The Truth about who can afford to pay Taxes

[mbig]

Actually, under the fair tax plan people who make less than the poverty level would actually get MORE from the prebate that they pay in sale tax. Only people who happen to make exactly the poverty level (to the penny) would have their total sales tax exactly offset by the prebate. So for all practical purposes, the prebate is an extention of or addition to any welfare that they may be recieving.

They did an analysis in Arkansas showing everyone who made $15,000-$200,000 came out a Loser on 'Fairtax'.
and adding in state sales tax/income tax rates.

Using the independently scored/REAL rates of 56%/57% I imagine that everyone under $300,000 would be a loser as those rates would wipe out the prebate with the necessary spending of the under 15k crowd... and raise the threshold on the over 200k crowd.

The only people who would benefit by the prebate are those who spend only a small fraction of their income, which are primarally the rich. While I understand that people in any income bracket would want the tax code to favor their particular income bracket (regardless of what that may be), I don't understand why it is preferable to only tax income that is neccessary to support our lifestyle than to tax all income.

The whole point of Fairytax is to as stealthily as possible (ie, added prebate so as not to make it a laugher to even morons), lower the taxes of the two billionaies who designed it.
If you have any financial acumen, or even economic common sense.. you laugh this one off after about 30 seconds.
Yet some follow it like a Cult because they think they'll save money and it's this incredibly-easy-for-everbody solution.
Yeah! Let's all just pay 23% of what we spend.. everyone will pay less taxes. (try the ft calc)
BUT wait a minute.. how does EVERYONE pay less taxes?????
It's a Comical fraud.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually I believe in "WE THE PEOPLE" some guys wrote that as the beginning of a piece of paper but that is a concept you have nothing but disdain and contempt for ... and that other thing... what was it now .... oh yeah "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". I think somebody driving a Lincoln said that.

the people behind those words didn't trust mobs and didn't want non landowners voting

their wisdom remains sound

 

[mbig]

Actually, it refuted your claim that:

He feels poor people can afford to pay the same rate (flat/fair tax) as rich people

If you want to argue that "everyone down the chain" is defined reasonable as "poor", you can try that line of reasoning, but you and I both know that's not very constructive. Those defined as "in poverty" pay effectively 0 tax according to the Fair Tax website. If you want to debate reasonably about fair tax, and who carries the burden, break out the numbers and be serious about it, I bet it's legitimately interesting, maybe revealing, I have no idea. But the "poor pay more" angle has been refuted.

What. :^)
It doesn't refute my claim at all.
In fact he (and you) keep making the claim the poor/middle "don't pay their fair share", "Carry their weight", etc.

But your idea of "Fair share"/"Pull their own weight.... IS ... "Same rate"... which as I said in the OP and then again to you.. is NOT Financially POSSIBLE.

When confronted again with this FACT.. you obfuscated with .. well "we should spend less" overall, to try and escape.
TD says they shouldn't vote as they do.
But neither can deal with the simple fact of what's affordable/possible.
iow...
Neither you nor Turtle Dude can deal with the OP.
The bottom 40% have NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND In taxes or otherwise.

Certainly they cannot be raised from 15% to 25% (and the rich lowered from 35 to 25%) to satisfy the simplistic/simpleton's sense of fairness.

According to their website:

According to the Bible, there's a god. Please.

 

[haymarket]

the people behind those words didn't trust mobs and didn't want non landowners voting

their wisdom remains sound

their "wisdom" gave us legalized slavery and treated women as something in between men and cattle.

 

[Mach]

The bottom 40% have NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND In taxes or otherwise.

Obviously that's false. According to the CBO statistics, they both have an income, and spend that income.

As to having enough to cover the massive amounts of spending that our federal government now spends.....no, they don't have enough to cover it, that's why they should stop spending it.

Aha. They choose not to stop spending it, even though they don't have the money, because they are able to forcibly take it from people who earn more? Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

And it's not the real needy that are the issue. Kids without parents, the legitimately physically disabled and mentally disabled..they have no practical options to carry them. But 40% of the entire population? WTF are you smoking if you want to enable 40% of the entire population to be charity cases? It's awful.

 

[haymarket]

Obviously that's false. According to the CBO statistics, they both have an income, and spend that income.

As to having enough to cover the massive amounts of spending that our federal government now spends.....no, they don't have enough to cover it, that's why they should stop spending it.

Aha. They choose not to stop spending it, even though they don't have the money, because they are able to forcibly take it from people who earn more? Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

And it's not the real needy that are the issue. Kids without parents, the legitimately physically disabled and mentally disabled..they have no practical options to carry them. But 40% of the entire population? WTF are you smoking if you want to enable 40% of the entire population to be charity cases? It's awful.

They are not charity cases. They pay plenty of taxes. And that has been shown to you many many times.

