[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yeah you noticed that too huh? It's just indicative of Crash's mindset. When the opportunity presents itself to slam "liberals" he blindly takes it. And it doesn't matter that a few posts earlier he had taken a position that many "liberals" would agree with. Bless his heart ... but he just can't help himself.

OAW

Oh look. OAW couldn't figure something simple out either!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh look. OAW couldn't figure something simple out either!

What's there to figure out? These are your words ....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Oh brother, not this flat tax pipe dream again.

Yes, because millionaires never just go down to best buy and buy one HDTV for their den, they automagically buy sixty of them. Because a person is rich, they automatically consume enough for 60 people. So becasue of this obvious rule of the universe, you'll collect 60x the consumption tax off of these spendthrift rich folks than some other poor soul who only buys 1 of whatever they need when they need it.

Clearly, a single rich guy always consumes more just because he's rich than a middle class or poor family of 5. Because flat-taxer 'logic' says so. And of course, being rich, he has no other means available to acquire things, other than routes where a tax is being collected.

I've got news for the flat-tax crowd: many rich people are rich because they are frugal with their money. A single rich guy who's actually smart DOES NOT consume more than a middle class family of 5. If you're counting on a tax system based on consumption- you're going to sock it to the middle class family of 5 NOT the single rich guy!

Of course, I realize that most of the flat-taxers know this also. I'm convinced the whole notion really is a way that the well-heeled will eventually fool everyone else into doing a complete 180 on who pays the majority of taxes.

It was obvious when you posted that even though you were saying "flat tax" it was done in the context of a sales tax. Otherwise, your post wouldn't have made any kind of sense. I didn't bother to challenge you on it because I knew what you were trying to say. I just rolled with it as a "flat sales tax" ... or a single sales tax rate that everyone, regardless of income, is subject to. In any event, Dakar's point and my point remains. He posted a graph from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that shows how Cain's plan would raise taxes on 84% of people while instituting dramatic tax cuts for the really wealthy. The plan is being criticized all across the ideological spectrum because it slaps a highly regressive sales tax on top of a flat income tax. If you pooh pooh a national sales tax .... and Dakar posts a graph showing the negative impact of a plan that has a national sales tax as a central component .... and OAW agrees with you assessment of a national sales tax (see above) .... then must you seek to slam "liberals" at every opportunity? Even when you find yourself on the same page with respect to the issue at hand?

OAW

PS: And for the record, I could even support a flat income tax in theory ... depending on how it's implemented. I know ... how "commie" of me right? The problem is that the tax rate would probably have to be way too high in order generate the necessary revenue.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

What's there to figure out? These are your words ....

And you still don't get it.

I said, substitute flat for 'fair' in every instance I used it. I SUPPORT flat taxes- it's not the same thing. (I already corrected myself on this, go back and read.)

A flat tax on income is everyone pays the same rate at whatever income level. (The exception being the poor, so it has to have a low-end cut off.)

The so-called 'fair' tax is trying to replace income taxes with sales taxes on the (I submit false) notion that the rich automatically account for most sales taxes that are collected, the same as they do income taxes. (I've seen not one shred of evidence that supports this notion.)

.... and Dakar posts a graph showing the negative impact of a plan that has a national sales tax as a central component .... and OAW agrees with you assessment of a national sales tax (see above) .... then must you seek to slam "liberals" at every opportunity? Even when you find yourself on the same page with respect to the issue at hand?

As you're fond of saying, let me break out the stick figures.
I wasn't responding to Dakar I was responding to Lint Police- ANY proposal that lowers taxes will lower taxes MOST for those that pay the MOST taxes. Every time this fact is brought up, liberals in fact do go HUH???!!!

As for the chart- it's silly. What's missing (purposefully) is the BEFORE chart- showing what people already pay, and using $100,000 increments to artificially jack up the chart. But we can't show that chart, now can we? It'd have the exact OPPOSITE effect!

It's my fault for misusing flat vs. fair, so in summary- I'm not against an effective flat tax. YES, it will give those that pay the most in taxes the largest amount back, but then, that's just simple fact that will always be the case. But it would also be more 'fair' in the sense that the current scheme isn't really. As others have said, taxes shouldn't be used to push social policy, or anyone's class-envy bullshit about who 'earns too much' and therefore let's confiscate it. Wealth is a not zero sum game.

If some 9-9-9 plan has elements of a 'fair' tax in it, I think that part of it is folly, I've explained why. If it has elements of a flat tax in it, I think that part of it is fine, so long as it accounts for the lowest wage earners not being taxed.

Too complicated for you?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

...

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Except that's not how it works.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

Upon leaving the bar, the tenth guy gets a $80 refund from the bartender for the beer, collected from the money the other 5 just paid. The other 5 ask the tenth guy why he just took most of the money they just spent on the bill, it's not fair to the bartender, and it's not fair to them since the tenth man effectively made $21.

The tenth explains that he bribed the bartender $20 to sneak him back $80. The beer actually only costs $19, but the bartender charges $100 to make up the $80 he'll pay back the rich guy, then pockets the $20 bribe. The tenth guy only effectively pays $1 for his beer, the same as the fifth guy.

