Fair Means Equal

[Ug make hammer]

you have completely lost track of the argument and the thread.

If you speak on behalf of the thread, then I think it's more that the thread has lost track of me.

That stuff about Herman Cain IS relevant. You just don't have the time for it. And the Republican habit of cutting taxes on the rich WITHOUT raising taxes on the poor, is fait accompli which you should study.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

If you speak on behalf of the thread, then I think it's more that the thread has lost track of me.

oh, okay, i didn't know you are a big deal.

That stuff about Herman Cain IS relevant. You just don't have the time for it.

yup.

And the Republican habit of cutting taxes on the rich WITHOUT raising taxes on the poor, is fait accompli which you should study.

"the gqp will irreversibly always hold power!"

 

[Ug make hammer]

Not even the most sickly of Tea Party twerps thought the Balanced Budget Amendment had a chance. It's not the law of the land. And even if it was, cutting spending would be far easier than raising taxes on the poor.

The poor are fairly safe from OVERT tax increases, since they pay too much already (in fuel tax, state sales tax, FICA, and income tax above the threshold). Raising their taxes would make them very angry, and for not much revenue. I don't expect even Republicans to go that way (at the Federal level anyway). There is some scope for stealthy taxes however. Clunker laws (never mind California, look at Japan), government and commercial services being hard to access without a smart phone, and the vast cultural push to live like millionaires even if the money is borrowed. Government could push back against all that, but it won't because all those things contribute to the holy GDP. Poor people blowing money they don't technically have, is good for the economy. And if they have to declare personal bankruptcy, tough luck for them they didn't incorporate, and tough luck for the next government.

Tying in with the only point Gimmesometruth made, the oscillation between Democrat and Republican is toxic for long term planning by either. Get good results for two years and four years, then leave the mess to the other side. George Bush left a disaster unfolding in the Great Recession, Donald Trump left a disaster unfolding in Covid. Maybe it's just a co-incidence. Maybe.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Flat tax. Regressive FICA tax. Wait, full exemption for those under poverty level, making that a tax haven. But for a third time, Flat tax. "We need to stop punishing wealth" as though wealth is income.

That is THE worst tax plan I've every heard. It's worse than Herman Caine's. With the addition of a "plantation" tax refuge, it's worse than Jo Jorgensen's.

You are making no sense whatsoever.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

LOL....you created tax structures that are not flat, which was the demand

"LOL," the structure I created was to point out the absurdity of your argument that a tax that results in an increase of tax share by lower income brackets is regressive.

and your second brings in less revenue.

The flatness of a tax structure has nothing to do with how much revenue it brings in. It can bring in less (5% on all income) or it can bring in more (75% on all income). The hallmark of a flat tax is that the rate is the same. That's it.

Absurd, they have not met the demands of the argument,

You misrepresented the argument.

The argument remains, you cannot decrease the rate on upper quintiles and still maintain revenue levels without increasing the rate on lower quintiles.

You also can't go to the Moon with a rocket powered by unicorn farts. Any other irrelevant crap to trot out?

 

[Kushinator]

No, it's flat. Neither progressive (increasing rates as income rises), nor regressive (increasing rates as income decreases

A flat tax is regressive for the reason's i have already outlined.

You seem unable to understand this simple fact of life. A tax is not regressive based on how it compares to the last tax rate.

It is regressive based on how taxes will impact consumption. A tax that causes people with little or no savings to consume less overall is regressive regardless of your acceptance. At about week 4 in any introductory microeconomics course, consumer budgetary constraints are covered. Nevertheless, i cannot account for your lack of education.

 

[calamity]

A flat tax is regressive for the reason's i have already outlined.

It is regressive based on how taxes will impact consumption. A tax that causes people with little or no savings to consume less overall is regressive regardless of your acceptance. At about week 4 in any introductory microeconomics course, consumer budgetary constraints are covered. Nevertheless, i cannot account for your lack of education.

Yeah, whenever we get into these discussions, the lack of math skills on the Right rings out loud and clear.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You are making no sense whatsoever.

To the guy with "Dopey" AND "Senile" in his name.

Perhaps "plantation" threw you. Better fascists than yourself used to call poor, Dem-voting areas "the plantation" as if African Americans are no better off now than when they were slaves.

