'Red Scares' -- OR CHOICE
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Red Scares -OR- Ironically this Social Justice is Poetic Justice.
Next: Germany considers tax on the obese.
From: Brent on 30 Jul 2010 22:41 On 2010-07-31, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 02:08:34 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>In article <cvt656hh68l9eit1qkjs573svsjiujsj7o(a)4ax.com>, >>Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>> >>>When poor people pay zero tax, I think you'll have a hard time getting >>>them to agree with you that the Fair Tax is not progressive. >> >>To people who want a "high and graduated income tax", nothing is >>sufficiently progressive until everyone has the same amount left after taxes. > > Some people's problem is that they're not happy unless the gov't > really sticks it to the wealthy. They're basically communists. anyone who favors a progressive tax based on income is essentially favoring one of the communist manifesto line items. Another is central banking. As far as 'sticking it to the wealthy goes', that's just one of the divisions the ruling class uses to manipulate people. Democracy tends to lead to people voting themselves stuff from the treasury, voting themselves other people's property via the government.
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 30 Jul 2010 22:50 On 7/30/2010 10:08 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article <cvt656hh68l9eit1qkjs573svsjiujsj7o(a)4ax.com>, > Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> When poor people pay zero tax, I think you'll have a hard time getting >> them to agree with you that the Fair Tax is not progressive. > > To people who want a "high and graduated income tax", nothing is > sufficiently progressive until everyone has the same amount left after taxes. Wouldn't their Alcohol and Tobacco and gas tax all be rolled into the Sales tax and so there would only be one tax so they might be paying less tax on cigarettes or alcohol than they did before.
From: Dave Head on 30 Jul 2010 23:00 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:50:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote: >On 7/30/2010 10:08 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote: >> In article <cvt656hh68l9eit1qkjs573svsjiujsj7o(a)4ax.com>, >> Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>> >>> When poor people pay zero tax, I think you'll have a hard time getting >>> them to agree with you that the Fair Tax is not progressive. >> >> To people who want a "high and graduated income tax", nothing is >> sufficiently progressive until everyone has the same amount left after taxes. > > >Wouldn't their Alcohol and Tobacco and gas tax all be rolled into the >Sales tax and so there would only be one tax so they might be paying >less tax on cigarettes or alcohol than they did before. I don't think that the Fair Tax plans to replace those other taxes, as they are excise taxes, not income taxes. The Fair Tax is designed to nuke the income tax.
From: Michael Coburn on 30 Jul 2010 23:19 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:23:06 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On 30 Jul 2010 19:03:17 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:49:30 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On 30 Jul 2010 06:30:10 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> I bought 2 pair of jeans last month for $12, when I expected it to >>>>> cost maybe $40. That's from trading with Asia. I've got $28 I >>>>> wouldn't otherwise have. How's that "bad?" >>>> >>>>It is bad because the people that could have made the jeans here in >>>>America no longer have a job. >>> >>> Well, that's true I suppose, but how do we bring them back? If we >>> teriff, then we can maybe get them back to make jeans JUST for the >>> American people, that will cost more, and won't be sold overseas >>> because they are too expensive. There's not that big a market for >>> jeans just for Americans, so the workers in those plants will, again, >>> be making poverty wages, not the large coin that the could be making >>> of they could also export jeans. >> >>We are finally getting to the real issue. I am of the opinion that the >>common people of this nation are better of _NOT_ trading. It is true >>that the jeans will cost more. But Americans will have an income from >>making jeans, that they can use to purchase the jeans. In the present >>system, there are far too many who have no way to contribute to the >>economy and thus, no way to purchase jeans. >> >>>>> Hell, why not just resigned from the WTO? The rest of the world >>>>> would erect its tariffs like before, and trade would diminsh >>>>> greatly. So would our economy. >>>> >>>>YES!!! That is correct. Yet the American middle class would be far >>>>better off. >>> >>> I'm not particularly fond of the WTO, but its just better than not >>> being in the WTO. The freakin thing to do is to get competitive, and >>> use the WTO to export things at prices that the furrin'ers can't >>> match. We can do it with our automation, which we do better than >>> anyone else, but only if we untax our manufacturing. Then a single >>> guy can sit and run a machine that replaces 100 or maybe 500 foreign >>> workers doing things by hand and getting paid 30 cents an hour. >> >>It doesn't work. The owners of the machine will pay the workers of the >>machine 30 cents an hour (or whatever bare minimum it takes to get the >>job done) whether they are in China or here. The net result is that >>owners can buy whatever they will, and workers subsist. In the current >>system all others are better off and the American middle class is worse >>off. Yet, you want to compound the problem. >> >>>>>>The WTO is the enemy of the American people. This is a war. >>>>> >>>>> If you lower the price of American goods by untaxing their >>>>> manufacture, you can take the WTO to beat the rest of