The other 5 argue that's still unfair. They're getting pinched on the high priced beer because the tenth guy forces the bartender to raise the prices, then on top of that, the tenth guy only pays the same amount as the fifth guy. The other 5 are subsidizing not just the first four men, but the rich guy as well.

To add further insult to injury, the bartender has a special happy hour where everyone gets a percentage of free beer proportional to how much they spent. The other 9 men are gobsmacked that the rich guy sits down with almost 6 pints of free beer when the rest of them barely have 1/2 a pint each, and only because the other 5 felt bad for the 4 poor guys, and gave them a share of theirs.

They ask the tenth guy if he wouldn't mind sharing his 6 pints of free beer with the rest of them, considering 5.9 pints of that free beer they effectively paid for.

The tenth guy just sneers at them, then complains how he has to pay $59 of the $100 beer tab, and he isn't sharing any of his free beer with anyone.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And you still don't get it.

I said, substitute flat for 'fair' in every instance I used it. I SUPPORT flat taxes- it's not the same thing. (I already corrected myself on this, go back and read.)

A flat tax on income is everyone pays the same rate at whatever income level. (The exception being the poor, so it has to have a low-end cut off.)

So long as the taxation of the source of income is nondiscriminatory, but it isn't.

[OAW]

Crash ...

Seriously dude. You're not listening.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And you still don't get it.

No I "get it" just fine.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I said, substitute flat for 'fair' in every instance I used it. I SUPPORT flat taxes- it's not the same thing. (I already corrected myself on this, go back and read.)

This is what we call making a distinction without a difference. You say "fair" tax. I said "national sales tax". Well guess what? The Fair Tax is a proposal to replace the current income tax with a national sales tax.

Did I not say this?

Originally Posted by OAW

It was obvious when you posted that even though you were saying "flat tax" it was done in the context of a sales tax.

Let's continue .....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

A flat tax on income is everyone pays the same rate at whatever income level. (The exception being the poor, so it has to have a low-end cut off.)

Please tell me what leads you to the absolutely insane conclusion that I don't know that. Especially in light of this .....

Originally Posted by OAW

The plan is being criticized all across the ideological spectrum because it slaps a highly regressive sales tax on top of a flat income tax.

And this ....

Originally Posted by OAW

PS: And for the record, I could even support a flat income tax in theory ... depending on how it's implemented. I know ... how "commie" of me right?

I mean ... I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The so-called 'fair' tax is trying to replace income taxes with sales taxes on the (I submit false) notion that the rich automatically account for most sales taxes that are collected, the same as they do income taxes. (I've seen not one shred of evidence that supports this notion.)

And again. In light of that I said this ....

Originally Posted by OAW

... and OAW agrees with you assessment of a national sales tax (see above) .... then must you seek to slam "liberals" at every opportunity?

Still wondering what I'm not "getting" here? But moving on ...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As you're fond of saying, let me break out the stick figures.
I wasn't responding to Dakar I was responding to Lint Police- ANY proposal that lowers taxes will lower taxes MOST for those that pay the MOST taxes. Every time this fact is brought up, liberals in fact do go HUH???!!!

1. No one ever said you were responding to Dakar. Lint Police responded to Dakar. And you responded to Lint Police. Dakar responded to you. And I responded to Dakar. Do try to keep up!

2. Of course a proposal that lowers taxes "will lower taxes the MOST for those that pay the MOST taxes." That's just basic mathematics.

3. Liberals don't "go HUH????" because of #2. That's just what the Fox News crowd likes to tell themselves. If anything "liberals" may criticize the efficacy of a tax reduction proposal that disproportionately benefits the wealthy .... while exacerbating the deficit ... and produces limited to no benefit for the overall economy in terms of net job creation. i.e. The Bush Tax Cuts. In any event, the point of the graph that Dakar posted was that the Cain proposal would in fact INCREASE taxes on the vast majority of the American people. It is, in fact, a fundamental shift in the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class and the poor.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As for the chart- it's silly. What's missing (purposefully) is the BEFORE chart- showing what people already pay, and using $100,000 increments to artificially jack up the chart. But we can't show that chart, now can we? It'd have the exact OPPOSITE effect!

First of all ... the graph is in $10,000 increments. A far cry from the $100,000 increments you claimed. Furthermore, it appears that you are having difficulty understanding what the chart is showing. Either that or you're being deliberately obtuse. This isn't a graph showing the average tax liability under the 9-9-9 program broken down by income percentile. The graph shows the 9-9-9 proposal's average net change in tax liability (increase or decrease) .... relative to current tax policy ... broken down by income percentile. If it were the former then you'd have some semblance of a point with respect to a "BEFORE chart". But it doesn't ... which is why it really sucks to be you right now. In any event, what the chart shows is that the overall effect of the 9-9-9 proposal would be to decrease taxes on the top 20% of income earners ... and increase taxes on the bottom 80% of income earners. It bears repeating what even a senior GOP official can see as clear as day .....

Originally Posted by Bruce Bartlett- Senior Policy Advisor to Pres. Reagan & Pres. G.H.W. Bush

At a minimum, the Cain plan is a distributional monstrosity. The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.

