Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • Spock
    GOONx19;1882174 wrote:This is how you seem respond to defend everything Trump does. “Well, Obama did it too.” If you bitched about Obama for 8 years, why is it now okay?
    i am not defending trumps tactics. I am reminding the very forgettful libs that these tactics are used by both parties.
  • salto
    Spock;1882185 wrote:i am not defending trumps tactics. I am reminding the very forgettful libs that these tactics are used by both parties.
    Except for the large tax breaks for the rich, only by Trump.
  • Spock
    salto;1882243 wrote:Except for the large tax breaks for the rich, only by Trump.
    Large tax breaks to companies that employ people.
  • salto
    Spock;1882246 wrote:Large tax breaks to companies that employ people.
    Stay on topic, what I'm talking about is the ridiculous taxes which will screw the people.
    Taxpayers in the top 1% of incomes (above $730k) will receive approximately 50% of the total tax benefits from the overhaul. This is the concern.

    btw - Obama also gave tax breaks to businesses. Remember the HIRE Act?
  • Spock
    Said, why dont you answer the question that no Dem will answer in public......."how much taxes should one person pay?" "What % of their income is enough?"
  • fish82
    salto;1882261 wrote:Stay on topic, what I'm talking about is the ridiculous taxes which will screw the people.
    Taxpayers in the top 1% of incomes (above $730k) will receive approximately 50% of the total tax benefits from the overhaul. This is the concern.
    Well, that group pays about 50% of the taxes, so...

    Also, FWIW, the income break for the top 1% is about half that.
  • salto
    Spock;1882264 wrote:Said, why dont you answer the question that no Dem will answer in public......."how much taxes should one person pay?" "What % of their income is enough?"
    It depends how much of a persons income is actually taxable. Some Dems are for a flat-tax rate.
    Are Repubs going to "borrow" hundreds of billions of dollars from Social Security again, like Bush?
  • Spock
    salto;1882274 wrote:It depends how much of a persons income is actually taxable. Some Dems are for a flat-tax rate.
    Are Repubs going to "borrow" hundreds of billions of dollars from Social Security again, like Bush?
    you are changing the subject........so what % of someones income should we pay? Lets say that everyone pays a flat tax. What is an amount that is fair for everyone?
  • superman
    salto;1882274 wrote:It depends how much of a persons income is actually taxable. Some Dems are for a flat-tax rate.
    I have never met one. They all rail against it as being unfair.
  • like_that
    superman;1882311 wrote:I have never met one. They all rail against it as being unfair.
    Maybe because they are for 100% flat tax.
  • friendfromlowry
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/sports/lavar-ball-trump.html

    This is crazy
  • salto
    Spock;1882282 wrote:you are changing the subject........so what % of someones income should we pay? Lets say that everyone pays a flat tax. What is an amount that is fair for everyone?
    No, I'm not. Before I can give you a percentage, I'd like to know if the GOP is going to borrow any more money. It effects everything, unfortunately you don't seem to understand this.
  • Spock
    salto;1882330 wrote:No, I'm not. Before I can give you a percentage, I'd like to know if the GOP is going to borrow any more money. It effects everything, unfortunately you don't seem to understand this.
    Before You can give me a %???? Ok Bernie.

    Lets just say that whatever is taxed is spent and everything is paid for. What is a fair tax for all if everyone paid the same amount?
  • gut
    My major problem is with so many people (@ 40%) GETTING money from the feds instead of paying federal income tax, you then have a situation where most voters just don't care how much the feds are spending.

    Everyone needs to be paying something so they DO care, and I don't even care if they get that money back so we aren't really raising their taxes. A VAT or federal sales tax sounds awful given the lack of fiscal responsibility, but paying 30% state and federal sales tax on your new IPhone might change some things. Of course, that hasn't seemed to be the case in Europe.

    We really should be taxing consumption more. Income tax should remain progressive, but consumption taxes would be a flat tax. I shouldn't have to delay my retirement because my income is siphoned off in order to subsidize some "poor" person's new IPhone.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1882422 wrote:My major problem is with so many people (@ 40%) GETTING money from the feds instead of paying federal income tax, you then have a situation where most voters just don't care how much the feds are spending.

    Everyone needs to be paying something so they DO care, and I don't even care if they get that money back so we aren't really raising their taxes. A VAT or federal sales tax sounds awful given the lack of fiscal responsibility, but paying 30% state and federal sales tax on your new IPhone might change some things. Of course, that hasn't seemed to be the case in Europe.