the world to >>>>> death with it. >>>> >>>>You seem to think that the American consumer should pay all the taxes >>>>that support the infrastructure that makes the rich people rich. And >>>>I mean the rich people all over the world. >>> >>> The American consumer already _IS_ paying all the freight, for >>> everything, via the income taxes and the embedded income taxes in >>> American manufactured goods which is about 22% of their price on >>> average. >> >>That is horribly incorrect, as I have already illustrated many times. >>Neither consumers, nor owners pay anything at all. The only payers are >>the actual producers because they, and only they, have anything with >>which to pay. When a producer or an owner trades money for something >>then the producer or owner becomes a consumer. The fact remains, >>however, that (s)he must first have been a producer or an owner prior to >>becoming a consumer. The real economic world is therefore described as >>owners and producers. And both of these classes subsist upon the >>naturally occurring world. Consumers have nothing with which they might >>pay unless they have an income from producing or owning. The >>PROGRESSIVE income tax was actually designed to reclaim unearned >>economic rent that flows into the hands of owners. >> >>> And, quit worrying about the rich people. The problem to solve is how >>> to make the middle class prosperous. >> >>Well at least we agree on the reason for political economy. The measure >>of success is the prosperity of the middle class as being 60% to 80% of >>the whole. >> >>> If a solution will allow me to >>> keep all my $14,000 of personal income tax that I send in, and lower >>> the price of every American-made thing I buy by about 11.55% according >>> to the Fair Tax entry in Wikipedia, and will lower the price of >>> American exports, and raise the price of imports, then I don't care if >>> some rich person gets richer as long as _I_ get richer. Getting into >>> a penis-envy situation with some rich guy, and not doing what will >>> help me personally because it might also help him, is >>> counterproductive to my situation. >> >>Whenever anyone attempts to create justice by reclaiming and properly >>distributing unearned economic rent, the envy pony is taken out for a >>trip around the ring. The taxation of extreme incomes is a reclamation >>of unearned economic rent and the justice of that reclamation is >>determined by the use to which these funds are employed. The most just >>and fair use of the finds is an egalitarian distribution among the >>voting citizenry. But social insurance systems, defense, and education >>that serve the citizenry equally is the same thing. >> >>>>>>A VAT has that same effect and I don't recommend that either. >>>>> >>>>> A VAT doesn't have the same effect partly 'cuz it has no prebate, >>>>> especially because there's no bill accompanying it that requires the >>>>> repeal of the income tax which is key to increasing economic >>>>> activity, and its placed mainly against American manufacturers - you >>>>> can't add $$$ in tax at each stage of a foreign manufacturere's >>>>> production. >>>> >>>>The foreign governments have their tax systems and we have ours. >>> >>> And that's how we'll beat 'em. We can drive our income taxes to zero, >>> they can't. If they lower their income tax, they need to get it from >>> somewhere else, and there's no relatively rich middle class to get it >>> from. >> >>Yes... We see. It is as I have said: You will relieve all the >>taxation from the owner class and stick it on the producer class. Those >>Americans who do not spend on American goods will become quite wealthy >>and those Americans that do spend on American goods will foot the bill >>for the protection of the property rights of the owners. Marvelous >>system you have there. The "owners" need not live in America. The >>American nation _WILL_ become the manufacturing capital of the world and >>the American middle class will be the NEW CHINESE COOLIES. >> >>>>Ours is >>>>actually OK if it is properly implemented. >>> >>> Ours is an abomination that sabotoges our competitiveness with foreign >>> goods. >> >>We the people do not care about the game you are playing with the other >>owners. Which one of you steals the most gold from the people is not >>really of interest to us. Each and every time I see the word >>"competitive" in any form I _KNOW_ it is an ego driven lust for power. >>We producers do not wish to compete with the coolies. We want to be >>able to take advantage of our own resources. The 3rd world (including >>China) has a population problem. >> >>>>And that means import tariffs >>>>and a reinstatement of the 1979 income tax system. >>> >>> The Fair Tax has a built-in import tariff that will not trigger WTO >>> retaliation. >>> >>>>It would also entail >>>>a shortened work week. >>> >>> Dream on. >> >>The WTO is an enemy of the American people much, much more than is the >>United Nations. The Fair Tax is the means by which the American people >>will be driven to subsistence wages. > > Awright, I quit. You are going to say what you want to say, in spite of > all logic that says a zero tax manufacturing environment would > supercharge the economy via economic growth. All I can say is you're > really "out there" if you think you're going to get any kind of labor > for 30 cents per hour in the USA. There's a thing called the UAW, > there's a thing called the AFL/CIO, and they'll just get bigger if there > is some real money around to tap, as there would be in a zero tax > manufacturing environment. Why can't you see the reality in front of you? The American middle class is already disintegrating and the rich get richer every day. Shifting all taxes onto consumption is _NOT_ going to fix that problem. And the rich will continue to live above the law and place people in the legislature to create the laws that they see fit such that they have even more power to command the middle class. It isn't a game against other countries seeing who can outproduce who. It is about the prosperity of the middle class and that is _all_ that matters. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