Now if you are cool with that then just say so. That's fine. Perhaps you are in that top 20% and are only motivated by how it would benefit you individually ... so who gives a sh*t how it impacts everybody else? I'm definitely in that top 20% ... and while I would probably benefit personally under the 9-9-9 plan ... it still sucks from an overall policy perspective IMO.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's my fault for misusing flat vs. fair, so in summary- I'm not against an effective flat tax. YES, it will give those that pay the most in taxes the largest amount back, but then, that's just simple fact that will always be the case. But it would also be more 'fair' in the sense that the current scheme isn't really. As others have said, taxes shouldn't be used to push social policy, or anyone's class-envy bullshit about who 'earns too much' and therefore let's confiscate it. Wealth is a not zero sum game.

And again it bears repeating .....

Originally Posted by OAW

PS: And for the record, I could even support a flat income tax in theory ... depending on how it's implemented. I know ... how "commie" of me right?

Is it finally starting to dawn upon you yet? No. Ok. Let me bring it on home for you then ....

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

If some 9-9-9 plan has elements of a 'fair' tax in it, I think that part of it is folly, I've explained why. If it has elements of a flat tax in it, I think that part of it is fine, so long as it accounts for the lowest wage earners not being taxed.

Too complicated for you?

No it's not complicated for me at all. What's obvious is that you are so caught up in ideology that it's negatively impacting your reading comprehension. Because otherwise it would be readily apparent to you that I'm actually agreeing with what you are saying.

Hence, my comment that took us down this road ....

Originally Posted by OAW

It's just indicative of Crash's mindset. When the opportunity presents itself to slam "liberals" he blindly takes it. And it doesn't matter that a few posts earlier he had taken a position that many "liberals" would agree with. Bless his heart ... but he just can't help himself.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Except that's not how it works.

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

Upon leaving the bar, the tenth guy gets a $80 refund from the bartender for the beer, collected from the money the other 5 just paid. The other 5 ask the tenth guy why he just took most of the money they just spent on the bill, it's not fair to the bartender, and it's not fair to them since the tenth man effectively made $21.

The tenth explains that he bribed the bartender $20 to sneak him back $80. The beer actually only costs $19, but the bartender charges $100 to make up the $80 he'll pay back the rich guy, then pockets the $20 bribe. The tenth guy only effectively pays $1 for his beer, the same as the fifth guy.

The other 5 argue that's still unfair. They're getting pinched on the high priced beer because the tenth guy forces the bartender to raise the prices, then on top of that, the tenth guy only pays the same amount as the fifth guy. The other 5 are subsidizing not just the first four men, but the rich guy as well.

To add further insult to injury, the bartender has a special happy hour where everyone gets a percentage of free beer proportional to how much they spent. The other 9 men are gobsmacked that the rich guy sits down with almost 6 pints of free beer when the rest of them barely have 1/2 a pint each, and only because the other 5 felt bad for the 4 poor guys, and gave them a share of theirs.

They ask the tenth guy if he wouldn't mind sharing his 6 pints of free beer with the rest of them, considering 5.9 pints of that free beer they effectively paid for.

The tenth guy just sneers at them, then complains how he has to pay $59 of the $100 beer tab, and he isn't sharing any of his free beer with anyone.

Lies and damned lies. I've never gotten free beer, but it looks like a great plan. I'll give it a try and report my findings.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So long as the taxation of the source of income is nondiscriminatory, but it isn't.

Indeed. Hence my earlier points about how a dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. There should be no discrimination in tax rates between wage income, dividend income, and capital gains income.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. Hence my earlier points about how a dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. There should be no discrimination in tax rates between wage income, dividend income, and capital gains income.

OAW

I am in complete agreement.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Lies and damned lies. I've never gotten free beer, but it looks like a great plan. I'll give it a try and report my findings.

Hard to frame taxes in a beer analogy.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

someone reads reddit....

they used $ amounts in that graph to skew it. It obviously shows who pays the largest amount in taxes.

----

from the same reddit.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80 total.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!“

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!“

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!“

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Very good demonstration of the tax system.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. Hence my earlier points about how a dollar earned is a dollar earned is a dollar earned. There should be no discrimination in tax rates between wage income, dividend income, and capital gains income.

A sales (consumption) tax does exactly that - it does NOT discriminate based on the source of the earnings.

-t

[Athens]

I like the idea of Flat Taxes. A minor change in the equation is needed though

6.6/6.6/6

6% Federal Income Tax (both corp and personal) and ON ALL income / 6% VAT / 6% Savings Requirement or else income tax goes up to 12%
6% State Income Tax (both corp and personal) and ON ALL income / 6% VAT

Off load many federal services to the states.

Personal Net Income Level Cap of $1 Million a year in income with excess above that being taxed at 80%
Corporate Net Income Level Cap of 20x collective pay roll excluding those earning $1 Million or more, only counting the the $1 Million in the pay roll calculation. Excess amounts over the limit is distributed equally to employees as a bonus.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

A sales (consumption) tax does exactly that - it does NOT discriminate based on the source of the earnings.

-t

This is true. A national sales tax would be the most egalitarian taxation system. Everybody would be treated the same no matter how you made your money or how much money you made. The problem is that a national sales tax would also be the most regressive taxation system ... in that it would take a proportionally greater amount in taxes from those with lower incomes. This is because the poor and most middle class families spend the majority of their income on daily living expenses ... whereas the truly wealthy can bank 3-4 times what a middle class family earns in a year and still spend way more than they do. Somebody making a million a year could live quite a lavish lifestyle and still be hard pressed to spend all that money ... unless they are a complete idiot that is.

