(10-28-2016 11:16 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  And generally speaking:

- the more complex a policy, the more efficient and smart it is.
- the more simple a policy, the less efficient and smart it is.


I'll almost always vote for the smarter policies.

Um, like Oblundercare? There goes your hypothesis.

Im not sure that a policy that covers 13 Million people for the price of $49 Billion of tax payer money (just in subsidies this year), would be considered "smart". Not to mention, 33 Million people (10% of the population) are still uninsured.

(10-27-2016 10:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 07:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  I would still do NAFTA. But the fact is that it created winners and losers and we ignored the losers. We can't continue to do that.

The losers that NAFTA "created" were going to lose out regardless of NAFTA. The forces that caused them to lose existed with or without NAFTA. Blaming it in NAFTA or TPP or free trade generally is just the boogeyman they found to deflect attention away from the real causes.

The trade deals have accelerated these trends. As we reduce tariffs, it makes it more economical to do the manufacturing outside the country where there are lower wages.

(10-28-2016 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  And generally speaking:

- the more complex a policy, the more efficient and smart it is.
- the more simple a policy, the less efficient and smart it is.


I'll almost always vote for the smarter policies.

I take it you don't pay taxes.

Also don't have much experience in the real world.

KISS-Keep It Simple Stupid is an important strategy in getting things to work. Complex is usually because people are not intelligent enough to explain or do things in a simple manner.

(10-28-2016 11:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nowhere in the universe is obamacare similar to flat tax.

Your inability to comprehend shows through once again. I was saying it is their 'bullseye'...

They (like Republicans to Obamacare) would do ANYTHING to kill it.

(10-28-2016 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  -the prebate would end up being the largest welfare program in history

Pure political semantics. Sure, you give people money, but that amount is based on their earnings, which you tax. The net impact on the government is essentially zero. If you call giving someone who earns $100 a extra dollar and then taxing them an extra dollar when they spend their $100 'welfare', then you obviously don't understand math or are more interested in politics than facts. What is the difference between a truly progressive tax rate (tax the rich to give to the poor) and 'welfare'?

Quote:-to be sustainable the rates would have to be much higher than the proposed plan. I've seen figures of 30%, 34%, and 38% mentioned.

Only because they ignorantly don't understand broadening of the tax base.. or more likely and as I've suggested, they're willing to lie to defeat it. For most Americans, they spend what they earn, so a 20% income tax is the same as a 20% consumption tax. The wealthy SPEND money to MAKE money, so they SPEND say $1mm to make $200,000. We tax them say 40% (actually 15%) on that 200,000... which is $80,000.... which is only 8% of the amount they spent. So an 8% consumption tax = a 40% income tax rate. Combine this with eliminating the advantage of offshoring money or deferring gains and the tax rates are lower, not higher.

Quote:-It would shift the tax burden heavily to the middle class and would pretty much destroy the middle class.

Another untruth.
The wealthy currently pay an aggregate tax rate of 15% on what they report, which is only a fraction of what they earn OR spend. The middle class (due to things like AMT and the fact that they don't have massive offshore accounts or deferred earnings) pays closer to 25%... so you're already burdening the middle class more than the wealthy.

By broadening the tax base, you can leave the wealthy's tax rate where it is and still collect more money from them. You aren't changing the rate for the middle class, but you ARE giving them an advantage.

If the prebate is set at say $50,000 in earnings and you make $50,000 or less... then you have a net tax rate of zero. Better than that, ANY money that you are able to save earns the tax rate... which is FAR better than any other investment available to anyone but the wealthy. i.e. if the rate is 20% (for simplicity, but it's also close to what most people suggest) and you earn 50,000 but spend 45,000.... your costs go up to by 20% to 54k, but you get a prefund of $10,000, so you 'take in' 60k, and put 6k into savings by reducing your spending by 5k. $1,000 in 'free money' to the poorest of us... but ONLY if they 'save'. As you earn more, that savings still exists (and of course, the more you earn, the more likely you are to be able to save) meaning that the middle class gets the same advantage, that lessens in impact as they approach 'wealthy'. At 100k, the prefund is still only $10k... which means if you spend every dime you earn, your 'net' tax rate is 10%. At 200k, your 'net' tax rate is 20% (the nominal rate) and it stays there as you continue on up. It is a progressive tax that is actually HIGHER on the wealthy than the current scheme, and you SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATE the need/benefit for the wealthy to shelter/hide/offshore income... which means they bring more of their money HERE.