And don't bother. Joe Biden IS "senile" because it's straight from the Latin for "old". Trump is old too. Nobody cares.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

To the guy with "Dopey" AND "Senile" in his name.

Perhaps "plantation" threw you. Better fascists than yourself used to call poor, Dem-voting areas "the plantation" as if African Americans are no better off now than when they were slaves.

And don't bother. Joe Biden IS "senile" because it's straight from the Latin for "old". Trump is old too. Nobody cares.

If you would have left out the word fascist, you would have at least appeared somewhat rational and coherent. Obviously African Americans are better off now then they were as slaves. They at least now have the option of leaving the slavery of dependence on government entitlements, which is what I meant by plantation.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

"LOL," the structure I created was to point out the absurdity of your argument that a tax that results in an increase of tax share by lower income brackets is regressive.

But you didn't do that, you created a second scheme that lowered upper income burden AND reduced total revenue.

The flatness of a tax structure has nothing to do with how much revenue it brings in.

Non-sequitur, the demand was for you to create a flat scheme that would produce the same revenue without increasing the burden on lower quintiles, you can't do it.

It can bring in less (5% on all income) or it can bring in more (75% on all income). The hallmark of a flat tax is that the rate is the same. That's it.

Again non-sequitur, does not invalidate my argument.

You misrepresented the argument.

I'm not misrepresenting my argument. My argument is a counter is that a flat tax will increase the burden on lower quintiles.

You also can't go to the Moon with a rocket powered by unicorn farts. Any other irrelevant crap to trot out?

This thread is about advocating for flat tax, you are falling into the same issue TD has.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If you would have left out the word fascist, you would have at least appeared somewhat rational and coherent. Obviously African Americans are better off now then they were as slaves. They at least now have the option of leaving the slavery of dependence on government entitlements, which is what I meant by plantation.

Eh? "Better fascists" are worse people, right? And since you're willing to use "the plantation" in that sense, you're somewhere on the irrational fascist scale.

It comes down to the argument made before. If you think African Americans willingly live as a kind of slave, and vote for more of the same, then you think African Americans are STUPID.


This assumption that no rational person would want to be "dependent" on government payments, is only true where government payments are unreliable or limited in term. I think you'll find that people trying to pay off their mortgage are perfectly happy to have a tax refund for that. Providing they can depend on it all the way to the end of their mortgage. Yes, I am offering a tangent, because I'm just that sure I won the point about "plantations" and don't intend to talk any more about it.

 

[calamity]

If you would have left out the word fascist, you would have at least appeared somewhat rational and coherent. Obviously African Americans are better off now then they were as slaves. They at least now have the option of leaving the slavery of dependence on government entitlements, which is what I meant by plantation.

The bold demonstrates ignorance. The post shows a complete lack of critical thinking.

 

[MTAtech]

Remarks by President Biden on the Economy | The White House

East Room 2:00 P.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I want to start by thanking the House committees for working hard this week to advance critical components of the economic plan that I’ve put before the Congress. I know we still have a long way to go, but I’m confident that Congress will...

www.whitehouse.gov

Someone tell Biden, because he clearly doesnt know this. Ten times yesterday he said the word fair in his speech praising the tax increases they are ramming through.

Billionaries get richer - not FIAR
Big corps and wealthy have to pay their FAIR share - 7 times
Pandemic present us with an opportunity for working people (rich people dont work) to get a FAIR shot
bring FAIRNESS to the tax code



Thats pretty offensive. Lets use tragedy to soak the rich?

Meanwhile, Tax foundation lists all the new taxes and says they wont even pay for half of the new spending. Not to mention the 3 trillion in debt theyve already done this year. But its early. This is just a bill thats made it out of committee, and will probably be rubber stamped by the House. It may be slowed in the Senate or they may use reconciliation to rubber stamp it over there.

House Build Back Better Act: Details & Analysis of Tax Provisions in the Budget Reconciliation Bill

Learn about the House Build Back Better Act, including the latest details of the Biden tax increases and reconciliation tax proposals.

taxfoundation.org

With all the moral battles one can wage, defending the right of the rich to keep more money from taxation shouldn’t be high on anyone’s list.

