(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

By definition, one not paying his far share is evading taxes.

In my version of the consumption tax, I would exempt groceries, gas, and maybe some other basics, such as medicines and auto parts. What rich person buys auto parts? The details are negotiable. That's what congress is for.

BUT, it has a lot of advantages. Politically, way too many people don't care about Fedreal Income Taxes (FIT), since they don't affect them directly. If somebody doesn't own land or stock what do they care about capital gains rates? But under my consumption tax (MCT), even a 1/8 of a percent raise will be on the minds of every citizen. We always want a more involved citizenry. This is one way to get it. Anybody have an objection to a more involved citizenry?

large portions of the economy currently go untaxed. Cash services, tips, barter. Under MCT, it doesn't matter where the money came from, it is taxed when it is spent. So criminal enterprises, such as drug dealers, end up paying their "fair share". Why should drug dealers get a tax break over honest working people?

Collection would be easy. Forty-two states currently have sales tax collection systems in force. Just piggy back on them. Convert the IRS from investigating individuals to enforcing sales tax collection from businesses.

No more need for private citizens to file returns and either delve through complex tax law and/or hire professionals. Yep, some people will lose their jobs - CPAs and lawyers, mainly.

Yep there would be a period of mental adjustment as a (say) 20% sales tax is added on. Same as the adjustment I went through when Texas put in a 2% sales tax that now is over 8%, but when I buy a $5 burger, I don't blink twice any more when the cashier asks for $5.41. In any case, the additional costs are made up for by the larger take home we would have from our jobs. Those of you who are working for a check, how much bigger would it be with no withholding for FIT?

Being married to an unfair tax system is not a good look for yall

What could be fairer? The guy who spends 1000X more pays 1000x more. If some people chose to save money or invest rather than spend, those things help the economy too.

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

(10-19-2017 09:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

This is one reason I prefer a national consumption tax to replace the income tax. It is naturally graduated. It makes every taxpayer involved, and it makes every person a taxpayer.. It reduces paperwork. it is easier to enforce and collect. It taxes the underground economy, from the kid mowing your yard to drug dealers.

Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

Yep, I knew you wanted a national consumption tax, which is why I stated what is bolded above...

And I've got no idea what you mean by FIT, so trying to respond to a few of your comments is a bit difficult.

(10-19-2017 09:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 09:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Consumption taxes are regressive and disproportionately affect the poor who need the extra dollars to pay for things.

Fair share is my least favorite line of the Democratic Party. It suggests that others aren’t paying when often many are. There are plenty of people who game the tax system legally who don’t pay their fair share, but that’s an example of how the system should be reformed.

Instead, we should be asking those who can afford to pay more, do, in order to pay down our deficit and debt, provide solvency for our social safety nets, fund infrastructure improvements, and drive our federal research initiatives. It’s abaiut sacrifice, and at some point we can either asks those who are most well off to sacrifice or we can ask those in the middle to do it, or those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I have heard the “consumption taxes are regressive” line many times before. But here’s the rub. Every other developed country but us has a consumption tax. And every one of them has a more equal dispersion of income and wealth than we do. So something ain’t working.

They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

The STATES have consumption taxes in place. My suggestion is for a NATIONAL consumption tax on top of whatever the states impose. It would not be "incredibly regressive" if certain basics are exempted. Whether on not it would sustain our revenue needs depends on two things: the rate that is set, and the amounts that are spent. I presume by sustaining our revenue, you mean the amount from FIT that covers only a small portion of our spending.

The rate might need to be anywhere from 17% to 28%. TBD.

Spending, as now, either would have to be financed by borrowing to cover the deficit, or (my preferred version), reigned in to meet the available funding. Since all citizens would be responsive to willy-nilly tax increases, the incentive for the politicians wanting to be re-elected would be the latter. Only people who want maximum spending over and above the revenue from FIT and an ever increasing national debt could possibly not like that.

Yep, I knew you wanted a national consumption tax, which is why I stated what is bolded above...

And I've got no idea what you mean by FIT, so trying to respond to a few of your comments is a bit difficult.