 

[Mach]

They are not charity cases. They pay plenty of taxes. And that has been shown to you many many times.

If that's the only thing you refute OK.

 

[TurtleDude]

their "wisdom" gave us legalized slavery and treated women as something in between men and cattle.

I'd figure you would whine about the founders rather than praising the great nation they created.

 

[TurtleDude]

They are not charity cases. They pay plenty of taxes. And that has been shown to you many many times.

they don't pay anywhere near what they use

 

[haymarket]

they don't pay anywhere near what they use

Continuing Costco Confusion.

 

[Ahlevah]

The reason that we had a strong middle class was not because of our tax rates, but because of our strong educational system in the past.

I think you're onto something here, but I'd add a couple of things. The middle class strengthened during the post-WWII period when dads could go off to work and support their families on the wages they made working at industrial plants (thanks largely, I think, to collective bargaining), while stay-at-home Moms could join the PTA, help Little Johnnie with his homework, and read his sister bedtime stories. Families, I believe, were stronger overall years ago. These days, Mom's lucky if her ex sends the child-support payment, and she can't wait to soak her tired feet in the tub after standing all day working as a waitress at Denny's. The kids can fend for themselves, thanks to Family Guy, Swansons, and Xbox. Now, if you look around the country, we've got entire cities laid barren with crime and decay. Those families that managed to survive the rot fled to greener pastures (and school districts with better motivated students and parents who believed in participating in the education of their children through things like volunteering). Some people don't give up and create islands of hope in seas of despair, but they seem to be too few and far between.

At a time when we had the support of a stronger family structure, there were also more opportunities for people with marginal educations to still enter the middle class. Now, we find states offering hundreds of millions of dollars worth of incentives to lure the few employment opportunities that come their way. Mississippi offered Toyota almost $300 million in incentives to build a plant so it could employ 2,000 people. This plant will produce Corollas, which were previously produced at the NUMMI joint-venture plant with GM in Fremont, California.

Meanwhile, we're graduating oodles of kids from college loaded with debt but who can't seem to find gainful employment.

 

[TurtleDude]

Continuing Costco Confusion.

pointing out that your silly rants designed to build support for soaking the rich more are unwholesome. We realize your operate under the concept of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs". We realize you think the rich ought to pay more and more and more. i find it amusing how frantic you are in trying to advocate more and more taxation.

 

[DontDoIt]

You can always move to North Korea

 

[TurtleDude]

You can always move to North Korea

haymarket would love it there.

 

[mbig]

The bottom 40% have NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND In taxes or otherwise.

Obviously that's false. According to the CBO statistics, they both have an income, and spend that income.

I didn't say they have NO money to spend, I said they have No MORE money to spend, and certainly Not enough to raise their Income tax rate from 15% to 25%. (ie, Flattax, etc)

Neither you nor Turtle Dude can deal with the OP.
The bottom 40% have NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND In taxes or otherwise.

Certainly they cannot be raised from 15% to 25% (and the rich lowered from 35 to 25%) to satisfy the simplistic/simpleton's sense of fairness.

Still untouched by either of you.
Next time quote me fully, honestly, and respond coherently.
Of course you don't really have an answer to this fact. Thus your response.

And it's not the real needy that are the issue. Kids without parents, the legitimately physically disabled and mentally disabled..they have no practical options to carry them. But 40% of the entire population?
WTF are you smoking if you want to enable 40% of the entire population to be charity cases? It's awful.

What?
"disabled"
"Kids without Parents"
"WTF am I smoking"
"Charity cases"
What?
I said they couldn't pay any higher taxes, NOT they couldn't pay any.
In fact, in post #2, I say leave the rates as they are (15%), except add a top bracket of 50%/over $1 million.
I used Walmarters several times as an example, not "disabled"/"without-parents"/"Charity cases".

Your response is completely out of control and incoherent.

 

[Guy Incognito]

you like the mob rule. I do not.

Mob rule... mob rule... there's another word for that I seem to recall... Greek I think...

Let's see, the Greek word for mob is demos. The Greek word for rule is kratia. What on earth could that word be? It's on the tip of my tongue.

Ah, I'm sure it will come to me.

 

[haymarket]

pointing out that your silly rants designed to build support for soaking the rich more are unwholesome. We realize your operate under the concept of "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs". We realize you think the rich ought to pay more and more and more. i find it amusing how frantic you are in trying to advocate more and more taxation.

You "realize" nothing about my views. For some reason, the only way you can discuss this issue is to turn it into a cartoon caricature of reality. Perhaps you find that amusing. I find it sad that you do not understand taxes, their purpose or how they are different from shopping at Costco. You enjoy the current lowest rates in sixty years but you greedily scream for more and more tax relief while the nation suffers.