So it not only is TRULY progressive, but it encourages SAVING by the lower middle class and up turning them into investors rather than just earners, which can help reduce the wealth gap, AND it increases the taxes paid by the wealthy AND it brings their investments back home where it can be used to create jobs HERE... which reduces the need for welfare/assistance and lessens the wealth gap.

The BEST evidence that it works is that far more countries (and I believe every state) uses some version of consumption taxes... Rather than a prebate, they simply raise the 'general welfare' level as an offset for the poor. If you'd rather do that, at least you'd be part of the conversation.

This is spot on!

Wish it would happen.

(10-28-2016 11:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ACA is doing what was passed.

More individuals are cheating out of it than was predicted. And more insurance companies are cheating out of it than was predicted.

Nobody is cheating out of anything. They haven offered deals that don't make economic sense, and they are turning them down. We predicted that result in 2009 and ever since. This has surprised Obamacare proponents, who seem amazed that people act rationally in their own economic best interest.

(10-28-2016 12:23 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 11:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nowhere in the universe is obamacare similar to flat tax.

Your inability to comprehend shows through once again. I was saying it is their 'bullseye'...

They (like Republicans to Obamacare) would do ANYTHING to kill it.

(10-28-2016 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  -the prebate would end up being the largest welfare program in history

Pure political semantics. Sure, you give people money, but that amount is based on their earnings, which you tax. The net impact on the government is essentially zero. If you call giving someone who earns $100 a extra dollar and then taxing them an extra dollar when they spend their $100 'welfare', then you obviously don't understand math or are more interested in politics than facts. What is the difference between a truly progressive tax rate (tax the rich to give to the poor) and 'welfare'?

Quote:-to be sustainable the rates would have to be much higher than the proposed plan. I've seen figures of 30%, 34%, and 38% mentioned.

Only because they ignorantly don't understand broadening of the tax base.. or more likely and as I've suggested, they're willing to lie to defeat it. For most Americans, they spend what they earn, so a 20% income tax is the same as a 20% consumption tax. The wealthy SPEND money to MAKE money, so they SPEND say $1mm to make $200,000. We tax them say 40% (actually 15%) on that 200,000... which is $80,000.... which is only 8% of the amount they spent. So an 8% consumption tax = a 40% income tax rate. Combine this with eliminating the advantage of offshoring money or deferring gains and the tax rates are lower, not higher.

Quote:-It would shift the tax burden heavily to the middle class and would pretty much destroy the middle class.

Another untruth.
The wealthy currently pay an aggregate tax rate of 15% on what they report, which is only a fraction of what they earn OR spend. The middle class (due to things like AMT and the fact that they don't have massive offshore accounts or deferred earnings) pays closer to 25%... so you're already burdening the middle class more than the wealthy.

By broadening the tax base, you can leave the wealthy's tax rate where it is and still collect more money from them. You aren't changing the rate for the middle class, but you ARE giving them an advantage.

