quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Wealth disparity and income disparity are two different things.

I have to side with Sanity on the idea of how will you get or keep anyone worth a damn if you can't pay them based on what they bring to the company.

If a CEO doubles my company profits from 2 million to 4 million shouldn't I be able to pay him Half a million bonus?

I'm partly with Jeffff on the consumption tax, but I would leave corporations out of it, because in the end corporations don't pay taxes anyway. All taxes are paid by individual people the corporate taxes come out of some real person's pocket. stock holder, employees, customers, someone real is not getting that money.

But I'm all for the Fair Tax version of a consumption tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.

Yea, I wonder that sometimes also.

Perhaps if you were to spend a little more time educating yourself instead of snarking you might eventually disabuse yourself of your self perpetuating ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen you haven't read enough about it closely enough that you don't fall for the 23% vs 34% being a simple misdirection.

34% exclussive tax rate is = to a 23% inclussive tax rate.
Which is why I put inclussivein the rate quoted because the inclussive vs exclussive thing has been used to misdirect the public before.

quote:

New Goods and Services are the only things taxed by the Fair Tax, the idea that the poor are buying lots of "new homes" is silly, they buy used homes. new construction has been a luxury thing for a long time.

quote:

Mortgage deduction????????????
The Fair Tax doesn't tax income what good is a deduction from a 0% tax on income?
The Fair Tax removes two of the heaviest regressive taxes entirely off the back of the poorest working classes.
I Note DomKen has left that aspect entirely out of his evaluation.
Payroll Taxes are the most regressive taxes we have. Social Security and Medicare taxes The Fair Tax replaces them as well as the Income Tax.
The next thing that the Fair Tax does to reduce regressiveness is the Prebate to the poverty level of spending.
That covers the poorest 100% since they lack the ability to spend past the povety level .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen you haven't read enough about it closely enough that you don't fall for the 23% vs 34% being a simple misdirection.

34% exclussive tax rate is = to a 23% inclussive tax rate.
Which is why I put inclussivein the rate quoted because the inclussive vs exclussive thing has been used to misdirect the public before.

where did I even mention the inclusive v exclusive issue? Although it is dishonest. People think of sales tax as an exclusive rate.


Well the link you provided leads with that point so you indirectly offered up the point. Which you again try to pass off. Yes other sales taxes are cited as exclussive, but the Income Tax is cited as inclussive, says so right in your own source linked. The reason for quoting it inclussive is simple so that it can be compared to the tax rates for the tax it is replacing, The Income Tax. We could I guess convert it the other way around if that makes you feel better and quote the income tax rates as their exclusive rate equivalents.

The Fair Tax is quoted as inclussive because the income tax it is designed to replace is inclussive. Isn't that the way you should compare things? Inclussive tax rate for income tax vs inclussive rate for the Fair Tax? It's not a trick, it's basic comparison conversions.

quote:

New Goods and Services are the only things taxed by the Fair Tax, the idea that the poor are buying lots of "new homes" is silly, they buy used homes. new construction has been a luxury thing for a long time.

Another strawman.

You cited a concern of two things how it effects the poor and the worry that new construction would be hurt the construction industry(seperate posts) I combined them into one reply sorry if that confusses you.
People will buy new houseing when the luxury status of doing so balances out against the cost of doing so.

quote:

Mortgage deduction????????????
The Fair Tax doesn't tax income what good is a deduction from a 0% tax on income?
The Fair Tax removes two of the heaviest regressive taxes entirely off the back of the poorest working classes.
I Note DomKen has left that aspect entirely out of his evaluation.
Payroll Taxes are the most regressive taxes we have. Social Security and Medicare taxes The Fair Tax replaces them as well as the Income Tax.
The next thing that the Fair Tax does to reduce regressiveness is the Prebate to the poverty level of spending.
That covers the poorest 100% since they lack the ability to spend past the povety level .

