Racism - It's a real thing.

[TheSker]

44 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

Again, it's still 47% of the population that isn't paying them.The details involved don't lessen the burden.

Exactly.

[Moiraine]

3 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

The country is so s#!tty, everyone wants to be here!

 

 

How was it not obvious I was talking about how it would become if we had a flat tax rate.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

How was it not obvious I was talking about how it would become if we had a flat tax rate.

 

A flat tax rate would work fine. Even better, a consumption tax.

[Moiraine]

It’s good for people to know what the 47% is made up of. Can we move on now?

[Moiraine]

6 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

A flat tax rate would work fine. Even better, a consumption tax.

 

 

That tax would have to get raised a lot or tax revenue would plummet, and people in lower percentiles already pay a higher % of their income (including on just plain surviving) on sales taxes than do people in higher percentiles. The poverty rate would increase a lot if that were to happen or you’d have to cut a s#!t ton of things that we need.

[B.B. Hemingway]

14 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

That tax would have to get raised a lot or tax revenue would plummet, and people in lower percentiles already pay a higher % of their income (including on just plain surviving) on sales taxes than do people in higher percentiles. The poverty rate would increase a lot if that were to happen or you’d have to cut a s#!t ton of things that we need.

 

Sales tax is the most fair tax we have....

 

Nah, the consumption tax would be golden.

 

Edit: obviously the consumption tax rate would have to be significantly higher than the current sales tax rate.

[ZRod]

40 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Sales tax is the most fair tax we have....

 

Nah, the consumption tax would be golden.

 

Edit: obviously the consumption tax rate would have to be significantly higher than the current sales tax rate.

A flat tax sounds nice and fair until you actually stop and think about how 9 percent means a lot more to your bottom line when you're at the poverty line, than when you are making 7 or 8+ figures. You're talking car payments, rent, or eating out compared to a second house, third car, private school.

 

 

[Moiraine]

24 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Sales tax is the most fair tax we have....

 

Nah, the consumption tax would be golden.

 

Edit: obviously the consumption tax rate would have to be significantly higher than the current sales tax rate.

 

 

 

The poverty rate would skyrocket. It would be a disaster.

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I don't have a problem with rich people paying more, I have a problem with them paying a higher percentage than everyone else. Just because they have the money doesn't mean we should disproportionately take it from them.

 

Again, don't worry your purty little head about the rich paying more than their share. That's not even close to what's happening now. 

 

We tend to think class warfare only works from the bottom up; that the proletariat is angry at the rich simply because they're jealous. 

 

But last year's tax reform bill......I don't know how you could ever defend that craven cash grab, blatantly taking from the middle and handing it to the tippy top.

 

Disproportionate? No s#!t. 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-deduction-turmp-323-billion_n_5c7a2da1e4b0e1f77651b412?fbclid=IwAR1nkAGBfnlsQ-6d25pjS30jr7Df-uTu4YyFyzEndOWSCQKoGtcFpU61gwU

[B.B. Hemingway]

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

The poverty rate would skyrocket. It would be a disaster.

 

No it wouldn't. There are numerous reasons a consumption tax would work. The first being that EVERYONE would pay taxes. The rich, given their chosen lifestyles, would still pay a lot more than us regular folks.

 

 

24 minutes ago, ZRod said:

A flat tax sounds nice and fair until you actually stop and think about how 9 percent means a lot more to your bottom line when you're at the poverty line, than when you are making 7 or 8+ figures. You're talking car payments, rent, or eating out compared to a second house, third car, private school.

 

 

 

That effect would be felt no matter the taxation system. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Again, don't worry your purty little head about the rich paying more than their share. That's not even close to what's happening now. 

 

We tend to think class warfare only works from the bottom up; that the proletariat is angry at the rich simply because they're jealous. 

 

But last year's tax reform bill......I don't know how you could ever defend that craven cash grab, blatantly taking from the middle and handing it to the tippy top.

 

Disproportionate? No s#!t. 

 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tax-deduction-turmp-323-billion_n_5c7a2da1e4b0e1f77651b412?fbclid=IwAR1nkAGBfnlsQ-6d25pjS30jr7Df-uTu4YyFyzEndOWSCQKoGtcFpU61gwU

 

Patronizing phrases aside, the U.S. Corporate tax rate was way too high. It had to go down, significantly.

 

This doesn't look so bad to me:

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-trump-tax-cuts-separating-economic-fact-from-fiction/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIw6mltsLz4AIVlYxpCh1_kA05EAAYASAAEgJnrvD_BwE

[Moiraine]

22 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

No it wouldn't. There are numerous reasons a consumption tax would work. The first being that EVERYONE would pay taxes. The rich, given their chosen lifestyles, would still pay a lot more than us regular folks.

 

 

 

That effect would be felt no matter the taxation system.

