item to include homes.

It is VERY progressive in one significant detail. EVERY adult or family would receive a monthly "pre-bate" for the amount of tax the average person/family would pay for basic necessities. IIRC, it would be about $400 per family. IOW's, about $1,600 in family expenses each month would be tax free.

In reality, only the "rich" or excessive consumers would pay taxes... isn't that what you want? ONLY consumption would be taxed and to some extent discouraged. Not production. Not wealth building. Not investing. Not savings. Not conservation. Not income.

The last time I read much on it, supporters claimed it would be revenue neutral at 23% without spending cuts.

Bureaucratic and administrative costs would be a fraction of the current system. The number of "taxpayers" as in those who report and pay the gov't would be reduced greatly.

I'm not sure direct taxation is "a direct affront" to freedom (after all, you wouldn't be able to drive without the massive subsidy, among many more important things), BUT, I'm intrigued to find someone talking tariffs in today's world.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. The most basic, fundamental definition of a slave or bond servant is someone whose labor as a commodity does not fully belong to them. The income tax by necessity asserts that the gov't has a RIGHT to all or part of a person's labor. If gov't can (and does) manipulate your behavior through the income tax code then you are not free.
 
Last edited:
#139
#139
sjt18 said:
Direct taxation is a direct afront to the rights and freedoms of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's crazy talk. The rights and freedoms of the individual are protected by a gigantic military, which costs money. Therefore the individuals with said rights should contribute to its upkeep, so they get to keep their freedoms.

No taxes = no freedoms.
 
#140
#140
StepCross said:
That's crazy talk. The rights and freedoms of the individual are protected by a gigantic military, which costs money.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. That literally is crazy talk. The USSR, Iran, Iraq, N Korea, China, Nazi Germany, etc, etc ALL had "gigantic" militaries but very limited freedom.
Therefore the individuals with said rights should contribute to its upkeep, so they get to keep their freedoms.

No taxes = no freedoms.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "no taxes". I said no income taxes. Taxes are necessary. The founders rightly determined that indirect taxation would raise sufficient revenue without empowering gov't to meddle with individual freedom. While their system was in place... up until around 1910... the US had very little sustained debt, an economy that became the envy of the world, floods of people wanting in, little poverty in the contemporary/comparative sense, etc. Gov't consumed about 7% of GDP and had little to no running debt.

Contrary to the fear mongering on the left- churches, families, charities, and communities assured that the genuinely poor and needy were cared for.

We are sadly repeating history on this... every free society throughout history that came to bargain away freedom because of difficulty for security or convenience has stopped being free.
 
#141
#141
sjt18 said:
No they aren't. That literally is crazy talk. The USSR, Iran, Iraq, N Korea, China, Nazi Germany, etc, etc ALL had "gigantic" militaries but very limited freedom.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

Gigantic armies certainly don't guarantee freedom, that's obvious.

However, if you want to have freedom, you had better have an army to protect it. Or else one of the big armies you mentioned will invade you and impose their UN-free society on you.
 
#142
#142
I've got to see the $22M study the FairTax organization has done.

There are three requirements of every taxation plan:

Simple
Transparent
Progressive

It certainly seems to cover the first two. I would have to know more about the prebate. I'm trying to see how this makes it truly progressive. This would ABSOLUTELY also have to cover financial transactions as well, perhaps even at a super-rate.

I've got to see their numbers though. It strikes me as not pulling in the funds they claim.
 
#143
#143
StepCross said:
You missed the point.

Gigantic armies certainly don't guarantee freedom, that's obvious.

However, if you want to have freedom, you had better have an army to protect it. Or else one of the big armies you mentioned will invade you and impose their UN-free society on you.
Click to expand...

No. You missed the point. For the first 130 years of our country we had no income tax. It was illegal. We were able to raise armies and defend ourselves. We fought the largest, most expensive hot war in American history. In 1799 and 1899, the US had no sustained debt.

People didn't starve. We built railroads coast to coast and one of the worlds earliest complex road system for automobiles. We built industry, installed public works, installed the telegraph and telephone network, and revolutionized agriculture... people didn't routinely starve or die from exposure. The medical care that was available was affordable and widely accessible.

All of this was accomplished without big gov't and without the income tax. Were they perfect times? No. There were periods of real hardship. There was injustice. But none of those things were "fixed" by big gov't or the income tax.

In 2011, we have something like 14 trillion dollars in debt and deficit spending projections without end. At 2009 rates, the Progressives now have us going in debt at a rate of almost 10% per year. Our debt is already equivalent to our GDP. At what point do supporters of liberalism wake up and realize you can't keep running up credit card debt forever?
 
#144
#144
utgibbs said:
I've got to see the $22M study the FairTax organization has done.

There are three requirements of every taxation plan:

Simple
Transparent
Progressive

It certainly seems to cover the first two. I would have to know more about the prebate. I'm trying to see how this makes it truly progressive. This would ABSOLUTELY also have to cover financial transactions as well, perhaps even at a super-rate.

I've got to see their numbers though. It strikes me as not pulling in the funds they claim.
Click to expand...
The current system fails on all three of your requirements.

But no, progressivity is NOT a requirement... fairness IS. This system is more than "fair" and progressive in that it does not punish people for consuming the necessities of life. It gives EVERYONE the same fair starting point then leaves it up to them to make good decisions.

You still have in your head that the way to distribute wealth more "fairly" is by finding a way to punish the productive... the wealthy. Punishing the wealthy is not equivalent to benefiting the poor and middle class. In fact, your own graphs and data show distinctly that Progressive efforts to help the poor by confiscating the wealth of the rich has had the opposite effect on income distribution.

