(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.