    We really should be taxing consumption more. Income tax should remain progressive, but consumption taxes would be a flat tax. I shouldn't have to delay my retirement because my income is siphoned off in order to subsidize some "poor" person's new IPhone.
    Of you made all additions to saving tax free until the dollars were withdrawn for consumption...basically unlimited 401(k) and taxed credit-based consumption you could have progressive withholding and it would be a progressive consumption tax.

    That IMHO is just and comports with the Lockean Proviso underpinning liberal republican government in the first place.

    You get taxed on,what you take out of the economy at progressively higher rates not what you put in...or IOW those who "leave more in common for others" are taxed less.

    IOW if Bill Gates earns $1 million and it is all saved and ultimately consumed by poor African children he pays no tax. If Elon Musk earns a million and it is all invested it isn't taxed. If Kim Kardashian earns a million and all of it is consumed it is taxed at progressively higher rates.
  • BoatShoes
    Spock;1882282 wrote:you are changing the subject........so what % of someones income should we pay? Lets say that everyone pays a flat tax. What is an amount that is fair for everyone?
    Everyome obsessives over the rate when it is the tax base that matters. Most flat tax rate proposals tax additions to saving for the middle class at higher rates than the current code. The tax base should be discretionary consumption and at progressively higher rates.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1882458 wrote:... and it would be a progressive consumption tax.
    Progressive consumption tax? Why? Why should Bill Gates pay more tax for a cheeseburger than you do? Sounds like you want to limit or deter excess consumption, which is extremely Marxist.

    Rich people consume more, so they'll pay more tax. But the tax everyone pays for an IPhone should be the same. Maybe you have a "luxury" rate on certain goods - sales tax on a Porsche could be higher than a Ford Taurus. And that's basically how a VAT works
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1882462 wrote:Progressive consumption tax? Why? Why should Bill Gates pay more tax for a cheeseburger than you do? Sounds like you want to limit or deter excess consumption, which is extremely Marxist.

    Rich people consume more, so they'll pay more tax. But the tax everyone pays for an IPhone should be the same. Maybe you have a "luxury" rate on certain goods - sales tax on a Porsche could be higher than a Ford Taurus. And that's basically how a VAT works
    Maybe I mis-typed as you don't seem to get it. The glutton doesn't pay more for 1 cheeseburger...he pays more if he eats a million dollars worth of cheeseburgers versus 1 dollar's worth of cheeseburgers. It's about aggregate consumption.

    Moreover, to your point, progressively taxing consumption and thereby exempting capital accumulation is actually the opposite of,marxism. I would only tax returns on capital when,they are withdrawn for consumption. Indeed, it is,quintessentially liberal in the classical sense in that it is the tax regime that enforces the Lockean Proviso which justifies the accumulation of,private property so long as there is "...enough, and as good, left in common for others".

    So yes, it would nudge against excess and superfluous consumption with measurably less utility within our liberal capitalist system which is a wholly Lockean and classically liberal idea.

    I don't care what people consume so much as I care how much. A person who earns a million,dollars and invests 90% of it should be taxed substantially less than a person earns a million dollars and consumes 100% of,it
  • BoatShoes
    Spock;1882264 wrote:Said, why dont you answer the question that no Dem will answer in public......."how much taxes should one person pay?" "What % of their income is enough?"
    A fair tax rate starts with the tax base. To paraphrase Adam Smith the be all end all of economic activity is consumption. Moreover, private accumulation and consumption is only morally just within the confines of a republic if there is enough and as good left in common for others per Locke. So, basically can't be too unequal so,have to tax consumption progressively.

    So how do then determine what is a fair progressive rate structure? For that we turn to Rawls' method and ask what would be the fair progressive rate on consumption that we would agree to if knew the facts,about the U.S. economy, etc. but didn't know,who we were?

    I don't know that exact answer but Behavioral economist Dan Ariely has done,some experiments on these issues using Rawls' method, etc. and for example, most Americans, Republican and Democrat would choose a society much more equal in at least wealth holdings than it,is in actuality.

    I don't care,about taxing wealth really so I think we should determine the rate by having the Joint Committee on,Taxation run,similar surveys/experiments as those done by Ariely w/ regard to consumption to determine a basis for a progressive consumption tax rate. Moreover happiness research should be consulted for example the is evidence that little happiness is,gained beyond $70k worth of consumption per year I believe. Accordingly, it would be just to levy higher rates above $70,000 worth of consumption and,go from there.

    I am agnostic on what the rate on consumption would be but for sake of argument...

    Assume that what the GOP oproposes be the new standard deduction - say $25k - let us say that is a rough approximation of,the average familhe's,non discretionary consumption...