If the prebate is set at say $50,000 in earnings and you make $50,000 or less... then you have a net tax rate of zero. Better than that, ANY money that you are able to save earns the tax rate... which is FAR better than any other investment available to anyone but the wealthy. i.e. if the rate is 20% (for simplicity, but it's also close to what most people suggest) and you earn 50,000 but spend 45,000.... your costs go up to by 20% to 54k, but you get a prefund of $10,000, so you 'take in' 60k, and put 6k into savings by reducing your spending by 5k. $1,000 in 'free money' to the poorest of us... but ONLY if they 'save'. As you earn more, that savings still exists (and of course, the more you earn, the more likely you are to be able to save) meaning that the middle class gets the same advantage, that lessens in impact as they approach 'wealthy'. At 100k, the prefund is still only $10k... which means if you spend every dime you earn, your 'net' tax rate is 10%. At 200k, your 'net' tax rate is 20% (the nominal rate) and it stays there as you continue on up. It is a progressive tax that is actually HIGHER on the wealthy than the current scheme, and you SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATE the need/benefit for the wealthy to shelter/hide/offshore income... which means they bring more of their money HERE.

So it not only is TRULY progressive, but it encourages SAVING by the lower middle class and up turning them into investors rather than just earners, which can help reduce the wealth gap, AND it increases the taxes paid by the wealthy AND it brings their investments back home where it can be used to create jobs HERE... which reduces the need for welfare/assistance and lessens the wealth gap.

The BEST evidence that it works is that far more countries (and I believe every state) uses some version of consumption taxes... Rather than a prebate, they simply raise the 'general welfare' level as an offset for the poor. If you'd rather do that, at least you'd be part of the conversation.

This is spot on!

Wish it would happen.

like I said. this place is an echo chamber.

(10-28-2016 10:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  And generally speaking:
- the more complex a policy, the more efficient and smart it is.
- the more simple a policy, the less efficient and smart it is.
I'll almost always vote for the smarter policies.

Generally speaking, you're wrong.

The more complex a policy, the more likely you are to spend more money on bureaucrats to administer it than on whatever is the stated goal of the policy.

There's a reason why the top 3 counties in the USA for household income, and 7 of the top 12, are in the D.C. metro area. Policies that are way more complex than needed are a major part of that reason.

(10-28-2016 12:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:23 PM)DFWMINER Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 11:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nowhere in the universe is obamacare similar to flat tax.

Your inability to comprehend shows through once again. I was saying it is their 'bullseye'...

They (like Republicans to Obamacare) would do ANYTHING to kill it.

(10-28-2016 10:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  -the prebate would end up being the largest welfare program in history

Pure political semantics. Sure, you give people money, but that amount is based on their earnings, which you tax. The net impact on the government is essentially zero. If you call giving someone who earns $100 a extra dollar and then taxing them an extra dollar when they spend their $100 'welfare', then you obviously don't understand math or are more interested in politics than facts. What is the difference between a truly progressive tax rate (tax the rich to give to the poor) and 'welfare'?

Quote:-to be sustainable the rates would have to be much higher than the proposed plan. I've seen figures of 30%, 34%, and 38% mentioned.

Only because they ignorantly don't understand broadening of the tax base.. or more likely and as I've suggested, they're willing to lie to defeat it. For most Americans, they spend what they earn, so a 20% income tax is the same as a 20% consumption tax. The wealthy SPEND money to MAKE money, so they SPEND say $1mm to make $200,000. We tax them say 40% (actually 15%) on that 200,000... which is $80,000.... which is only 8% of the amount they spent. So an 8% consumption tax = a 40% income tax rate. Combine this with eliminating the advantage of offshoring money or deferring gains and the tax rates are lower, not higher.

Quote:-It would shift the tax burden heavily to the middle class and would pretty much destroy the middle class.

Another untruth.
The wealthy currently pay an aggregate tax rate of 15% on what they report, which is only a fraction of what they earn OR spend. The middle class (due to things like AMT and the fact that they don't have massive offshore accounts or deferred earnings) pays closer to 25%... so you're already burdening the middle class more than the wealthy.

By broadening the tax base, you can leave the wealthy's tax rate where it is and still collect more money from them. You aren't changing the rate for the middle class, but you ARE giving them an advantage.