So the income tax addresses the regressiveness issue ... and with progressive tax rates it addresses it even more. But now we have a situation where the lower 40% are essentially paying no federal income tax due to a complicated tax code filled with deductions and exemptions. And our good friends on the right really need to stop regurgitating the BS lie that they pay no federal taxes at all because that statistic doesn't factor in payroll taxes which are accounted for separately. In any event, a flat income tax is still a lot less regressive than a sales tax .... while moving the needle in a more egalitarian direction. So IMO ... it's a reasonable "middle ground" approach between a highly regressive national sales tax and a highly progressive income tax.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Somebody making a million a year could live quite a lavish lifestyle and still be hard pressed to spend all that money ... unless they are a complete idiot that is.

Oh teh noes. Stop the presses.

Seriously, that's the perk that comes with being rich - being able to spend lavishly.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Very good demonstration of the tax system.

No it's not.

The author doesn't even know the difference between income tax and consumption (sales) tax.

Comparing apples to oranges.

What sales tax charges 59% on beer for rich people and 0% sales tax on beer to the poor?

[Athens]

I disagree, the concept he was explaining was very good. And don't matter if the author has no clue between income tax and consumption tax. It was not in the literal, it was figurative.

Its like me saying a phone line internet connection is the same as a 2 lane road and a broadband connection was the same as a 12 lane free way. Its figurative not literal, internet does not travel on the freeway or road

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

False alternatives. Taxes are about generating revenue, and the tax codes must be fair and equitable. Or do you think fairness is some undesirable quality?

I agree that tax codes should be fair, it is the common view of fairness that I take issue with.

False again. It is the "flat tax" notion that is ideologically driven.

Not arguing that.

A progressive tax is based on: the government has to be paid for

There is a pragmatic component sure, but the stench of egalitarianism is ever present as well.

and a flat tax can't pay for it without destroying the poor and middle class.

Nonsense. If this is true then maybe it is your tax that is too damn high. Either way, I favor getting rid of income taxes altogether in favor of something less stultifying and more ethical so I am not going to go too far in defending it, flat or otherwise.

That's not ideology, that's fact.

I disagree that this is a practical matter in the eyes of proponents of the progressive income tax. Its main function has always been to relieve a select group of their excess wealth in order to alleviate when they view as the income inequality problem.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I disagree, the concept he was explaining was very good. And don't matter if the author has no clue between income tax and consumption tax. It was not in the literal, it was figurative.

Its like me saying a phone line internet connection is the same as a 2 lane road and a broadband connection was the same as a 12 lane free way. Its figurative not literal, internet does not travel on the freeway or road

Then you are just as confuse as the author.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is because the poor and most middle class families spend the majority of their income on daily living expenses ... whereas the truly wealthy can bank 3-4 times what a middle class family earns in a year and still spend way more than they do. Somebody making a million a year could live quite a lavish lifestyle and still be hard pressed to spend all that money ... unless they are a complete idiot that is.

$1M is easy to spend. Hell, that's a nice boat, a small plane, or a Porsche 918. Our AmEx charges for the last year were >$400k. It's all relative, what's reasonable to some would be outrageous to others.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Crash ...

Seriously dude. You're not listening.

And you continue with more of your nonsense.

Please tell me what leads you to the absolutely insane conclusion that I don't know that. Especially in light of this .....

Relax. Wipe the spit off your monitor. I was explaining the differences again because it's not clear what you know and what you don't, plus the fact that you have a habit of misrepresenting what anyone says.

1. No one ever said you were responding to Dakar. Lint Police responded to Dakar. And you responded to Lint Police. Dakar responded to you. And I responded to Dakar. Do try to keep up!

This is the kind of pretzel-logic nonsense you have to dredge up trying to save face from misunderstanding what I posted, and jumping on something in typical kneejerk fashion! Too funny!

Dakar even asked if he was missing something- he was, I explained what it was, and he (possibly) seems to have moved on since it wasn't any big deal AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO WHAT HE POSTED, rather what Lint Police posted. You write insane rambling 20 point paragraphs trying to explain how you didn't really misread something you misread! TYPICAL OAW!

First of all ... the graph is in $10,000 increments. A far cry from the $100,000 increments you claimed.

Right, this is the only thing you've actually corrected me on. Judging from the above, you don't even realize that the LOWER one breaks the figures down into, the more you artificially stretch out the chart- my mistake actually would have been in favor of someone not trying to make this effect even more extreme.

Showing the graph in $10,000 increments is misleading, and you well know it. You also know what I mean by showing a corresponding 'BEFORE' graph that represents what people actually pay in taxes currently, and you know it would look exactly the opposite if you broke it down in $10,000 increments to stretch the graphs out. You'd have the rich at the top, and have to scroll down a huge graph to the bottom to even find what most other people pay.

In fact, it would be a much longer chart, because we wouldn't just be talking about a decrease in the amount of a tax cut, but the entire tax burden. So where's that chart? No idiot liberal would ever compile it and present it with the other chart, because it'd merely show that pay the most taxes will always get the most back in a tax cut.