I've shown you an analysis that says those that make less than 200k would pay more at the 34% rate than they do now and those that can most afford to pay would pay less. I can show you many more that have found the same thing. That makes the so called Fair Tax more regressive than the current income tax. Modify the plan so the tax burden remains unchanged and then I'll listen. But of course if it was so modified the Texas billionares who finance those who push it will pull their support since this is simply a scheme to let them pay less tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:


Why would hard working entrepreneurs consider starting a company in the U.S. under such laws, or work their ass off to get ahead in a U.S. company under such laws. It seems like your ideas are the opposite of whats needed to attract and keep top employers and the best and brightest businessmen.

Are you saying that the best and brightest will only work for a billion dollars a year and not a million?

I'd be saying that the best will want the most money,

Is it your position that money and not pride in your ethical value and sense of self worth is the determining focus of your life?


as for the billion versus a million, please show examples of that because it sounds like a bit of a fabrication.

Jack walsh, john and timothy rigas, ken lay just to name a few off the top of my head. Would you like more?

But I can tell you that if it comes down to 500K and a million a year, I'd be hightailing it to the place where I can get a million, as would almost everybody if they are honest.

Is that why some doctors who spend a fair amount of time and money to become doctors work at places like the free clinic?


Why would anybody in their right mind stay in a country that punishes them for hard work instead of rewarding them? Especially since in that income class, you can damned easily change countries.

Then by all means leave if that is your choice. If you choose to work and live here then would it not be rational to pay the taxes you are obligated to as a result?

Monaco particularly likes to welcome billionaires, great idea to drive them out of the country and make them stay in another place where they pay less tax, this way you get rid of all their tax, burden everybody who's left with more tax, and all in the name of "justice".

If one moves to manaco but still derives income from the u.s. they are still obligated to pay taxes in the u.s..
While monaco has no personal income tax they do have about a 20% sales tax. They also have a 33% tax on profits. Since monaco has virtually no manufacturing industry perhaps they are not the best example of "off shoring" one might have picked.



I often wonder if people who want to tax anybody who earns more than they do so much that it will drive those away aren't really interested in the economy but are just jealous because some people earn more and out of that jealousy want to punish them.


Is it your position that the ceo is the only one responsible for profits and that those who actually manufacture the product are not?

quote:

Jack walsh, john and timothy rigas, ken lay just to name a few off the top of my head. Would you like more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Wealth disparity and income disparity are two different things.

I have to side with Sanity on the idea of how will you get or keep anyone worth a damn if you can't pay them based on what they bring to the company.

If a CEO doubles my company profits from 2 million to 4 million shouldn't I be able to pay him Half a million bonus?

I'm partly with Jeffff on the consumption tax, but I would leave corporations out of it, because in the end corporations don't pay taxes anyway. All taxes are paid by individual people the corporate taxes come out of some real person's pocket. stock holder, employees, customers, someone real is not getting that money.

But I'm all for the Fair Tax version of a consumption tax.

The folks who were/are primarily responcible for killing our economy were quite well paid.

So were the folks who`s job was to oversee our financial house.

There seems to be this slavish devotion to business by conservatives.

As if society is here to serve commerce and business.

It`s the other way around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen you haven't read enough about it closely enough that you don't fall for the 23% vs 34% being a simple misdirection.

34% exclussive tax rate is = to a 23% inclussive tax rate.
Which is why I put inclussivein the rate quoted because the inclussive vs exclussive thing has been used to misdirect the public before.

where did I even mention the inclusive v exclusive issue? Although it is dishonest. People think of sales tax as an exclusive rate.


Well the link you provided leads with that point so you indirectly offered up the point. Which you again try to pass off. Yes other sales taxes are cited as exclussive, but the Income Tax is cited as inclussive, says so right in your own source linked. The reason for quoting it inclussive is simple so that it can be compared to the tax rates for the tax it is replacing, The Income Tax. We could I guess convert it the other way around if that makes you feel better and quote the income tax rates as their exclusive rate equivalents.

The Fair Tax is quoted as inclussive because the income tax it is designed to replace is inclussive. Isn't that the way you should compare things? Inclussive tax rate for income tax vs inclussive rate for the Fair Tax? It's not a trick, it's basic comparison conversions.

