The Tax System Explained in Beer

[danarhea]

You didn't post the last part of the story. The richest man in the group wanted to have all the beer for himself. So, since the other men in the group worked for him, he fired them all and replaced them with workers from India who didn't drink. He made more profit because the workers from India were only 12 years old, and because he could work them 16 hours a day and pay them just one bowl of rice per day, instead of money. So, today, he drinks alone, but he is very rich. As for the others in the group, one of them died of an infection from an ingrown toenail that his insurance company denied treatment for, as it was a pre-existing condition. "Everybody is born with toenails" said the insurance company CEO. :mrgreen:

 

[mpg]

You didn't post the last part of the story. The richest man in the group wanted to have all the beer for himself. So, since the other men in the group worked for him, he fired them all and replaced them with workers from India who didn't drink. He made more profit because the workers from India were only 12 years old, and because he could work them 16 hours a day and pay them just one bowl of rice per day, instead of money. So, today, he drinks alone, but he is very rich. As for the others in the group, one of them died of an infection from an ingrown toenail that his insurance company denied treatment for, as it was a pre-existing condition. "Everybody is born with toenails" said the insurance company CEO. :mrgreen:

attempted hijacking

 

[xpiher]

Same diffrence. ANY tax system that reduces consumer spending reduces growth, employment and GDP. That is your idea of prosperity? A progressive tax system encourages growth by taxing income not spent in the economy. Without growth we have recession. Raising taxes on those that spend all their income is self-defeating as consumer spending is reduced by the same amount as taxes were increased.

Yes I want a tax on GDP fueled by debt instead of wealth. That's what a national sales read would do. People would save to make big purchases instead of charging it. Saved money means more available for capital investment (since investment would not be taxed) which leads to more wealth. Less denman for consumer credit means cheaper credit for people who will use it to produce things instead of consume. Besides, the amount of money added to the economy (since withholding would not exist) would more than make up for most of the harm caused by said tax.


Yes this is oversimplified but you get the point. I wouldn't suggest implementing this system now though. It would have to be done during a boom (our at least normal growth) and may need to be phased in over a 3-5 year period. I would also combine this method of taxation with a reverse income tax to replace welfare programs.

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes

 

[Kurmugeon]

as i've said previously, a flat tax is only good if it exempts a certain level of income i.e. the yearly amount required to sustain a family of 3. However, it still doesn't tax the underground economy which is why I personally prefer a Sallee tax that exempts lifer necessities, medical, and rent witha reduced tax on energy

I disagree!

Run the numbers and consider the consequences of allowing even the slightest "Wiggle Room" of even the best intentioned exemptions;

So, lets say we found that a flat tax of 15% was enough to cover our spending and the interest on the national debt.

A family of three with a working, single FATHER (Yes, single father's exist, and they deserve consideration every bit as much as the much more common single mother!) and two minor children with an anual income of $10K per year. Simply not enough to support the family in even the lowest standard of living states.

So, he pays $1500 a year in taxes. Sure payng the $1500 a year would be painful, but let's be honest, his family wouldn't survive at all without something close to $15K in various subsidies. Everything from medical to free school lunches for the kids.

So, if needed, to balance things at initial creation, simply increase the subsidies by another $1500 a year to keep the family afloat.

It is allot easier to keep corruption out of the susidies for the poor than it is to keep the Rich from buying politicians to create new loop holes for the Rich!

Don't Create ANY opportunity for the Lawyer's to start making exceptions!

Additionally, it is critical for EVERYONE, from the working poor to the elitist rich to have a STAKE in the possibility of increasing the spending by the Federal Government to the point that the 15% tax rate needs to be increased to 17%.

Imagine a scenario where some rich construction mogel proposes another boondogle bridge to nowhere. Now the coalition of those resisting the waste includes our working poor father of two!





But, as I said earlier, its a moot argument, because Lawyer's write the tax law, and they make a bundle of cash advising the Rich on the latest set of tax dodges.

Sadly, it will take total societal collapse to reset the tax code to something functional again.

 

[lunchbox]

Yup, the rich pay more because our capitalist system has given them more, assuming they didn't inherit it all or make the money illegally/immorally. Sorry, I don't feel too bad for the guy making $10 million dollars having to fork over 3 or 4 million of it to pay for things. What things that pays for it a perfectly reasonable debate and we waste a lot of money on unnecessary crap. But you act like life is difficult at a mere $6.5 million a year. It ain't.

Speaking from experience, of course, yes?

 

[danarhea]

attempted hijacking

Not at all. The entire story wasn't told, so I just posted the rest of it. :mrgreen:

 

[Sparkles]

You didn't post the last part of the story. The richest man in the group wanted to have all the beer for himself. So, since the other men in the group worked for him, he fired them all and replaced them with workers from India who didn't drink. He made more profit because the workers from India were only 12 years old, and because he could work them 16 hours a day and pay them just one bowl of rice per day, instead of money. So, today, he drinks alone, but he is very rich. As for the others in the group, one of them died of an infection from an ingrown toenail that his insurance company denied treatment for, as it was a pre-existing condition. "Everybody is born with toenails" said the insurance company CEO. :mrgreen:

Garbage. Do you have anything of value to add? Something that relates to reality instead of your fruity imagination, perhaps?