 

To the bold, poverty rates are very low the way things are right now, and despite the awful burden on the wealthy of paying a higher tax rate, the economy has worked out amazingly for them

 

 

A high consumption tax rate on the people who literally can’t afford it because they would go homeless and die would have to increase by a lot, or we’d have a dramatic decrease in revenue and lose a lot of necessities. It’s a terrible idea. The poor and middle class are already paying a higher % of their incomes on sales tax. A consumption tax in place of income tax would make it even higher. Instead of lopsided high rates on the rich, who don’t starve and go homeless because of it, you’d have lopsided high rates on the poor.

 

The main goal of the consumption tax is to increase the tax burden on the lower income percentiles and decrease it on the upper percentiles. Something has give in that scenanio.

[B.B. Hemingway]

8 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

To the bold, poverty rates are very low the way things are right now, and despite the awful burden on the wealthy of paying a higher tax rate, the economy has worked out amazingly for them

 

 

A high consumption tax rate on the people who literally can’t afford it because they would go homeless and die would have to increase by a lot, or we’d have a dramatic decrease in revenue and lose a lot of necessities. It’s a terrible idea. The poor and middle class are already paying a higher % of their incomes on sales tax. A consumption tax in place of income tax would make it even higher. Instead of lopsided high rates on the rich, who don’t starve and go homeless because of it, you’d have lopsided high rates on the poor.

 

The main goal of the consumption tax is to increase the tax burden on the lower income percentiles and decrease it on the upper percentiles. Something has give in that scenanio.

 

 

Lol. No it's not.  The idea itself is fairly progressive. 

 

And of course it would be in place of the current tax system, not applied in addition too. That wouldn't make any sense. It more or less puts it in each individual's hands on how much tax they pay in. And like our current tax system, the rich would pay significantly more, because they spend significantly more money. And, maybe the best part, EVERYONE would pay. People visiting from other countries, those being paid under the table by businesses, and those hear illegally. The less you spend, the less taxes you'll pay. It's a great idea.

[Moiraine]

16 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

Lol. No it's not.  The idea itself is fairly progressive. 

 

And of course it would be in place of the current tax system, not applied in addition too. That wouldn't make any sense. It more or less puts it in each individual's hands on how much tax they pay in. And like our current tax system, the rich would pay significantly more, because they spend significantly more money. And, maybe the best part, EVERYONE would pay. People visiting from other countries, those being paid under the table by businesses, and those hear illegally. The less you spend, the less taxes you'll pay. It's a great idea.

 

 

 

That is exactly what the goal is. Your goal is for what you consider a fair tax rate. That means everyone pays the same rate. Everyong paying the same rate lowers the burden on the wealthy and increases it for the poor.

 

It puts it in the individual’s hands how much tax they pay in? When you’re talking about poor people they would just be trying to survive. There’s not really a choice there.

 

I calculated that if we wanted to generate as much revenue with a consumption tax as we do with individual income tax, the consumption tax would need to be ~22%. 

 

I then looked up what % of income someone making $40k spends on sales tax and it’s 11.3%. I then calculated what that percentage would be if sales tax was increased from the current average of 8.25%.

 

By my findings, the % of income people making $40,000 would pay is 30.0%. The % for people making $160,000 (whose % of sales tax is 10% of their income) would be 26.6%. I need to make sure of the above #s at home to make sure they were all individual incomes and not household, but the person making $40,000 is left with $28,000. The person making $160,000 is left with $117,440.

 

People making less than $40,000 would be paying an even higher % of their incomes in sales tax. This would be absolutely disasterous for them unless incomes increased drastically at the same time or prices dropped by a lot.

[B.B. Hemingway]

11 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

That is exactly what the goal is. Your goal is for what you consider a fair tax rate. That means everyone pays the same rate. Everyong paying the same rate lowers the burden on the wealthy and increases it for the poor.

 

It puts it in the individual’s hands how much tax they pay in? When you’re talking about poor people they would just be trying to survive. There’s not really a choice there.

 

I calculated that if we wanted to generate as much revenue with a consumption tax as we do with individual income tax, the consumption tax would need to be ~22%. 

 

I then looked up what % of income someone making $40k spends on sales tax and it’s 11.3%. I then calculated what that percentage would be if sales tax was increased from the current average of 8.25%.

 

By my findings, the % of income people making $40,000 would pay is 30.0%. The % for people making $160,000 (whose % of sales tax is 10% of their income) would be 26.6%. I need to make sure of the above #s at home to make sure they were all individual incomes and not household, but the person making $40,000 is left with $28,000. The person making $160,000 is left with $117,440.

 

People making less than $40,000 would be paying an even higher % of their incomes in sales tax. This would be absolutely disasterous for them unless incomes increased drastically at the same time or prices dropped by a lot.

 

 

Yep. The 22% number is where I've always read that it would have to be. So where are you getting 30%? 

 

 

Yeah, it would be bad for those that are currently not paying anything in income tax, but they'd have tax credits there to save them at the end of the year like they depend on now.