What I don’t understand is the OP’s complaint that the plan soaks the rich and cites the Tax Foundation analysis that shows the plan raises only a trillion dollar. $100 billion a year increase in taxes is far less than what the GOP cut taxes in 2017, on the rich.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But you didn't do that, you created a second scheme that lowered upper income burden AND reduced total revenue.

Which still taxes upper incomes at significantly higher rates than lower ones yet still would be considered by your "rationale" to be regressive.

Non-sequitur, the demand was for you to create a flat scheme that would produce the same revenue without increasing the burden on lower quintiles, you can't do it.

I don't give a shit what your demand is. Your demand has nothing to do with a simple truth: a flat tax is not, and cannot by definition be, regressive. You want to define a regressive tax by comparing it to whatever tax structure came before it. You're the only one. I decline to join your flight of fancy.

Again non-sequitur, does not invalidate my argument.

Well, since your argument was this:

You are still creating a regressive system, after recognizing flat rates are regressive.

you invalidated it yourself with that very post. Let me explain to you about tax structures.

This is a progressive tax structure:
$0 - $50,000 = 0%
$50,001 - $100,000 = 10%
$100,001 and up = 20%

This is a regressive tax structure:
$0 - $50,000 = 20%
$50,001 - $100,000 = 10%
$100,001 and up = 0%

And here is a flat tax structure:
$0 - $50,000 = 10%
$50,001 - $100,000 = 10%
$100,001 and up = 10%

Note that the amount collected is utterly irrelevant to whether a tax structure is progressive, regressive, or flat. Also utterly irrelevant is the structure that these structures might replace. Note further that there is no overlap between any of the structures. A progressive tax is not flat and it is not regressive. A regressive tax is not progressive and not flat. A flat tax is neither progressive nor regressive.

I'm not misrepresenting my argument. My argument is a counter is that a flat tax will increase the burden on lower quintiles.

No, your argument was this:

You are still creating a regressive system, after recognizing flat rates are regressive.

If you have since abandoned this argument, by all means say so.

This thread is about advocating for flat tax, you are falling into the same issue TD has.

Fine, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm correcting your erroneous statement that:

You are still creating a regressive system, after recognizing flat rates are regressive.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

A flat tax is regressive for the reason's i have already outlined.

Great, and if we ignored the fact that your reasons have nothing to do with anything relevant we could say you made a very convincing argument.

It is regressive based on how taxes will impact consumption.

A flat tax is defined by tax rates, not some theoretical model of how it may impact consumption.

Nevertheless, i cannot account for your lack of education.

Says the guy who makes up his own definition of a flat tax.

 

[Individual]

Fair is NOT always synonymous with equal.
Repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and then we might begin to resolve both our government AND individual taxing and spending issues.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Fair is NOT always synonymous with equal.
Repeal both the 16th and 17th amendments and then we might begin to resolve both our government AND individual taxing and spending issues.

"Repeal" is crazy Tea Potty talk. Since you have zero chance of repealing either of them, why burden your cause with the 17th, which has NOTHING to do with taxes?

 

[Individual]

"Repeal" is crazy Tea Potty talk. Since you have zero chance of repealing either of them, why burden your cause with the 17th, which has NOTHING to do with taxes?

If a majority of the people were to begin demanding they be repealed, there would become a chance.
The 17th would have quite a bit to do with taxes, as well as Federal spending, especially when the Federal government attempts to pass bills which would require individual States to tax their citizens to provide their share of the costs of such spending.

 

[Ug make hammer]

If a majority of the people were to begin demanding they be repealed, there would become a chance.
The 17th would have quite a bit to do with taxes, as well as Federal spending, especially when the Federal government attempts to pass bills which would require individual States to tax their citizens to provide their share of the costs of such spending.

Some states it wouldn't make much difference, as their lobby groups are many and diverse. But in New York the state govt would appoint a Wall Street lobbyist. In Iowa, they'd appoint a corn lobbyist, and so on.

Not seeing your low-tax agenda being advanced in that way. Really rather the opposite, since taxes are necessary to fund the pork barrel.

