Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2305 Apr 22, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are proposing is a flat federal sales tax on all consumption to replace the income tax.
Boy do they have you buffaloed! Like Steve Forbes' "Flat Tax". You know what that would have resulted in: People like Steve Forbes who make 99.99% of their money off of investment income, paying virtually NO tax.
This is just a pathetic scheme to help the rich get richer all under the guise of being fair because everyone pays the same rate. Ever heard of the term "regressive"
Boy, you sure are dumb. Do you think maybe Steve Forbes goes out to eat? Buys a car or two?Buys fancy audio/video equipment? Buys a house or two? It doesn't matter HOW he MAKES his money, he's taxed when he SPENDS it! Like everyone else.

Keep searching and making false claims like every liberal does, but there is no conflict in anything I've said. There have just been expansions and more clarification in each later post.
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2306 Apr 22, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the same damned thing, just less detail. I had to spell it out for the slower people (you).
No, in one case you are proposing a federal sales tax where poor people pay a lower rate than wealthy people. In the other case your proposing a federal sales tax that is a flat rate regardless of income.
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2307 Apr 22, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, you sure are dumb. Do you think maybe Steve Forbes goes out to eat? Buys a car or two?Buys fancy audio/video equipment? Buys a house or two? It doesn't matter HOW he MAKES his money, he's taxed when he SPENDS it! Like everyone else.
Keep searching and making false claims like every liberal does, but there is no conflict in anything I've said. There have just been expansions and more clarification in each later post.
Tell me, how much of Steve Forbes wealth do you think he spends on personal consumption relative to someone making $50,000 per year? He can only eat so much, drink so much wine, drive so many cars. If Steve Forbes makes $50 million per year, do you really, really thinks he spends anywhere near that amount on personal consumption? Get real.
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2308 Apr 22, 2014
So, if Forbes makes $50 million a year and pays a 20% income tax rate ... that's $10 million per year in taxes.

At a 10% consumption tax, he would have to consume $100 million per year to generate the same $10 million in taxes per your scheme. See a little problem there? The numbers don't make sense. Mind you, he makes $50 million per year, not $100 million.

So for your plan to be revenue neutral, the consumption tax would have to be 20%. You want to pay 20% more for all goods and services you consume?
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2309 Apr 22, 2014
And again using your argument that the difference would be made up by all the current 47% not paying taxes. Let's say it's a 10% comsumption tax. Then if Forbes spent all of his $50 million each year on consumption, then he would end up paying $5 million per year in taxes. He would save $5 million per year in taxes under your plan. Egro ... the rich get richer.
wow

Nacogdoches, TX

#2310 Apr 22, 2014
Pardon the interjection.

US GDP 2013 was 16.8 trillion

US Gov't budget 2103 was 3.8 trillion

Federal Govt spending alone was nearly 23% of all goods and services in the entire economy. What level would a sales tax have to be to pay for all fed, plus state and local govt spending then? 30% to 35%?

Maybe the govt spends too much?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2311 Apr 22, 2014
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. This president has succeeded in destroying this country. Good job O.
Yeah, and they want to blame "greedy capitalists" to keep all eyes OFF Obama...
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2313 Apr 22, 2014
wow wrote:
Pardon the interjection.

US GDP 2013 was 16.8 trillion
US Gov't budget 2103 was 3.8 trillion

Federal Govt spending alone was nearly 23% of all goods and services in the entire economy. What level would a sales tax have to be to pay for all fed, plus state and local govt spending then? 30% to 35%?

Maybe the govt spends too much?
Of course the government spends too much. The question is does that government spending spur private sector economic development or not? If it does, great. There's lots of government waste that can be cut.
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2314 Apr 22, 2014
Dying wage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and they want to blame "greedy capitalists" to keep all eyes OFF Obama...
Oh! talk about changing subjects! What's wrong ... you can't defend your brilliant plan? You must be dumb as friggin rock and gullible too.