From: Michael Coburn on 30 Jul 2010 23:43
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:14:35 -0400, Dave Head wrote: > On 30 Jul 2010 21:52:50 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> wrote: > >>On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 03:34:12 -0400, Dave Head wrote: >> >>> On 30 Jul 2010 06:30:10 GMT, Michael Coburn <mikcob(a)verizon.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> Wrong. It "prebates" to absolutely every citizen. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would be even _more_ "flat". >>>>> >>>>> Plain wrong, its exactly the opposite. >>>> >>>>Care to prove that ridiculous assertion? >>> >>> No problem. Its simple math. >>> >>> The prebate is computed on a person's living situation which >>> determines their poverty level. A single person earning the poverty >>> level might be making $12K / yr. A head of household for a family of >>> 4 might be earning $30K / year. >>> >>> The prebate that a single person gets is computed on the amount of >>> Fair Tax that they would pay. If a person is single, then the poverty >>> level for a single person at $12K/yr would be used to compute the >>> prebate, which would be the Fair Tax on what a person in poverty >>> makes. >>> >>> So, the single person earning poverty level wages of $1000 a month >>> would receive $230 / month. If he spends absolutely everything he >>> makes, he will be paying zero Fair Tax, because it is paid for him by >>> the prebate check he receives. >>> >>> OTOH, if another single person makes wages that are twice the poverty >>> level, and spends every penny of it, then they will still receive the >>> $230 / month, but pay the the actual Fair Tax rate on the remaining >>> $12,000 / yr that he doesn't receive a prebate for. This results in >>> him paying 1/2 the Fair Tax rate on everything he buys. >>> >>> If a person make wages that are 3X the poverty rate, they are taxed at >>> 2/3rds the Fair Tax rate. 4X the poverty rate, 3/4 of the Fair Tax >>> rate. etc. >>> >>> So, it's progressive. Poor people pay $0, which is a whale of a lot >>> better than what we have now, which is that they pay 7.65% for SS and >>> Medicare off the top of their wages, and then pay about 22% of >>> anything they buy that is American made that has 22% of the price >>> composed of embedded corporate and other income taxes. >>> >>> The truly poor should be able to keep every penny of what they make, >>> so that they can use it to maybe improve their situation and be more >>> prosperous. >> >>It won't fly. The progressivity is to slight to even be called >>"progressive". > > When poor people pay zero tax, I think you'll have a hard time getting > them to agree with you that the Fair Tax is not progressive. I admitted that it was progressive by the straight definition of that word. But the progressiveness of your proposed system is insufficient. That WILL NOT CHANGE no matter how many times you repeat yourself. >>The _current_ progressive income tax is less progressive than what is >>actually needed. > > The current income tax is regressive. It takes money out of poor > people's pockets that shouldn't be paying any tax at all. That is actually incorrect if one sees social insurance taxes as premiums (a much more accurate description). This is a place where the rightarded normally hide from much of the realities. They keep mixing savings programs and insurance premiums with actual "taxes". The actual "taxes" are spent on defense and infrastructure. The "premiums" are used to pay claims of the insured when a covered event transpires. For premiums, there is no "shopping list" like how much do I get to spend on roads, how much on research, how much on bombs, tanks, battleships, etc. as there is with actual "tax" revenues. All collected monies go to pay legitimate claims of the insured. >>The "Fair Tax" is much less progressive than even the current tax >>scheme. > > Your reasoning for this is not obvious to me. The current income tax > taxes poor people in several ways. The Fair Tax does not tax them at > all. See above. In my own opinion the FICA and Medicare "taxes" are actually insurance premiums used to pay beneficiaries just like any other insurance system. And the FICA premiums can easily be made non- regressive by removing the cap. The Medicare premiums are not regressive. So if you want to use the "FAIR TAX" to fund social insurance systems while using the progressive income tax system to fund government services like roads and military and courts and prisons than fine and dandy. >>This so called "Fair Tax" promotes hoarding of wealth at the top and >>abject poverty at the bottom. > > The Fair Tax helps the poverty-stricken, while the income tax forces the > poverty-stricken to give up their money to taxes. The income tax is not a tax on the poor. The poor do not currently pay any federal income taxes. > Uhhh... the "top" _should_ be able to accumulate money - that's what > this country is all about - the accumulation of wealth. This does seem to be your primary religious fixation. While I do not actually begrudge people who seek money, I do begrudge a government that sacrifices the prosperity of the common people in order to fulfill the desires of the greedy. > The income tax > has damagerd that, and this is the result - one recession after another, > with the current one being so deep, there probably won't be a recovery > at all. The current mess was caused by tax cuts for the rich, needless war making, and insufficient financial regulation. It was not caused by proper income taxes, but by improper income taxes that were NOT sufficiently progressive. -- "Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60 |