 

[Individual]

Some states it wouldn't make much difference, as their lobby groups are many and diverse. But in New York the state govt would appoint a Wall Street lobbyist. In Iowa, they'd appoint a corn lobbyist, and so on.

Not seeing your low-tax agenda being advanced in that way. Really rather the opposite, since taxes are necessary to fund the pork barrel.

And who will they be lobbying?
Pork would be something we might want to eliminate completely at the Federal level of government.
The point of discussion about making changes should be to bring things to the front which could be a problem and try to find solutions.
Do we want lobbyists and/or pork in our government?

 

[Ug make hammer]

And who will they be lobbying?
Pork would be something we might want to eliminate completely at the Federal level of government.
The point of discussion about making changes should be to bring things to the front which could be a problem and try to find solutions.
Do we want lobbyists and/or pork in our government?

Here's the deal.

Corny Company wants to do deals in the Senate directly, rather than only fund Senator's for re-election (though they can do that too!)
They offer the State party fifty million per election, to spend on campaigning for State government
The State party nominates Quor Corny (who is 31 but looks younger) and they're the new Senator.

Maybe you're starting to see why they got rid of that.

If you seriously care about pork, you're looking in the wrong direction. Special interests can pay millions to representatives, providing only that the money is spent on campaigning.

Pork in the tradition sense, is government money spent to bring short-term gratification to voters, and thus to win re-election. Yeah, it's not nice, but it's not the real problem.

 

[Individual]

Here's the deal.

Corny Company wants to do deals in the Senate directly, rather than only fund Senator's for re-election (though they can do that too!)
They offer the State party fifty million per election, to spend on campaigning for State government
The State party nominates Quor Corny (who is 31 but looks younger) and they're the new Senator.

Maybe you're starting to see why they got rid of that.

If you seriously care about pork, you're looking in the wrong direction. Special interests can pay millions to representatives, providing only that the money is spent on campaigning.

Pork in the tradition sense, is government money spent to bring short-term gratification to voters, and thus to win re-election. Yeah, it's not nice, but it's not the real problem.

What stops Corny Company from doing exactly that now?
Senators wouldn't be campaigning for reelection if they were to be appointed by the elected members of State governments.
Government money is taxpayers money.

 

[Ug make hammer]

What stops Corny Company from doing exactly that now?
Senators wouldn't be campaigning for reelection if they were to be appointed by the elected members of State governments.
Government money is taxpayers money.

Corny Company can back a candidate in the Primaries, sure. But if that candidate is a moron due to eating nothing but corn since age 0, tends to grope anyone of their preferred gender, and has zero experience in politics, they have to face the people twice: once in the Primary, and again in the General. Usually they will fail to get the nomination, and if the state is at all 'purple', fail to win the seat. In that latter case, it's such a disaster for the state party they will turn on Corny Company and take someone else's money instead. See, the candidates shouldn't (and usually don't) spend donation money on themselves and their family. They spend it on getting elected (as is legal) or re-donate it to their party (making their opinion more weighty within the party).

Primaries are one of the innovations I like best about the US. They're not even required by the Constitution: both parties developed the idea as "extra democracy". Either party now could make them more fair, by banning donations to primary campaigns and giving all contestants an equal fund, for their campaigns. As it is, serious offices like US House and the Senate are obtainable by candidates with no more than a term or two in a State legislature. But it should be even easier, talent alone should be sufficient. Another thing I like though, is that parties take members more seriously, allowing them to talk, when they demonstrate cross-party appeal by winning a difficult seat. The center is where the votes are.

While the idea of only small donations is good (the Bernie model) it's hard to stop employers handing out a "bonus" to employees and hinting what they should do with it. The US should definitely get rid of the SuperPacs, which I would do by ... uh, it's a tough one tbh. Citizens have the right to "petition for redress of grievances" and that definitely includes airing their grievances during an election campaign. Restraining political advertising ONLY to political parties, would be a partial solution, however before long there would be dozens of new "parties" and no legal way to stop them. It will sound crazy, but maybe give the top five parties ABSURDLY large amounts of taxpayer money, so they drown out the SuperPacs?