Actually most will refer to a sales tax by the exclusive rate because that is how it will be presented, i.e. a retail price and then the sales tax added at the register.

quote:

quote:

New Goods and Services are the only things taxed by the Fair Tax, the idea that the poor are buying lots of "new homes" is silly, they buy used homes. new construction has been a luxury thing for a long time.

Another strawman.

You cited a concern of two things how it effects the poor and the worry that new construction would be hurt the construction industry(seperate posts) I combined them into one reply sorry if that confusses you.
People will buy new houseing when the luxury status of doing so balances out against the cost of doing so.

You conflate two seperate issues. The poor get soaked by this plan since we all know the prebate won't ever reflect reality and will always be the basis for attacks on the poor.

The construction industry, as much as I think its a bad idea, is a major component of the economy and the Fair Tax will destroy the construction industry.

quote:

quote:

Mortgage deduction????????????
The Fair Tax doesn't tax income what good is a deduction from a 0% tax on income?
The Fair Tax removes two of the heaviest regressive taxes entirely off the back of the poorest working classes.
I Note DomKen has left that aspect entirely out of his evaluation.
Payroll Taxes are the most regressive taxes we have. Social Security and Medicare taxes The Fair Tax replaces them as well as the Income Tax.
The next thing that the Fair Tax does to reduce regressiveness is the Prebate to the poverty level of spending.
That covers the poorest 100% since they lack the ability to spend past the povety level .

I've shown you an analysis that says those that make less than 200k would pay more at the 34% rate than they do now and those that can most afford to pay would pay less. I can show you many more that have found the same thing. That makes the so called Fair Tax more regressive than the current income tax. Modify the plan so the tax burden remains unchanged and then I'll listen. But of course if it was so modified the Texas billionares who finance those who push it will pull their support since this is simply a scheme to let them pay less tax.

Your own source when it included the social security tax and medicare tax states that the poor get off with a rebate  MORE MONEY BACK from the government than they currently do. It's there in your citation on fact check under the heading Who Really Pays?

"With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to -6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more" even up to the 30K range the tax liability under the Fair Tax is negative. (ie the government prebate and the elimination of the payroll taxes outstrips the taxes they would pay)

The folks who catch the most extra are the 50K to 200K folks at about a 2-3% marginal rise while the top folks at 200K+ get a 1% drop in marginal rate. (Second chart in your source under the same Who Pays? heading)

The Fair Tax remains progressive the charts show it to be so even in your source, less progressive than the income tax yes but still progressive. The poorest (under 30K ) will still pay no NET tax once you take the prebate into account. 30-40K will pay 2.3% of all the fair tax, 40-50 will pay 4.5% of the fair tax, 50-75 K will pay 13% of the taxes, 75-100 will pay just under 12 % of the taxes 100-200K will pay 29% of the tax bill, and the top folks over 200K will pay 46%. That is progressive, 2,4,13,12,29,46, other than the odd dip from 13 to 12 it progresses steadily upward as income rises.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer





Payroll Taxes are the most regressive taxes we have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

All spending?????????? WTF are you reading

prebated all TAXES incurred up to the poverty level of spending.

YOUR SOURCE says that at 0 to 15K the net tax      =  negative 6.7%
YOUR SOURCE says that at 15K to30K the net tax  =  negative 0.3%

So as I said in my post their NET TAX LIABILITIES are negative thus they would pay NO NET TAXES and in fact would get more in their prebates than they spent in taxes.

Now if I get away from your source here, the prebate is actually set up tp cover all spending up to the poverty level, and I believe the poverty level is in the 25K range for a family of 4 right now. Higher if you have more than 4 people in the family. The Fair Tax sets the prebate based strictly on the number of people in the family and the poverty threshold for that sized family.

Horrible idea that even the critics have had to admit it would spark the economy to grow by between 5 and 10 %  per year again according to YOUR SOURCE. How terrible.

quote:

quote:

Jack walsh, john and timothy rigas, ken lay just to name a few off the top of my head. Would you like more?

Yes I would like a lot more, preferably spelled correctly if you can do that and it is not too much of an effort,