 

[Mach]

I didn't say they have NO money to spend, I said they have No MORE money to spend, and certainly Not enough to raise their Income tax rate from 15% to 25%. (ie, Flattax, etc)Still untouched by either of you.

This has been answered already.

Once again, if they can't afford the payments for the services they are receiving, they should stop getting those services. How is that anything other than common sense? If I can't afford HD TV any more, I don't spend on HD TV. I don't force someone else to pay for it.

I used Walmarters several times as an example, not "disabled"/"without-parents"/"Charity cases".

Why is someone working as a career at near minimum wage for their adult life, at Wal-Mart?

Doesn't make any practical sense. Either they refuse to get a better paying job by choice, or they are one of the small percentage of the population that can't actually provide for themselves. Since you INSIST you are specifically not referring to those who cannot provide for themselves, we're left with the obviously conclusion that they are just not interested in making more, or they made some other life choices that they prioritized over income, etc. Not really my business....no reason I should be paying for them though.

And yes, obviously if they are getting more out of government services than they are putting in, they are essentially receiving charity.

Again, if the top 20% pay 63-70% of the tax burden (overall and federal), someone's getting a lot of free lunches at their expense. Unfortunately the government doesn't get that money from voluntary donations, they force the minority to pay for it because...low and behold, it's advantageous for the majority to make the minority pay for it.

This is all so basic, why does it even have to be written.

 

[Mach]

Mob rule... mob rule... there's another word for that I seem to recall... Greek I think.

So people should be allowed to simply vote on killing someone they don't like?

If not, then apparently there is more nuance to that mysterious word than your cynical response allows for.

 

[Paschendale]

Does anyone stop to consider the issue of wages? I saw several times the notion that the poorest people use more than they earn. Perhaps they simply don't earn enough? The basis for lowering the taxes of the poorest people is that they need every dime they can get, simply to live. The basic cost of living a comfortable life is higher than the amount they earn. I know that there's a popular belief that poor people are lazy, but come on, let's not kid ourselves. A single mother working 60 hours a week at three part time jobs still struggles to pay her rent and feed and clothe her two kids. Then suppose one gets sick, or the mother wants to actually get the kids into college. Social mobility does not exist at the bottom. In order to get into the middle portion of the economic ladder, in which mobility is an option, a person needs things like good health, a solid education, and proper credentials. These things are impossible for the poorest Americans to obtain, and their children are likewise trapped in a bottom class.

The fact really is that the jobs that the poorest Americans have and work very hard at simply do not pay enough money for those workers to live, even working full time or more. Life in this country is expensive. Why make it harder on those who need help the most?

I agree with the cry to not spend so much money, but the argument always becomes complex on what money should not be spent. If you ask me, drastic reductions on military spending, on the war on drugs, on private contracts, on bloated and unnecessary governmental departments like the censorship portions of the FCC, or the department of homeland security. The vocal conservatives, meanwhile, would choose to eliminate public welfare programs, like schools, libraries, or public transportation. Realistically, it would take a massive movement of the people to seriously reduce spending. No such movement exists, and even the vaunted Tea Party possesses a tiny fraction of the support necessary for such change.

Realistically, we're not going to be able to reduce the budget, not by much. I wish we could, but I don't expect it to happen. The question really comes down to, do we get the money from those who can afford it, or from those who cannot?

 

[Paschendale]

I think you're onto something here, but I'd add a couple of things. The middle class strengthened during the post-WWII period when dads could go off to work and support their families on the wages they made working at industrial plants (thanks largely, I think, to collective bargaining), while stay-at-home Moms could join the PTA, help Little Johnnie with his homework, and read his sister bedtime stories. Families, I believe, were stronger overall years ago. These days, Mom's lucky if her ex sends the child-support payment, and she can't wait to soak her tired feet in the tub after standing all day working as a waitress at Denny's. The kids can fend for themselves, thanks to Family Guy, Swansons, and Xbox. Now, if you look around the country, we've got entire cities laid barren with crime and decay. Those families that managed to survive the rot fled to greener pastures (and school districts with better motivated students and parents who believed in participating in the education of their children through things like volunteering). Some people don't give up and create islands of hope in seas of despair, but they seem to be too few and far between.

I think it needs to be pointed out that Leave it to Beaver was a TV show and in no way reflected real life for most of the population in 50's America. That image of well off, white, suburban middle-class families with the stay at home moms... It was as accurate to their lives as Desperate Housewives is to ours. Ask members of your family who were around in the 50's. They'll tell you what life was really like. My parents were kids in the 1950's, and both of my grandmothers worked to provide for their families. They were not stay at home moms. Nor were any of the families around them, and these were hardly in the lowest class of society. June and Ward Cleaver were not average, hardworking Americans. They were affluent upper middle class. In our time, they would be making a few hundred thousand dollars a year from corporate executive jobs.

