View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9306
|
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
feuser wrote: | stevenbard wrote: | I'd be just as outraged if it were against the NAACP, who is highly political and Tax free. |
But exactly that happened in 2004 and you weren't outraged. |
I was..... Didn't anyone tell this guy that bush has been gone for 5 years? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9306
|
Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keycocker, A flat tax would fix all this shit. Lobbyists, Lawyers, Accountants, and even political donations would be less neccesary. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20939
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fair Tax is far superior to flat tax. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Posts: 1508
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | feuser wrote: | stevenbard wrote: | I'd be just as outraged if it were against the NAACP, who is highly political and Tax free. |
But exactly that happened in 2004 and you weren't outraged. |
I was..... Didn't anyone tell this guy that bush has been gone for 5 years? |
That seems to be a common knee jerk reaction, whenever a so-called libertarian is called on their BS.
1. I didn't mention Bush and
2. you were obviously ignorant of the historical fact of the NAACP case, or you wouldn't have brought it up in the subjunctive.
Hey, you don't fool me, but you're free to continue fooling yourself, Bard. _________________ florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Posts: 1508
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
isobars wrote: | Fair Tax is far superior to flat tax. |
Both Flat Taxes and the Fair Tax are neither fair nor flat and fair and certainly not simple, once the exclusions for low income and certain business transactions, incentives for capital investments, etc. are applied.
The only thing it would do is codify an already regressive tax structure; it disproportionally benefits those who already have substantial accumulations of capital and is even less conducive towards social mobility. _________________ florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17775 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | it disproportionally benefits those who already have substantial accumulations of capital and is even less conducive towards social mobility. |
Of course that is its appeal to some. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of taxes, if you want to hire illegals,end Health reform efforts of any kind,pollute freely, make guns available to criminals and psychos, sell stuff to the gov. without competitive bidding,and so on you will still want keep paying lobbyists to bribe your Congressman.
Among the largest flaws in those systems is the fact that we will still need to collect the same amount of money in taxes. For us it would just save a few hundred on our accountant and move some of our tax bill on to broke struggling lower middle class people.
Reduce wasted money and fire Congressmen who are focused on scandals instead of writing good legislation is my agenda for lowering taxes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9306
|
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it would be easy to start the tax at anything over 30k so that the poor wouldn't be hurt as much. Therefore if you made 60k you'd pay half the rate of someone making 500k...more or less. Limit mortgage deductions so that the ultra rich would in effect pay more also. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598
|
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those are good changes. Others are needed also and the lobbyists will be at the forefront of choosing which ones get added.
The original system wasn't complex but adding changes through the years turned it into the mess we suffer under today. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
feuser
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Posts: 1508
|
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevenbard wrote: | I think it would be easy to start the tax at anything over 30k so that the poor wouldn't be hurt as much. Therefore if you made 60k you'd pay half the rate of someone making 500k...more or less. Limit mortgage deductions so that the ultra rich would in effect pay more also. |
Well, there is already a minimum income under which you won't get taxed. Unfortunately, if you draw a hard line between "takers" and contributors, you motivate people to stay below that line - an argument that usually comes from the right.
If you want to make everyone a responsible participant in society, everyone needs to pay into the pot... according to their means, but also relative to the benefit they derive.
And I would expand the definition of these benefits from direct government benefits to living and being able to do business in a peaceful, civil society where my interests and property are protected. _________________ florian - ny22
http://www.windsurfing.kasail.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|