You know- that fact that always makes you liberals go HUH!??

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Then you are just as confuse as the author.

Well then, you explain it better using any analogy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

As for the chart- it's silly. What's missing (purposefully) is the BEFORE chart- showing what people already pay, and using $100,000 increments to artificially jack up the chart. But we can't show that chart, now can we? It'd have the exact OPPOSITE effect!

I appreciate your humility in admitting that the graph was actually 10 times more bloated than you had expressed in the first place.

It's my fault for misusing flat vs. fair, so in summary- I'm not against an effective flat tax. YES, it will give those that pay the most in taxes the largest amount back, but then, that's just simple fact that will always be the case. But it would also be more 'fair' in the sense that the current scheme isn't really. As others have said, taxes shouldn't be used to push social policy, or anyone's class-envy bullshit about who 'earns too much' and therefore let's confiscate it. Wealth is a not zero sum game.

If some 9-9-9 plan has elements of a 'fair' tax in it, I think that part of it is folly, I've explained why. If it has elements of a flat tax in it, I think that part of it is fine, so long as it accounts for the lowest wage earners not being taxed.

While I'm a big fan of Cain, he's a bit more style than substance. I'm not a zealous supporter of 9-9-9 and in fact have a problem with the idea of any new teeth drawing from me. I do like the general idea of a fair tax, but am cautiously optimistic about it. Frankly, it's too easy to shock our system either way right now, I don't generally recommend any movement this hasty, and the only pool of potential converts politically are among its harshest critics proving that it'd likely be a colossal waste of time. It will likely devastate Cain's campaign which IMO is unfortunate.

Confidence in a fair sales or flat income tax for that matter, is very speculative and optimistic in the market behaviors it will drive no doubt. My optimism comes from the thought that people would shop more as a clear sign they will not tolerate explosive increases in costs. I believe the labor market will have to compete in much the same way. I believe States, with greater autonomy, would compete in a more meaningful way. I believe when people have a greater stake in their livelihoods from taxes through health care, they'll naturally respond through behaviors that will result in a net-gain for all. This includes the possibility for example, that a company competing more aggressively will actually be eating a portion of that 9% sales tax and/or incomes will rise and/or more "joe's" would become entrepreneurs under less intimidating startup prospects. That it will naturally work in favor of the collective; anyone who is invested in it.

Optimistic? Oh yeah. That's why neither idea has a snowball's chance in hell, ironically.

[olePigeon]

I found the music video for the 9-9-9 plan.

Square One: Nine Nine Nine - YouTube

I love Square One. Freeze! Mathnet!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You write insane rambling 20 point paragraphs trying to explain how you didn't really misread something you misread! TYPICAL OAW!

You know what Crash? What's really funny is just how ridiculous your refusal to acknowledge the obvious makes you look.

This all essentially boils down to this ...

1. OAW in his very first post that references Crash basically says that he agrees with Crash's assessment of the downsides to a national sales tax.

2. Even though Crash used the words "flat tax" ... OAW knew he meant "sales tax". But Crash states that OAW can't figure this out.

3. OAW again states that he knew this because it was quite obvious. Otherwise Crash's post would not have made any kind of sense. Because even though they typically disagree ... OAW knows that Crash is not a complete idiot. And again OAW states that he agrees with Crash's assessment.

4. Nevertheless, Crash insists that OAW still doesn't get it ... and tries to lecture OAW about the difference between a sales tax and a flat income tax. Even though that was completely unnecessary ... because OAW never thought he was talking about a flat income tax in the first place.

5. OAW responds to #4 by listing the things he's already said that prove that he knows what Crash saying. And once again ... for the third time ... states that he agrees with Crash's assessment.

6. Nevertheless, Crash persists with this foolishness that OAW "misread" what he said.

Now if your position about a "national sales tax" hasn't fundamentally changed ... and on three separate occasions I've said I agree with your position ... from the very beginning AND after you've clarified it when you said you misspoke at first when you used the term "flat tax" .... then I couldn't possibly still be in agreement with you if I had "misread" what you said! One would think that at some point simple logic and common sense would dawn upon you so that you'd realize that .....

I can't be in agreement with the "misread" position and the "clarified" position at the same time.

But your ideological blinders are on so tight that you apparently can't see that. You simply refuse to take yes for an answer so to speak. So I'll just reiterate what I said at first. Bless your heart .... you just can't help yourself.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I found the music video for the 9-9-9 plan.

Square One: Nine Nine Nine - YouTube

I love Square One. Freeze! Mathnet!

Haha..

Very catchy song. Herman Cain should use the song.

[Athens]

Now let's watch this 8 MORE TIMES!

[lpkmckenna]

In case you're slow and haven't caught on to the fact that Herman Cain is a friggin' idiot, now he's worried that China might get nukes soon. Might. Think about that.

http://shanghaiist.com/2011/11/01/go...e_herman_c.php

[OAW]

^^^^

Surely you realize that this couldn't possibly be a situation of him being woefully uninformed. It's the "liberal media" and all those "gotcha questions".