Government money is not taxpayer money, any more than the grocer's money is still your money as you walk away with bread and milk. Any time money is used, government is a player in the contract (as enforcer at least) so in a sense, it's their money even more than the grocer's money is theirs.

 

[Individual]

Corny Company can back a candidate in the Primaries, sure. But if that candidate is a moron due to eating nothing but corn since age 0, tends to grope anyone of their preferred gender, and has zero experience in politics, they have to face the people twice: once in the Primary, and again in the General. Usually they will fail to get the nomination, and if the state is at all 'purple', fail to win the seat. In that latter case, it's such a disaster for the state party they will turn on Corny Company and take someone else's money instead. See, the candidates shouldn't (and usually don't) spend donation money on themselves and their family. They spend it on getting elected (as is legal) or re-donate it to their party (making their opinion more weighty within the party).

Primaries are one of the innovations I like best about the US. They're not even required by the Constitution: both parties developed the idea as "extra democracy". Either party now could make them more fair, by banning donations to primary campaigns and giving all contestants an equal fund, for their campaigns. As it is, serious offices like US House and the Senate are obtainable by candidates with no more than a term or two in a State legislature. But it should be even easier, talent alone should be sufficient. Another thing I like though, is that parties take members more seriously, allowing them to talk, when they demonstrate cross-party appeal by winning a difficult seat. The center is where the votes are.

While the idea of only small donations is good (the Bernie model) it's hard to stop employers handing out a "bonus" to employees and hinting what they should do with it. The US should definitely get rid of the SuperPacs, which I would do by ... uh, it's a tough one tbh. Citizens have the right to "petition for redress of grievances" and that definitely includes airing their grievances during an election campaign. Restraining political advertising ONLY to political parties, would be a partial solution, however before long there would be dozens of new "parties" and no legal way to stop them. It will sound crazy, but maybe give the top five parties ABSURDLY large amounts of taxpayer money, so they drown out the SuperPacs?

Government money is not taxpayer money, any more than the grocer's money is still your money as you walk away with bread and milk. Any time money is used, government is a player in the contract (as enforcer at least) so in a sense, it's their money even more than the grocer's money is theirs.

I don't quite see what you're getting at with Corny company, unless you're applying it to our current system.

Primaries would be something for House and or Presidential candidates.

Campaign donations would be something to discuss.

The source of the governments money is taxpayers, and some people get what they pay for while a growing number are paid for what they do to get candidates elected.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I don't quite see what you're getting at with Corny company, unless you're applying it to our current system.

Primaries would be something for House and or Presidential candidates.

Campaign donations would be something to discuss.

The source of the governments money is taxpayers, and some people get what they pay for while a growing number are paid for what they do to get candidates elected.

The Corny Company is a hypothetical lobby group in a state where Big Corn already has a lot of pull with the State Legislature.

Suppose it's Iowa. Big Corn already has a lot of influence (in office, through donations) on how the US Senator votes, but not the absolute power to look over the Senator's shoulder all the time, and be sure the Senator is doing all they can for the Corn industry. For instance, ethanol from corn inflates the price of corn, this can get tricky with other Senators who oppose Ethanol for suppressing fuel prices, or on ecological grounds that Ethanol from Corn isn't that green at all.

With an appointment system (no 17th) they can pick a Senator who is 100% loyal to corn, and they don't even need to be electable. And providing they don't embarass themselves too badly, they will probably get re-appointment after 6 years. Hence my quip about them being the minimum age. That also implies little experience in politics: they may not after all be good for the Corn industry, or indeed anyone.

Primaries are great. The party can still back someone the lobby groups like, but they won't necessarily win. Always on the mind of Primary voters, is not just whether they like te policies and personality of a candidate, but whether the wider electorate will warm to them too. However, there's a problem with money in primaries. Parties don't have to comply with a Federal law though, they could quite easily fund all candidates equally (and spend less on advertising in the General).

"The source of the government's money is taxpayers" and recently, quite a bit of borrowing. Hmm, maybe we could anonymize donations, so legislators don't know who they're supposed to be doing favours for?

I still think a large and equal payment for all legislators, to campaign with, coupled with banning large donations entirely, would go most of the way. Corporations have deep pockets (they spend other people's money for real) but at least it might work for a few cycles.