If the prebate is set at say $50,000 in earnings and you make $50,000 or less... then you have a net tax rate of zero. Better than that, ANY money that you are able to save earns the tax rate... which is FAR better than any other investment available to anyone but the wealthy. i.e. if the rate is 20% (for simplicity, but it's also close to what most people suggest) and you earn 50,000 but spend 45,000.... your costs go up to by 20% to 54k, but you get a prefund of $10,000, so you 'take in' 60k, and put 6k into savings by reducing your spending by 5k. $1,000 in 'free money' to the poorest of us... but ONLY if they 'save'. As you earn more, that savings still exists (and of course, the more you earn, the more likely you are to be able to save) meaning that the middle class gets the same advantage, that lessens in impact as they approach 'wealthy'. At 100k, the prefund is still only $10k... which means if you spend every dime you earn, your 'net' tax rate is 10%. At 200k, your 'net' tax rate is 20% (the nominal rate) and it stays there as you continue on up. It is a progressive tax that is actually HIGHER on the wealthy than the current scheme, and you SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATE the need/benefit for the wealthy to shelter/hide/offshore income... which means they bring more of their money HERE.

So it not only is TRULY progressive, but it encourages SAVING by the lower middle class and up turning them into investors rather than just earners, which can help reduce the wealth gap, AND it increases the taxes paid by the wealthy AND it brings their investments back home where it can be used to create jobs HERE... which reduces the need for welfare/assistance and lessens the wealth gap.

The BEST evidence that it works is that far more countries (and I believe every state) uses some version of consumption taxes... Rather than a prebate, they simply raise the 'general welfare' level as an offset for the poor. If you'd rather do that, at least you'd be part of the conversation.

This is spot on!

Wish it would happen.

like I said. this place is an echo chamber.

So, you have no substantive factual counters to Hambone's points.

Hammy has nothing but BS. other than "these well proven claims by experts are simply incorrect."

I know you two have your heads in the sand when it comes to topics like these. yall simply do not care about the fact that this is a largely rejected idea and only supported by a small group of partisans.

(10-27-2016 02:43 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:40 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/44...rebuilding

Talks about asking the right questions. And asks 12 good questions. But I think the author misses the point as he is too much of an insider.

The one key takeaway is that DC has focused too much on college educated people who are a minority of the population. They have established policies that favored those people and ignored working people without college degrees. They are merely collateral damage.

The Democrats claim to be for those people, but they have also pushed trade deals and refused to strictly enforce existing ones, while pushing policies that drive up the cost of living, such as their attacks on energy. All that in addition to their regulatory regimes which make it difficult for small business.

If someone out there had Trump's ideas, Trump's fight, and Trump's instincts, without the womanizing background, it would be a clear winner. It just might be a winner nonetheless.

No one has more respect for women than Trump.

Oh puh-lease.

(10-28-2016 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I have not seen one legitimate article call it progressive. I've seen a number of articles call it regressive.

Then you haven't looked at any sources that don't support Democrats. There are THOUSANDS of financial experts who disagree with you... and OF COURSE they call it regressive... That's precisely what I said they would do.... but that doesn't make it true.

Things like sales taxes and VAT alone ARE regressive, until you add the prefund or as we do with state sales taxes, exempt the things that the poor spend most of their money on. When you do that, now they aren't.

So yeah, you can find financial experts that argue that sales taxes and VATs are regressive (including me) but that doesn't mean they have to be nor does it mean that all proposals including them are.

That's why I showed you the math.

Unlike us, Europe generally accepts that it is regressive, and rather than a prefund or exemption to solve that, they simply fund more 'free stuff' for the poor... or for everyone and the wealthy usually opt out of the 'free' system.

Same thing. The people at the bottom get more out than they put in and the people at the top put more in than they get out. The 'system' therefore is progressive, even if the tax in and of itself is not.

If someone making less than the prefund cap has an effective rate of zero (and that's obvious) and the impact of the prefund decreases as incomes rise (meaning the net rate rises, and that too is obvious) then the EFFECTIVE tax is, by definition, progressive.

So we can argue semantics, or we can become educated about how things actually work. MOST people seem to prefer to argue semantics and not go to the effort of becoming educated.