Keep drinking that right wing Cool-Aid buddy. They love people like you that can't see the forest from the trees and promote their agenda without realizing that you're going to get the short end of the stick if their policies get implemented.
wow

Nacogdoches, TX

#2316 Apr 23, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the government spends too much. The question is does that government spending spur private sector economic development or not? If it does, great. There's lots of government waste that can be cut.
Since the 1960s the government has created many more leeches than jobs. The whole reason for the massive vote-buying programs is to enable a very small number of people to control a very large number of people.
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2317 Apr 23, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
<quoted text>
No, in one case you are proposing a federal sales tax where poor people pay a lower rate than wealthy people. In the other case your proposing a federal sales tax that is a flat rate regardless of income.
You READ "rate", Edward. I wrote "price". Words mean things, Edward, they have specific definitions.
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2318 Apr 23, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! talk about changing subjects! What's wrong ... you can't defend your brilliant plan? You must be dumb as friggin rock and gullible too.
Keep drinking that right wing Cool-Aid buddy. They love people like you that can't see the forest from the trees and promote their agenda without realizing that you're going to get the short end of the stick if their policies get implemented.
Hey, stupid! When quoting someone on here, that means you are answering THEM. So, no, genius. I didn't change the subject, I changed the person I was speaking to. Keep up, Edward.
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2320 Apr 23, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
And again using your argument that the difference would be made up by all the current 47% not paying taxes. Let's say it's a 10% comsumption tax. Then if Forbes spent all of his $50 million each year on consumption, then he would end up paying $5 million per year in taxes. He would save $5 million per year in taxes under your plan. Egro ... the rich get richer.
As has been pointed out before, if I remember correctly it was you, but it could have been your buddy LW, either way: you're talking about 3,000-4,000 ultra rich people. If you took all of their money away, it would only run our government for a short time.

The bulk of the money would come from those currently using loopholes in the system, and it won't be huge payments by a few. It would be small payments by many. In 2009 (the most current I could find in a hurry) of 131 some odd million returns filed, about 96 million got refunds totaling approximately $260 billion. About 35 million either paid or had nothing due. So, if the 96 million paid $10 each for a total of $960 million, plus the $260 billion they DIDN'T get refunded, it blows old Steve out of the water. Oh, BTW, the $10 remark was only an example for the particular case. Like before on the 10% I stated it is only for easy math, not set in stone. Hopefully, you can grasp the idea. You and LW are always talking about "volume discounts", the same principle applies here. Imagine the money for $100 or $1000 each. Of course, it would vary by person and their individual purchases.

This is an idea that WOULD work, but will NEVER happen, because it is a way for government to control the 47% who don't pay taxes, but get refunds anyway. They are known as "voting blocs". Oh, the moaning and crying we would hear from you liberals about how "unfair" this would be to the poor! Yet, no liberal has yet to explain the fairness of the current setup, much less the idea of taxing the rich even more. Just another way to CONTROL the poor.

And is this idea of taxation meant to level the playing field? Is it intended to be a redistribution system?

BTW, what is an "egro"? Did you leave a letter out?
Dying wage

Natchitoches, LA

#2321 Apr 23, 2014
Red Dodge Pickup wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! A lower "price" ... Oh! Now that makes sense. So let's say a bottle of milk is priced at $2.00. So, what you're saying is that if I make $35,000 a year, at check-out, I would pay say,$2.20 to include your federal sales tax. But, if I make $75,000 a year, since I have more money to spend, I would pay say $2.40 since I make roughly twice as much. So, I pay a higher price.
But, if I wanted to look at it in percentage terms, the $35K per year person is paying a 10% rate and I am paying a 20% rate.
So, how does someone who is paying a high "price" not paying a higher "rate"?
I still don't see you defending your plan to show how it can practically work?
The problem is not language ... It's that you're a friggin idiot who has no idea what he's talking about. You do realize all those alternative right wing websites and talking heads are ENTERTAINERS, not serious policy analysts. They spew their crap to get ratings to make money off of you. The more controversial, the better. And you just eat that crap up.
Man, you are SO slow, Edward. Please try to keep up!

Lower "price" = less money spent x "rate" (prevailing tax rate)

You ask about me and doubt my accounting knowledge, yet you can't keep up when I use very rudimentary accounting terms.