OAW

[ebuddy]

While I've been watching Cain implode into an over-coached mess and now can't imagine him a veep prospect, I believe the statement was conflated with a nuclearized naval capability. (his own damned, gaffe-proned fault though)

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes, because millionaires never just go down to best buy and buy one HDTV for their den, they automagically buy sixty of them. Because a person is rich, they automatically consume enough for 60 people. So becasue of this obvious rule of the universe, you'll collect 60x the consumption tax off of these spendthrift rich folks than some other poor soul who only buys 1 of whatever they need when they need it.

Yep, only one for the den, same as everyone else. And one for the master bedroom, one for the office, one for the guest suite, one for the lounge, one for the study, one for the day room, one for the kids' play room to use with their game box, six for the yacht (if you're being mean and letting the crew provide their own entertainment in their own cabins, otherwise call it ten). Etc., etc., etc..
And that's before we start bothering with the really mad stuff, like one for the master suite sitting room, one for the kitchen, one for the dining room, etc..
But wait, you're not poor, so you probably have a breakfast room... ...wouldn't do to have to eat breakfast without laughing at the proles camping outside the stock exchanges, would it? And lets not forget the live-in maid, she's gonna want one too, no?
What? You haven't got a maid? Just how poor are you? Are we talking scurvy and beriberi and stuff?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've got news for the flat-tax crowd: many rich people are rich because they are frugal with their money.

Nahh. Rich people are mainly rich because they work harder/smarter than everyone else and don't spend their time filling their heads with the shite they've watched on TV or read on Internet forums.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nahh. Rich people are mainly rich because they work harder/smarter than everyone else and don't spend their time filling their heads with the shite they've watched on TV or read on Internet forums.

No. Most rich people these days don't work any harder than most other people. Some of them might work longer hours, but it tends to be easier work, with longer lunches. Most of them aren't even that smart. The labour government spent a lot of effort making sure that luck played a huge part in being able to get rich.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I've been watching Cain implode into an over-coached mess and now can't imagine him a veep prospect, I believe the statement was conflated with a nuclearized naval capability. (his own damned, gaffe-proned fault though)

The Chinese will deploy carriers in the near future, as they've been working on the issue for years. The question of whether they are nuclear or not isn't terribly important, so even if he's just made a gaffe, he's done it over something really silly.

Frankly, a Chinese aircraft carrier is just a big target, not a real threat. It feeds Chinese notions of being important, and is just a nationalist boondogle project to dazzle the plebs.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The labour government spent a lot of effort making sure that luck played a huge part in being able to get rich.

O'Rly ?

Care to share how that works ?
Is there a millionaire lottery that I don't know about ? Sign me up.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

O'Rly ?

Care to share how that works ?
Is there a millionaire lottery that I don't know about ? Sign me up.

-t

Yeah. In the US, we have:

1. Powerball
2. Mega Millions
3. Super Lotto

Match all 6 numbers and you win the multi-million dollar lottery. About $1 per play.

[Athens]

winning a million dollars does not make you part of the 1%, hell could win a billion still wouldn't make you part of the 1%

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

winning a million dollars does not make you part of the 1%, hell could win a billion still wouldn't make you part of the 1%

Are you nuts? How many billionaires are there in the US? The are over 300 million people in the US. 1% of that is 3 million people.

[Shaddim]

The 1% are people who make >$650K /yr and have a net worth of >$15M. Athens is talking about the .000001%, the ~400 people who make up the top money makers who steer the markets and have the most influence. Unless I miss my guess, we're all part of the 99.999999%. There is no "1%" who control things, there are only those of us who do our best to live and get by. It's a misnomer designed to create bitterness between classes.

I'm in the 1%, if you go by net worth and income, but I don't have "power over the government", except for perhaps on a very small local scale. If anyone wants to get pissy and throw rocks, you can go find one of those 400. Though, if they decide to fly off to Fiji in one of their private jets to get away from the screaming horde, don't blame me.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Nahh. Rich people are mainly rich because they work harder/smarter than everyone else and don't spend their time filling their heads with the shite they've watched on TV or read on Internet forums.

You mean watched on their 85 even bigger TVs that they just upgraded to this week.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

*a truly sad mess of gibberish*

Hadn't seen this before. Heh.

So you completely switched to the tactic of trying to pretend your misunderstanding was with the first post about flat(actually fair) taxes, and not what Lint Police posted (Which FYI had NOTHING what-so-ever to do with fair taxes that I was talking about before) ?



Really? You really believe such an obvious smokescreen works?

Good grief man. That's just sad. You're simply incapable of admitting you misread something. It wasn't even a big deal, everybody does it now and then, yet you'll continue to rant on and on about completely unrelated things rather than admit a simple gaffe.

It's a pretty big irony that you then wonder why I don't find many liberals particularly bright.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The 1% are people who make >$650K /yr and have a net worth of >$15M. Athens is talking about the .000001%, the ~400 people who make up the top money makers who steer the markets and have the most influence. Unless I miss my guess, we're all part of the 99.999999%. There is no "1%" who control things, there are only those of us who do our best to live and get by. It's a misnomer designed to create bitterness between classes.

I'm in the 1%, if you go by net worth and income, but I don't have "power over the government", except for perhaps on a very small local scale. If anyone wants to get pissy and throw rocks, you can go find one of those 400. Though, if they decide to fly off to Fiji in one of their private jets to get away from the screaming horde, don't blame me.