Once again, you and I both see an alcoholic. My prescription is to dry him out and discipline him to a new, healthy lifestyle. Painful yes but effective and sustainable. Your prescription is to sell him everclear instead of rum.
 
#145
#145
utgibbs said:
It certainly seems to cover the first two. I would have to know more about the prebate. I'm trying to see how this makes it truly progressive.
Click to expand...

I'm no scholar on the FT but it's my understanding the "progressive" side of it is basically embedded in the idea that you pay when you purchase. If you're living lean and not much beyond prebate levels you essentially aren't paying taxes. Conversely, if you're rich and buying stuff then you are the one that keeps pumping money into the public coffers.

Others more familiar might do better but that's my understanding of it. It is precisely the people of means out buying stuff that will pay the most in taxes.
 
#146
#146
sjt18 said:
The current system fails on all three of your requirements.

But no, progressivity is NOT a requirement... fairness IS. This system is more than "fair" and progressive in that it does not punish people for consuming the necessities of life. It gives EVERYONE the same fair starting point then leaves it up to them to make good decisions.

You still have in your head that the way to distribute wealth more "fairly" is by finding a way to punish the productive... the wealthy. Punishing the wealthy is not equivalent to benefiting the poor and middle class. In fact, your own graphs and data show distinctly that Progressive efforts to help the poor by confiscating the wealth of the rich has had the opposite effect on income distribution.

Once again, you and I both see an alcoholic. My prescription is to dry him out and discipline him to a new, healthy lifestyle. Painful yes but effective and sustainable. Your prescription is to sell him everclear instead of rum.
Click to expand...

I know the current system fails on all three requirements. I'm no fan of the current system.

Progressivity is an absolutely necessary feature of any taxation plan. There is no "fairness" without progressivity. "Fairness" has no meaning otherwise. Taxes never inhibit wealth creation. Never.

I see far more alcoholics than you do. The current financial crisis was empowered by Clinton and Rubin, but the real alcoholics - Wall Street - went on history's largest binge. I would certainly like to dry them out, and putting the 40-page Glass-Steagal act back into law, overturning Santa Clara vs Pacific Railroad, would certainly be a better move than the 2000 pg bricks ("El Ladrillo") currently written, not to dry out the alcoholics, but to ensure they get even more whiskey.
 
#147
#147
utgibbs said:
I would have to know more about the prebate. I'm trying to see how this makes it truly progressive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Progressive, regressive, and flat are defined as regards the marginal tax rate. In other words, how much tax would you pay on the next dollar you earn?

Clearly any consumption tax would be regressive on average, prebate or no. The poor would spend every dime they bring in, and thus the tax rate on the last dollar they earn would be the 100% of the consumption tax rate.

The middle class might be able to save a little (although that's getting harder and harder as the power of the dollar decreases while wages stagnate). Most middle class people would do well to save 10-15%, but most don't. Assuming they do--let's be generous and give them 20% savings rate--that means they pay consumption tax on 80% of the last dollar they earn.

The wealthy, though? They should have no trouble saving 50% of what they earn, if they want to. Then their marginal rate is half of a poor person's marginal rate. Maybe even less, if they get to a point that they decide they will save every extra penny they earn after the first X dollars.

I will let you guys argue about whether this is all good or bad, but it's grossly regressive without question.
 
#148
#148
StepCross said:
It doesn't. Progressive, regressive, and flat are defined as regards the marginal tax rate. In other words, how much tax would you pay on the next dollar you earn?

Clearly any consumption tax would be regressive on average, prebate or no. The poor would spend every dime they bring in, and thus the tax rate on the last dollar they earn would be the 100% of the consumption tax rate.

The middle class might be able to save a little (although that's getting harder and harder as the power of the dollar decreases while wages stagnate). Most middle class people would do well to save 10-15%, but most don't. Assuming they do--let's be generous and give them 20% savings rate--that means they pay consumption tax on 80% of the last dollar they earn.

The wealthy, though? They should have no trouble saving 50% of what they earn, if they want to. Then their marginal rate is half of a poor person's marginal rate. Maybe even less, if they get to a point that they decide they will save every extra penny they earn after the first X dollars.

I will let you guys argue about whether this is all good or bad, but it's grossly regressive without question.
Click to expand...

That's my fear. Progressivity is necessary for any "fair" tax code.

However, the current code is so bad, I'd almost jump on the grenade just to get the dialogue somewhere closer to an appropriate place. It seems obvious (and it should be obvious since these are Adam Smith's rules for a tax code) that Simple, Transparent, and Progressive are the foundation. But we aren't close to there yer.

PS - great analysis above.

PPS - Your statement about wage stagnation could not be more true.
 
#149
#149
utgibbs said:
Progressivity is necessary for any "fair" tax code.
Click to expand...

BS. Karl Marx called for a heavy progressive tax code.

even if you could make the argument that the US Constitution calls for an income tax (which you can't, because it doesn't) it would have to be uniform, meaning the same rate, or percentage for everybody who pays it.

As much as I dislike Social Security, it is at least uniform and no one who earns income is immune from it.
 
#150
#150
Questions re the fair tax:

1) Would the tax apply to services?

2) Would the tax apply to goods (and/or services) bought outside of the United States?

3) If indeed the fair tax is, as sjt claims, going to result in a greater part of the tax burden being placed on the wealthy, then why is it that the wealthy support it? The only people I see really touting this are conservatives, like Boortz. Why is he promoting a tax that would increase the burden on the upper class if his argument that the lower class is getting away without paying its fair share? Makes no sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top