Our society has not degraded since the 1950's. In many ways, it has drastically improved. Especially in areas like civil rights.

 

[imagep]

Does anyone stop to consider the issue of wages? I saw several times the notion that the poorest people use more than they earn. Perhaps they simply don't earn enough? The basis for lowering the taxes of the poorest people is that they need every dime they can get, simply to live. The basic cost of living a comfortable life is higher than the amount they earn. I know that there's a popular belief that poor people are lazy, but come on, let's not kid ourselves. A single mother working 60 hours a week at three part time jobs still struggles to pay her rent and feed and clothe her two kids. Then suppose one gets sick, or the mother wants to actually get the kids into college. Social mobility does not exist at the bottom. In order to get into the middle portion of the economic ladder, in which mobility is an option, a person needs things like good health, a solid education, and proper credentials. These things are impossible for the poorest Americans to obtain, and their children are likewise trapped in a bottom class.

The fact really is that the jobs that the poorest Americans have and work very hard at simply do not pay enough money for those workers to live, even working full time or more. Life in this country is expensive. Why make it harder on those who need help the most?

I agree with the cry to not spend so much money, but the argument always becomes complex on what money should not be spent. If you ask me, drastic reductions on military spending, on the war on drugs, on private contracts, on bloated and unnecessary governmental departments like the censorship portions of the FCC, or the department of homeland security. The vocal conservatives, meanwhile, would choose to eliminate public welfare programs, like schools, libraries, or public transportation. Realistically, it would take a massive movement of the people to seriously reduce spending. No such movement exists, and even the vaunted Tea Party possesses a tiny fraction of the support necessary for such change.

Realistically, we're not going to be able to reduce the budget, not by much. I wish we could, but I don't expect it to happen. The question really comes down to, do we get the money from those who can afford it, or from those who cannot?

Some far right wingers are going to give you a lecture on how the poor should be more productive and earn more money. Of course there are a heck of a lot of poor people who are quite productive, but simply get underpaid. A lot of poor people, or even middle class people are far underpaid for the value of what they do, they have to be underpaid, so that truely rich can be overpaid for the value of what they do. It's a zero sum game, it has to work like that, at least if we want to have zillionaires. The question is, do we really need zillionaires?

 

[haymarket]

from Mach

Once again, if they can't afford the payments for the services they are receiving, they should stop getting those services. How is that anything other than common sense? If I can't afford HD TV any more, I don't spend on HD TV. I don't force someone else to pay for it.

You are confusing shopping at Costco with being a citizen of a nation and being able to an equal citizen and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

You are comparing apples to cinderblocks. Your comparison is a complete contradiction of common sense that you attempt to invoke. You, or me or anyone not being to afford HDTV has not a thing to do with any discussion of taxation and the government taxes pay for.

 

[Mach]

from Mach
You are confusing shopping at Costco with being a citizen of a nation and being able to an equal citizen and enjoy all the benefits of citizenship.

We've been through this at least four times haymarket. Confused indeed.

Once again, we do in fact elect representatives, lobby issues, call our representatives, spend money on campaigns, etc., in order to change our government services, and how much we spend on them. So your constant declaration that "it's not Costco" is logically irrelevant (still).

I could have sworn we just had a national debate on what we wanted for health care services, and what we did and didn't want to have to pay for the bill.

And it's obvious to anyone how things work:
1. Someone pays in time, sweat, etc.
2. Someone receives the fruits of that labor

I'm sure there is a cynical, partisan joke in there about how a liberal has no concept of how #1 relates to #2 above...but then when I read your response and have to write it out...it's not so funny, it's reality.

 

[Mach]

A lot of poor people, or even middle class people are far underpaid for the value of what they do?

That reeks of victimization. Why would someone worth more, settle for less? If they settle, that's what they are worth. And the U.S. provides infinite opportunity to tell your boss to shove their low wage, and you can go prove to yourself, and everyone else, just what you're worth in the market place. I should caution you, it takes even more sacrifice than punching in every day.

It's not a zero sum game.

And WTF dos "do you really need zillionaires" mean? It doesn't matter what you personally need. Do you need some food? Buy it big boy. Do you need your behind wiped? Get some toilet paper and wipe it. Man the **** up, good lord. You are claiming you do not want people of a certain wealth to exist, it's really antagonizing. Why not just claim "do we need poor people"? You're not OK with that, why are you OK with the opposite? Your position is unethical.

That's like saying we should legislate against celebrities because, "well dogon'it, we jus don't need 'dem famous peoples!" **** freedom right?

I got paid mediocre salary for years. You know when that changed? When I took my head out of my ass and stopped playing the victim. Hint, it wasn't a coincidence.