Yup, dead on! Its not about those that have millions. Never been about those. Its exactly what you said.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But wait, you're not poor, so you probably have a breakfast room... ...wouldn't do to have to eat breakfast without laughing at the proles camping outside the stock exchanges, would it? And lets not forget the live-in maid, she's gonna want one too, no?
What? You haven't got a maid? Just how poor are you? Are we talking scurvy and beriberi and stuff?

"laughing at the proles"... "scurvy and beriberi"... I'm dyin' over here!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The Chinese will deploy carriers in the near future, as they've been working on the issue for years. The question of whether they are nuclear or not isn't terribly important, so even if he's just made a gaffe, he's done it over something really silly.

Frankly, a Chinese aircraft carrier is just a big target, not a real threat. It feeds Chinese notions of being important, and is just a nationalist boondogle project to dazzle the plebs.

I completely agree here on all counts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The 1% are people who make >$650K /yr and have a net worth of >$15M. Athens is talking about the .000001%, the ~400 people who make up the top money makers who steer the markets and have the most influence. Unless I miss my guess, we're all part of the 99.999999%. There is no "1%" who control things, there are only those of us who do our best to live and get by. It's a misnomer designed to create bitterness between classes.

I'm in the 1%, if you go by net worth and income, but I don't have "power over the government", except for perhaps on a very small local scale. If anyone wants to get pissy and throw rocks, you can go find one of those 400. Though, if they decide to fly off to Fiji in one of their private jets to get away from the screaming horde, don't blame me.

The "1%" nomenclature was coined by Jamie Johnson, heir of Johnson & Johnson wealth. I guess in this sense it takes a 1%'er to know one. I'm still trying to affirm the origination of "Occupy" as I have a hunch it was founded on distaste for Israeli occupation.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "1%" nomenclature was coined by Jamie Johnson, heir of Johnson & Johnson wealth. I guess in this sense it takes a 1%'er to know one. I'm still trying to affirm the origination of "Occupy" as I have a hunch it was founded on distaste for Israeli occupation.

Best one I have so far is...

Obtuse
Communist
C__nts'
Ugly
Pointless
Yapping

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Hadn't seen this before. Heh.

It's been my experience that when people choose not to directly respond to a point with a counter-point that's when you know you have them on the run.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So you completely switched to the tactic of trying to pretend your misunderstanding was with the first post about flat(actually fair) taxes, and not what Lint Police posted (Which FYI had NOTHING what-so-ever to do with fair taxes that I was talking about before) ?



Really? You really believe such an obvious smokescreen works?

Good grief man. That's just sad. You're simply incapable of admitting you misread something. It wasn't even a big deal, everybody does it now and then, yet you'll continue to rant on and on about completely unrelated things rather than admit a simple gaffe.

Again. There was no "misunderstanding" on my part as I've already demonstrated. But as for this supposed "switch" in tactics, you're beginning to strike me as the type of dude that will try to assemble some complicated piece of furniture ... SKIM the instructions ... and then get pissed off and frustrated when it all goes south because you can't be bothered to RTFM in its entirety!

Let me start with this Lint Police thing first. Have you seen me "QUOTE=Lint Police" ... anywhere in this thread? Have you seen me reference anything he had to say by beginning a post of my own with a "^^^^" directly underneath one of his posts? Have you seen me direct any comments at him with a "@@@Lint Police"? NO! And why not? Perhaps because nothing he said ... like this post here that you are so fixated on ... was even relevant to the thread discussion ... let alone my point about you.

The problem here seems to be that you insist upon conflating what Dakar said with what OAW said. Dakar can speak for himself. As can OAW. And simply because OAW responded to something that Dakar said ... that doesn't necessarily mean that there is 100% overlap between Dakar's point and OAW's point. So do yourself a favor and try to focus on what OAW actually posted ... and not what you think he's talking about.

I think I'm beginning to lose brain cells having this ridiculous conversation with you ... to the point where I'm starting to refer to myself in the third person! So I'm going try to explain this basic sh*t to you one last time and then I'm done. This is what started all of this off ....

Originally Posted by OAW 

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

Wait a second, am I missing something here?

1. Someone starts thread about 9-9-9 plan. (That would be me.)
2. You ridicule it as a flat tax dream that is ultimately regressive. (A and B.)
3. I post a graph illustrating that (C.)
4. Lint Police copy/pastes an email as some kind of refutation (D.)
5. You thumbs up the copy paste (E.)

HUH?!

Yeah you noticed that too huh? It's just indicative of Crash's mindset. When the opportunity presents itself (D) to slam "liberals" (E) he blindly takes it. And it doesn't matter that a few posts earlier (A and B) he had taken a position that many "liberals" would agree with. Bless his heart ... but he just can't help himself.