This isn't political to me, it is common sense. You're the one dragging in all of this other crap.
wow

Nacogdoches, TX

#2329 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot wrote:
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower is Very Unpopular with Republicans...
"Ike" knew where to get the money to build; the Federal Interstate Highway System, the Nuclear Missiles, and their Silos, and to pay off the National Debt from WW 2 and the Korean War...
No comparison. All those things are useful and used by everybody. Now nearly 70% of the federal budget is transfer payments and interest.
wow

Nacogdoches, TX

#2330 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot wrote:
Stock Market DOUBLED Under Eisenhower and Obama
.
Under Obama the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve has quadrupled from less than 1 trillion to nearly 4 trillion. Also, Eisenhower was paying down the debt while Obama is close to doubling it. No comparison.
Patriot

Savannah, GA

#2331 Apr 23, 2014
wow wrote:
<quoted text>
Under Obama the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve has quadrupled from less than 1 trillion to nearly 4 trillion. Also, Eisenhower was paying down the debt while Obama is close to doubling it. No comparison.
Well ! I'll be danged, imagine that! Did you ever stop to think that Eisenhower had Far MORE Revenue to work with than Obama Does????

The Bush Tax Cuts are NOT Free, the Cost of those Tax Cuts Adds to the National Debt...

OBVIOUSLY the Wealthy Pay the Lion's Share of Federal Taxes....WHY ??

Because they Make More Money than 80% of All Americans put together... DUH !!!
wow

Nacogdoches, TX

#2336 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>
Well ! I'll be danged, imagine that! Did you ever stop to think that Eisenhower had Far MORE Revenue to work with than Obama Does????
The Bush Tax Cuts are NOT Free, the Cost of those Tax Cuts Adds to the National Debt...
OBVIOUSLY the Wealthy Pay the Lion's Share of Federal Taxes....WHY ??
Because they Make More Money than 80% of All Americans put together... DUH !!!
Ike's budgets were in the 70 billion dollar range. Obama's are in the 3.5 trillion. That's 50 times as much. Since Ike, price have increased less than 10 fold. So what does that tell ya?
Ed Snowden

Houston, TX

#2337 Apr 23, 2014
Patriot wrote:
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower is Very Unpopular with Republicans...
"Ike" knew where to get the money to build; the Federal Interstate Highway System, the Nuclear Missiles, and their Silos, and to pay off the National Debt from WW 2 and the Korean War...
Eisenhower set Tax Rate at 92% on Millionaires - Topix
www.topix.com/forum/city/bowling.../T68NSF35B... - Similar to Eisenhower set Tax Rate at 92% on Millionaires - Topix
Republican President of the USA, Dwight David Eisenhower set the Tax Rate on those who make a Million Dollars a year and higher, at 92%.
From Eisenhower to Obama: What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt ...
abcnews.go.com › Home › Politics
- Similar to From Eisenhower to Obama: What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt ...
Jan 24, 2011 ... During the administration of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a 92 percent marginal income tax rate for top earners in the United ...
1950s Tax Fantasy Is a Republican Nightmare - Bloomberg View
www.bloombergview.com/.../1950s-tax-fantasy-i...
Jan 2, 2013 ... In the 1950s, after all, tax rates were far higher than what the House and Senate ... Dwight Eisenhower's idea of a significant marginal rate cut was to push the top rate down to 91 percent from 92 percent.... Today, by contrast, whether they apply to dividends or income, taxes are set in the “up” direction.
Now that's a winning plan!

F* that. 92% is ridiculoous! I'd rather sit at home doing nothing to working or creating value and giving 92% of it to the government.
Patriot

Savannah, GA

#2339 Apr 23, 2014
Ed Snowden wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that's a winning plan!
F* that. 92% is ridiculoous! I'd rather sit at home doing nothing to working or creating value and giving 92% of it to the government.
Don't be Absurd, they Didn't pay 92% of their earnings to the Federal Government...

They enjoyed the same Tax Breaks, Deductions, Loopholes, and other Tax Dodges that they enjoy today.... BUT, they Had To Pay More Taxes...

What is the Tax Rate on the Wealthy today? 30 some odd percent, Yet, Mitt Romney only paid 14% of his Income in Taxes..........

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Citizen Sound-Off Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Jay 175,970
Election OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Questio... (Oct '10) 3 hr Justaminute 82,688
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in West Virg... (Oct '10) 3 hr Weepy 74,449
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Missouri ... (Oct '10) 3 hr Chilli J 100,807
Election Who's got your vote in the Tennessee Senate rac... 3 hr Pete 4,234
Election Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 5 hr The WB 63,109
Election Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 5 hr xxxrayted 34,954
More from around the web