In one of my earlier posts, I referred to Federal Income Tax (FIT). specify this, as when we use the shorthand term, "taxes", some wise guy always come in and says everybody pays taxes.

In general, I think completely replacing FIT with a national consumption tax (don't forget my exemptions of certain basics) is good. Much more fair than FIT. According to some people to the left of me, nobody is paying their fair share except those who pay nothing. I've never heard anybody accuse anybody of not paying their fair share of sales tax. That's because the payment of it is not at the discretion of the payer.

Let me tell you the story of a guy I once knew. Ostensibly he was a barber, and faithfully reported his barbering income on his 1040, and loaded every expense he could against that income, including a lot he shouldn't have, but he got away with it because the IRS very rarely audits the small fry, like barbers. he paid very little FIT, if any.

Of course, if the IRS had come by, he might have been hard pressed to explain how he could afford those four new vehicles out front, or the custom swimming pool he had installed, or the many, many trips he and his family took. But they never came by.

he could afford all those things because besides being a barber, he was a bookie. Lots of money, lots of cash. But that money never showed up on the 1040. so the US Treasury got virtually no taxes from him.

Now if we had my plan in place, the USA would have gotten a large chunk of money from him, whenever he bought a new vehicle or when he bought that swimming pool, or when he bought his wife expensive jewelry.

The underground economy, the unreported or underreported income, is humongous. That means giant. YUUUUUGE. Under my plan, it all gets taxed when spent. Drug dealer wants a pimpmobile, he pays taxes. Baby sitter wants a new bike, he pays taxes.

Of course, if they don't spend it, they don't pay taxes. But not many rich people want to have all their money buried in a coffee can, so it would go into banks or the stock market - both uses that help the economy.

(10-19-2017 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Highly trained hearing skills.

You guys certainly do. Oh wait, did you mean me? :-)

(10-20-2017 09:20 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Highly trained hearing skills.

You guys certainly do. Oh wait, did you mean me? :-)

Yep, you were the one talking about what you heard.

So, "you guys"? I hear a person responding to a comment about him individually by referring to an entire group as being all the same.

But maybe I am just hearing things. :-)

(10-19-2017 12:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Couple of points.

(10-19-2017 11:26 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Sorry, it just seems like you are projecting a lot onto Obama's speech - I don't hear a "screed" until your, IMVHO, ridiculous paraphrasing.

1. I guess you have never heard Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, Hillary, and Obama ever utter the phrase "pay their fair share" ever. Got it.

2. For a guy that draws down on dog whistles over a cartoon frog, it seems odd that you have never heard those explicit statements above, let alone put that simple four word mantra noted above and made incessantly by those actors into place and into context with the Obama comments.

3. Obama's comments, if they are what you say they are, are utterly fing disingenuous on the surface. The people to whom is speaking about "You didnt build that", given the current state of tax financing and the enormous proportional load paid by the upper 45 per cent for Federal income tax (i.e. almost the entirety), and on the enormous amount of taxes collected on the seriously income rich, they probably *actually did* pay for the great weight the mfing infrastructure.

Why do you need to state that 'others' built 'that', when most likely the sourcing came from the people the great professor was "lecturing", if not to implicitly tell the 45 per cent who dont pay income taxes that 'there is more gravy out there we need to get.' Obama wont get votes or support for saying 'hey lets all build infrastructure' -- he gets votes by emphasizing class divides and berating those who have.

Much like Pelosi, Schumer, and the vast majority of the Democrats have made de rigueur for their playbook. Nothing wrong with, it is just politics and pandering to those support groups you can rile up. But the message isnt a dog 'whistle', that is a friggin' dog 'lighthouse foghorn'.....

Quote:And so when I hear Obama in this speech, I actually hear him making a statement much closer to yours above than the collectivist call to arms you guys are hearing.

When you take the speech in isolation and explicitly -- potentially. But as I noted before, the thunderous chorus of the liberals and progressives is a continuous roar of "make them pay their fair share" even in light of the vast proportional load of the current taxes they already pay.

Quote:I suspect we could debate this endlessly...

I would ask that you take as much context for this as you do your Pepe the Frog issues.