OAW

Now I've included some inline references in there to help you follow the bouncing ball. The point being to try to demonstrate to you that nowhere in my statement did I have anything to say about the content of Lint Police's post. As I said ... it was utterly irrelevant to the thread topic. Some chain email about how the current taxation system functions (as you correctly noted) has nothing whatsoever to do with the graph that Dakar posted which showed the net change in tax liability under the 9-9-9 Plan broken down by income level. The fundamental point of the graph was to show that the plan would INCREASE taxes on the bottom 80% while DECREASING it on the top 20%. And dramatically DECREASING it on the top 1%. In other words, to illustrate the distributional impact of the 9-9-9 Plan with respect to the existing tax burden. An impact that doesn't involve differing degrees of tax reductions by income level (e.g. the Bush Tax Cuts). That would be an entirely different discussion. Instead, an impact that is highly regressive because it involves tax increases for the poor and middle class and massive tax decreases for the wealthy. If Lint Police or anyone else disputed what that impact would be then the thing to do would have been to just say that and present their evidence to the contrary. But to talk about how the current system functions ... when the topic is what the proposed system would do ... is a PRIME EXAMPLE of arguing a point that is not in dispute. Something that you are apt to do I might add. But when given the "opportunity" ... what was the first thing that came out of your mouth Crash?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Originally Posted by Lint Police

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Liberals don't believe this has ever been put to the test anywhere in the world, but it has, many times, and the results are always the same.

You go and slam "liberals" with some snide comment about what you THINK they believe about some separate and irrelevant topic even though you had just taken the position in post A ...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

If you're counting on a tax system based on consumption- you're going to sock it to the middle class family of 5 NOT the single rich guy!

And a similar position in post B ...

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Someone should do a study of this based on current sales taxes. Do the wealthy really account for a significantly higher percentage of current sales tax revenues on consumer purchases, than do the vastly greater majority of poor and middle-class consumers?

I don't know if such a study exists, but simple logic would sway me to the belief that in this case, the greater number of people consuming things will pay more of the taxes than a much smaller number of people who happen to have more money.

Even if just having more money means they automagically spend more of it than their representation of the population every time they shop -you know, just because they can- does this offset the greater number of poor and middle class spending and paying sales taxes on just what they actually need?

That is the situation you'd have to have in order not to be strapping the poor and middle class with a lion's share of the tax burden under a 'fair' tax.

Where you explicitly acknowledged the highly regressive nature of a national sales tax. Which is, in fact, a key component of the 9-9-9 Plan. Which is, in fact, the topic at hand. Which is, in fact, a position that many "liberals" would agree with. And which is, in fact, precisely what the hell I said from jump street.

But of course, Crash being Crash decides to convince himself that he's so much smarter than OAW. And given how he actually fares in his debates with OAW that's a laughable notion on its face. He claims that I "can't figure it out". That I'm "misunderstanding" and "misreading". He's even now claiming that I'm "trying to pretend your misunderstanding was with the first post about flat(actually fair) taxes, and not what Lint Police posted". I mean we mere "liberals" should all bow down at the altar of his superior intellect right?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It's a pretty big irony that you then wonder why I don't find many liberals particularly bright.

Yet in my very first response to his "can't figure it out" charge what did I say?

Originally Posted by OAW

It was obvious when you posted that even though you were saying "flat tax" it was done in the context of a sales tax. Otherwise, your post wouldn't have made any kind of sense. I didn't bother to challenge you on it because I knew what you were trying to say. I just rolled with it as a "flat sales tax" ... or a single sales tax rate that everyone, regardless of income, is subject to. In any event, Dakar's point and my point remains. He posted a graph from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that shows how Cain's plan would raise taxes on 84% of people while instituting dramatic tax cuts for the really wealthy. The plan is being criticized all across the ideological spectrum because it slaps a highly regressive sales tax on top of a flat income tax. If you pooh pooh a national sales tax .... and Dakar posts a graph showing the negative impact of a plan that has a national sales tax as a central component .... and OAW agrees with you assessment of a national sales tax (see above) .... then must you seek to slam "liberals" at every opportunity? Even when you find yourself on the same page with respect to the issue at hand?

Which is the point I made originally in my reply to Dakar. The same point I made in the post above. And the exact same point I find myself having to make again because Crash's "superior intellect" apparently doesn't include reading comprehension as a pre-requisite. I explicitly referenced your "first post about flat(actually fair) taxes" ... and I didn't say a single, solitary word about what Lint Police posted. It's right there in black and white. Undeniable to anyone who chooses not to be willfully blind.

The thing is Crash ... if all one needed to be successful at this debate thing was unnecessary attitude, hostility, and a tendency to ignore what's right in front of you ... then you'd actually be the man. Unfortunately for you ... it takes a bit more than that.

OAW

[ironknee]

cain is the new palin

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

cain is the new palin

I agree. I've made the same observation.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I agree. I've made the same observation.

cool

yet he is still popular... why?

don't conservatives believe in sexual harassment laws? watch Mad Men and see how far we've gotten...also GREAT show

imo, cain seems dumb by the way he answers questions...most jaw dropping for me was his view on abortion.... GOP12.com: Cain on abortion - YouTube

again, yet he has raise a lot of money and still popular... very strange

[OAW]

It would appear that Herman Cain's campaign is toast.

Herman Cain: "I don't even remember" Sharon Bialek - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

But yet there's photographic evidence and witness who seems to corroborate that he recognized her and that she confronted him about something.

Witness: Sharon Bialek hugged Herman Cain during Tea Party meeting a month ago - Chicago Sun-Times

Political smear campaign? Who knows? It's definitely a case of "he said - she said" at this stage in the game. But I suspect Mr. Cain's campaign will tank shortly.

OAW