(10-28-2016 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I have not seen one legitimate article call it progressive. I've seen a number of articles call it regressive.

When you define legitimate articles as those which call it regressive, that kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(10-28-2016 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I have not seen one legitimate article call it progressive. I've seen a number of articles call it regressive.

Then you haven't looked at any sources that don't support Democrats. There are THOUSANDS of financial experts who disagree with you... and OF COURSE they call it regressive... That's precisely what I said they would do.... but that doesn't make it true.

Things like sales taxes and VAT alone ARE regressive, until you add the prefund or as we do with state sales taxes, exempt the things that the poor spend most of their money on. When you do that, now they aren't.

So yeah, you can find financial experts that argue that sales taxes and VATs are regressive (including me) but that doesn't mean they have to be nor does it mean that all proposals including them are.

That's why I showed you the math.

Unlike us, Europe generally accepts that it is regressive, and rather than a prefund or exemption to solve that, they simply fund more 'free stuff' for the poor... or for everyone and the wealthy usually opt out of the 'free' system.

Same thing. The people at the bottom get more out than they put in and the people at the top put more in than they get out. The 'system' therefore is progressive, even if the tax in and of itself is not.

If someone making less than the prefund cap has an effective rate of zero (and that's obvious) and the impact of the prefund decreases as incomes rise (meaning the net rate rises, and that too is obvious) then the EFFECTIVE tax is, by definition, progressive.

So we can argue semantics, or we can become educated about how things actually work. MOST people seem to prefer to argue semantics and not go to the effort of becoming educated.

I didn't realize forbes, the WSJ, and the Bush adminstration were known as the bastion of liberal ideology.

(10-28-2016 10:31 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 10:25 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I do understand groupthink and Trump supporters fall in just like HRC supporters. You should read up on Edward Bernays and a good and tangentially read in "The Secret Lives of Sports Fans: The Science of Sports Obsession". These reads will give you ample demonstration of how Trump supporters (or any type of political supporter) are just as much of victims of groupthink and propaganda as HRC supporters and the reasons why. A Trump supporter comes up with their own opinions just like a marching ant.

http://www.johnkay.com/2016/02/03/the-da...versities/

It's funny how everyone is liberal when they are young then become way more conservative as they age. When life hits you in the face and you actually have to become an adult, pay taxes, save money, then try to retire, things change.

I also would like to add that not every Trump supporter is an "ant." There are ignorant people on each side of the political discourse but there are a lot of people who vote based on their job, the economy, and national security.

The only way to get rid of political groupthink is to make political parties and assemblies, of all types, illegal. Conservative and Liberal because they're just as guilty as the other. That ain't gonna happen.

Now, the liberal to conservative shift is all a part of the shift of topics in general. Some liberal ideals from 10 years ago are solely conservative now. Some conservative ideals from 10 years ago are solely on the fringes of sanity now.

(10-28-2016 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I have not seen one legitimate article call it progressive. I've seen a number of articles call it regressive.

When you define legitimate articles as those which call it regressive, that kind of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

anything that disagrees with you is no longer legitimate in your eyes. including WSJ, forbes, and fortune.

true or false, the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on personal needs than the rich?

in that sense it is considered regressive and rightly so.

(10-28-2016 12:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Hammy has nothing but BS. other than "these well proven claims by experts are simply incorrect."

If by BS you mean that you don't understand it, that's fine...

But let's start simple with this... Here is WIKI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. A true flat tax would be a proportional tax, but implementations are often progressive and sometimes regressive depending on deductions and exemptions in the tax base.

Isn't that what I've been saying?

How about this
https://www.quora.com/Could-there-be-a-p...e-flat-tax

Although it sounds like a contradiction in terms, a progressive flat tax is not only possible, it's actually the only sort of flat income tax thats ever been seriously talked about.