 

[mpg]

Not at all. The entire story wasn't told, so I just posted the rest of it. :mrgreen:

That depends on how you define the "entire story". There's nothing wrong with a thread specifically about the progressiveness of federal income tax. Actually, the OP is even more specific than that; it's about how a progressive tax code can be mistaken for the opposite. The OP does NOT advocate a less progressive tax code. You went off on an anti-rich people/anti-corporate tirade that included several tangents. You may as well have brought gay marriage into the conversation.

 

[Sparkles]

It doesn't really matter where the money is taken out from. Demand-side, supply-side, rich-side, poor-side, any side.

No matter where you remove the money, any money taken out of the private sector will result in a loss of private production. When the public sector grows, the private sector shrinks, and typically by a larger amount than the public sector grows.

The goal of any frugal limited government should be to achieve the lowest possible tax rate to cover the fundamental duties of the Federal government. Enforcing the rule of law, protecting the nation, and running international trade.

Higher tax rates will never have a positive effect. A tax on a corporation is merely passed on to consumers and employees. A tax on employees is passed on to lower purchasing, and lower growth. Tax on the rich results in less investment and employment. Tax on the poor results in lower demand and markets. Taxes on working encourages non-working. Subsidizing non-working encourages fewer to work.

Instead, we have a system where we jack up the taxes, so politicians can engage in rent seeking. They impose moronic tax levels, and then act shocked when the rich take advantage of tax shelters, which reduce how much taxes they pay, which encourages politicians to raise taxes.

BBC News - Millionaire tax avoiders 'shock' chancellor

Meanwhile, these exact same politicians offer tax deductions and exemptions on a silver platter routinely for the purposes of extracting contributions from the public.

The bottom line is that demanding higher taxes will never actually result in rich people paying more taxes. The government loves higher taxes because it allows them to sell more and more deductions and exemptions to the public, which makes them rich. Every government officials knows the average American, and especially the average leftist, even the most intelligent of leftists, when faced with news that company X, or rich person Y pays very little tax... they'll never blame the politicians who specifically create the need for tax shelters by raising tax rates, and then offering the tax shelters for a price.... but will always ignorantly default to "companies are evil, and our benevolent politicians are innocent".

But the vast majority of the left, and a growing number of the right, are all too blinded by hate and envy to understand anything beyond their own selfish desire for someone else to pay for everything they have.

 

[xpiher]

I disagree!

Run the numbers and consider the consequences of allowing even the slightest "Wiggle Room" of even the best intentioned exemptions;

So, lets say we found that a flat tax of 15% was enough to cover our spending and the interest on the national debt.

A family of three with a working, single FATHER (Yes, single father's exist, and they deserve consideration every bit as much as the much more common single mother!) and two minor children with an anual income of $10K per year. Simply not enough to support the family in even the lowest standard of living states.

So, he pays $1500 a year in taxes. Sure payng the $1500 a year would be painful, but let's be honest, his family wouldn't survive at all without something close to $15K in various subsidies. Everything from medical to free school lunches for the kids.

So, if needed, to balance things at initial creation, simply increase the subsidies by another $1500 a year to keep the family afloat.

It is allot easier to keep corruption out of the susidies for the poor than it is to keep the Rich from buying politicians to create new loop holes for the Rich!

Don't Create ANY opportunity for the Lawyer's to start making exceptions!

Additionally, it is critical for EVERYONE, from the working poor to the elitist rich to have a STAKE in the possibility of increasing the spending by the Federal Government to the point that the 15% tax rate needs to be increased to 17%.

Imagine a scenario where some rich construction mogel proposes another boondogle bridge to nowhere. Now the coalition of those resisting the waste includes our working poor father of two!





But, as I said earlier, its a moot argument, because Lawyer's write the tax law, and they make a bundle of cash advising the Rich on the latest set of tax dodges.

Sadly, it will take total societal collapse to reset the tax code to something functional again.

Those social programs waste too much money. It would be better to directly allocate the money to the poor. The reason I said you have the "cost of living" exemption is further reduce the need for mismanaged social programs. to prevent the tax law from being tinkered with further you write the initial lawb so it bars Congress from doing anything with it with out a super majority in both houses.

Your compliant is solved by your purposed solution for the same reasons you listed you don't like mine.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TurtleDude]

Except when it comes to tax breaks for businesses, no-bid government contracts, and corporate subsidies.

In regards to that, your side is all for being parasites feeding from government fat cats.

YOu'd be wrong as usual I want far less government than we have now

 

[TurtleDude]

And they have no problem having a disproportionate amount of influence on our political leaders by providing such large amounts of campaign contributions.

If dems and FDR had not destroyed the boundaries on the federal government, it would not be an issue

and since the rich don't get extra votes for paying so much of the public bill, I have no problem with them using their wealth to try to influence the government. BTW the rich are as divided as everyone else. Most of the dollars rich conservatives spend counteracts the money Soros and Maher spend trying to expand government power