I lost where Pepe came into this again, but I think this is just another round of the same disagreement - you hear a call for massive redistribution based on your larger perception of Obama's agenda and I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

Basic services and infrastructure?

specifics?

(10-19-2017 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have tried for years to get a liberal to define what anybody's "fair share" is. Seems the answer is always "more than now".

Indeed. If the top marginal tax rate were 99%, and someone said "You know, we really might want to cut that back to 98%", a typical liberal would scream "Giveaway to the rich!"

More generally, the left loves non-falsifiable propositions -- perhaps because so many of its propositions that can be falsified, have been.

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I lost where Pepe came into this again, but I think this is just another round of the same disagreement - you hear a call for massive redistribution based on your larger perception of Obama's agenda and I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

But where are republicans (other than maybe a few kooks on the fringe) saying that government should not be providing basic services and infrastructure? I don't understand any rational basis for the perception that you describe on the part of you and other leftists. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't have the roads and bridges.

What Obama has to be saying is that somehow the successful business owner has earned profits that were not his and should be shared with everyone in good collectivist/socialist/communist fashion. Otherwise, there is no point to the comment. Bottom line--If he meant it the way that you suggest, then why say it at all?

If somebody is saying no to roads and bridges, then he might have a point. But if nobody is saying that, then he must have some other motive. And bottom line, neither I nor others trust his motive.

If the point is that they didn't pay their "fair share," then exactly what is that "fair share"? If that's not the point, then what is the point? And if the point is to defend roads and bridges against those who call for government not to fund them, who is making that attack?

(10-19-2017 08:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They ONLY have a consumption tax? Because that was the situation suggested. We already have consumption taxes in place - sales tax. A consumption tax is a decent revenue source, but to make it the only revenue source would be incredibly regressive and likely would not be able to sustain our revenue needs without imposing a rather high consumption tax.

So is it only regressive if they have only a consumption tax? If not, then what difference does that make?

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?

2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.

So why else state that?

Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?
2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.
So why else state that?
Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

Exactly. Unless the statement is some kind of dog whistle calling for a collectivist/socialist/communist massive redistribution scheme, what is the point of making the statement?

Clearly, the guy who put up everything he owned to the bank and worked 120 hours a week for years, clearly he didn't build that because the road to the bank was paved.

(10-20-2017 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 09:29 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I hear a basic defense of the role of government in reaction to what many of us on the center-left and left perceive as a fairly strong rightward lurch against things like basic services and infrastructure, etc. in the Republican party.

1. What lurch? Specifically what "basic services" do you see on the defensive? Or "basic infrastructure"?
2. The point at which he says "you didnt build that" is one of two things. One is a falsity. The "you didnt build that" is a strong misdirection (a falsity) because in a strict review of the federal tax income that "buil[t] that", the people who are the object of his 'teaching' actually probably did "build that", since the vast majority of income tax revenues came from the evil greedy capitalist mfers that he is supposedly 'teaching to'. Bummer about that fact.
So why else state that?
Yeah, has *nothing* to do with constant chorus of "pay your fair share" scolding that is so incessant from the liberal camp. Nothing at all. He just laid a whopper of msidirection for ***** and giggles I guess....

Exactly. Unless the statement is some kind of dog whistle calling for a collectivist/socialist/communist massive redistribution scheme, what is the point of making the statement?

Well, being that Congress wouldn’t pass an infrastructures plan underneath Obama (even one that wasn’t deficit neutral https://www.google.com/amp/www.thefiscal...-GOP%3Famp) it makes sense that Obama might feel the need to remind Republican voters that the government is likely the most efficient entity to carry out large-scale infrastructure projects. And being that out countries infrastructure is getting rather old, and it is constantly sh*t on by ASCE, we need to find a way to fund massive repair and expansion projects soon.

If Reps had assisted Obama on passing infrastructure spending, then I would agree that hey actually care about government being responsible for that. That’s why I hope Trump actually puts together a coherent infrastructure plan - now that Republicans wouldn’t have to give Dems support, we could actually see something get done.

Has W joined the resistance?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powe...ab025f681f