THE ONLY SORT OF FLAT INCOME TAX EVER BEEN SERIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT


Since you like Forbes, try THIS:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/...76d7fc2d25

Interesting to note the following:
So, a sales tax is a regressive tax: well, it usually is. It depends upon what goods don’t have to pay it. The UK’s VAT isn’t very regressive as food and certain other essentials don’t pay it. Sweden’s VAT does apply to food and is thus more regressive. For the poor spend a larger portion of their income on food than the rich do, meaning that the VAT on food takes up a larger portion of poor incomes than high ones. The poor also generally don’t save while the rich do and saving is not subject to VAT.

If rather than exempt specific purchased, you prebate the entire tax bill, it's obviously no longer a tax (effectively) for those who spend below that level.

He says everything I've said and even talks about savings, which I do as well... only under a prefund (as I demonstrated) the lower incomes get 'matching' as i demonstrated. He's a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London


If you want to understand more on the general concepts, here is a pretty good article, also from Forbes...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillip...7f02721fa6

It talks about progressive income taxes like we have

TRUE flat taxes which few have endorsed and she notes is more of a concept than an actual proposal

and then it talks about 'the fair tax' which is actually a plan, including a flat tax AND a prebate like we're talking about.

The “prebate” is akin to a refund and is offered at the beginning of each month so that certain purchases are essentially tax-free.

Again, just as i said... and if the prebate is >= the tax they pay, then their effective tax rate is zero and the net rate IS progressive.

I only picked forbes because you did. If they're good when you agree, then they should be just as good when you don't. Argue with the logic, not the 'source'.


A simple flat tax in theory is neither progressive NOR regressive as the name implies... but the moment you start exempting items (like investment income or food) or providing caps or floors, it can be either. The reality is that the plans actually put forward address the poor in a way that makes it progressive. We can argue the details, but YOU have to understand the basics first.

Ham,

Just to clarify, what are you saying a "progressive" effective tax rate means?

I realize you gave more complicated examples, but just to clarify what I'm saying:

10% sales tax

Guy A makes $40k per year, buys $25k per year taxable, meaning he paid $2.5k taxes
Guy B makes $240k per year, buys $100k per year taxable, meaning he paid $10k taxes

That means Guy A paid 6.25% of his income in taxes, while Guy B paid 4.17% of his income in taxes.


I say: certainly NOT progressive ....


But someone could say it's progressive because the rich guy paid more taxes (4x than the poor guy).

hammy, I know the difference between flat, fair, regressive and progressive. a number of sources describe fair tax as regressive because (and this point was absent from your post) the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on personal needs.

from the link you provided:

"The Fair Tax is also considered by some to be regressive since necessities are still subject to tax."

(10-28-2016 01:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ham,

Just to clarify, what are you saying a "progressive" effective tax rate means?

I realize you gave more complicated examples, but just to clarify what I'm saying:

10% sales tax

Guy A makes $40k per year, buys $25k per year taxable, meaning he paid $2.5k taxes
Guy B makes $240k per year, buys $100k per year taxable, meaning he paid $10k taxes

That means Guy A paid 6.25% of his income in taxes, while Guy B paid 4.17% of his income in taxes.


I say: certainly NOT progressive ....


But someone could say it's progressive because the rich guy paid more taxes (4x than the poor guy).

You're ignoring the prebate entirely.

Guy A received a check for $4,000 (10% of 40,000) so even after paying 2500 in taxes, he has a negative tax rate of $1500/40,000 or -3.75%

Guy B got a check for 5,000 (assuming the prebate caps at 50,000) so his net tax paid was $5,000 or 2.08%. Still not much, but more than the -3.75% paid by guy 1.

More to the point, guy c who earns $1mm but only spends 300k (so he pays 30k in taxes) ALSO gets the 5k check, meaning he pays net 2.5%... ALSO more than guy a or b.

The fair tax also taxes investment income, but we're ignoring that for this discussion. We're also ignoring that guy C was previously reporting zero in income despite earning $1mm... because if he's only spending a small portion of his earnings, he's probably collecting capital gains (or more likely, losses) and only paying taxes on the same 300,000 that he needs to 'spend'.

The prebate is going to be the largest welfare program in history hammy.