    Your first $25k consumed is taxed at zero percent and then we'll have the marginal rate on consumption go up, say, X% for each additional $25k of consumption say, for sake of argument 5% up to a maximum of 75%.

    So you have the following marginal rate structure as an example:

    $25k consumption = 0% (or maybe 1% to satiisy guy's point)
    Consumption above $25k - $50k = 5%
    ...etc. $75k - $100k = 10%
    $100k - $125k = 15%
    $125k -$150k = 20%
    $150k-$175k= 25%
    $175k - $200k = 30%
    $200k - $225k = 35%
    $225k- $250k = 40%
    $250k-$275k = 45%
    Etc...

    So basically consumption above $450k per year taxed at 75% (# is,just an example...actual rate would be dependent on JCT experiments)

    But note a person who earned $450k and invests, saves or donates $425k and only consumes $25k would not pay any tax in that period.




    $100k = 30%
  • salto
    Spock;1882409 wrote:Before You can give me a %???? Ok Bernie.

    Lets just say that whatever is taxed is spent and everything is paid for. What is a fair tax for all if everyone paid the same amount?
    Oh, I don't know. How about something around 15%?

    Poor man income $50k/year
    Rich man income $1 mill/year

    Poor man pays $7,500
    Rich man pays $150,000
    The rich man earns 20X more than the poor man, but also pays 20X more than poor man in taxes!

    Now you tell me Spock, what do you think is a fair tax rate for all?
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1882466 wrote:Maybe I mis-typed as you don't seem to get it. The glutton doesn't pay more for 1 cheeseburger...he pays more if he eats a million dollars worth of cheeseburgers versus 1 dollar's worth of cheeseburgers. It's about aggregate consumption.
    Yeah, that's not progressive - he's paying the same rate on his 1 millionth cheeseburger as the first, which is a flat tax. That's different from progressive taxation where, for example, your first dollar of income is taxed at 10% and your 1 millionth is taxed at 39.6%.

    If you're trying to say the tax rate goes up on the 1 millionth burger, then that's stupid on multiple levels and wholly impractical. But maybe it creates a job for Boatshoes buying hamburgers for Bill Gates.

    And to be technical, flat taxes are actually regressive. If we are talking strictly McD's, then the consumption tax is regressive because unless Gates buys food just to throw it out, you and I can't really eat less than Gates. However, if he opts for the Kobe beef from a high-end deli, then he pays more tax by virtue of his food costing more.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1882472 wrote:Yeah, that's not progressive - he's paying the same rate on his 1 millionth cheeseburger as the first, which is a flat tax. That's different from progressive taxation where, for example, your first dollar of income is taxed at 10% and your 1 millionth is taxed at 39.6%.
    No dude! The millionth hamburger is taxed at a much higher marginal rate! If Guy A earns $1 million and saves it all and his marginal tax rate is zero while guy B earns $1 million but saves zero and uses it all to buy cheeseburgers, hotdogs, tv's or whatever - and you have progressive marginal rates as in the current code - you have a progressive consumption tax.

    All you need to have a progressive consumption tax in the U.S. - essentially - is unlimited 401(k). Sometimes they call it a "consumed income tax" or an "expenditure tax" since most people think of retail sales and vat taxes when they hear consumption tax. The marginal rate rises as an individual's personal consumption increases just as in the current internal revenue code. Indeed, with most of the tax preferences made available, the middle class in America effectively lives under a cash-flow consumption tax.


    But hey - I guess I should have continued reading your post before I responded.

    1. It is not stupid IMHO and it is my understanding that liberal and conservative economists resoundingly agree that a progressive consumption tax is preferable to a progressive income tax. It is easy to understand why - it liberates saving and investment from taxation and it charges higher taxes on consumption that has less marginal utility. Please go into detail why you think it is stupid. I am interested in your opinion as it is the same as our current code basically with unlimited 401(K).

    2. It is not wholly impractical. The current code is basically a progressive consumption tax for the middle class. Really all you need to do is unlimited 401(k) and allow immediate expensing of all capital expenditures and you're basically there.

    3. The Boatshoes buying for Bill Gates doesn't work as a counter example any more than in the current proposal because there is withholding as in the current code.

    4. I am not talking about flat consumption taxes like retail sales taxes or VAT's. I am talking about a cash-flow consumption tax aka a consumed-income tax or expenditure tax that is done through progressive marginal rates as with an income tax.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Spock;1882282 wrote:you are changing the subject........so what % of someones income should we pay? Lets say that everyone pays a flat tax. What is an amount that is fair for everyone?
    From a moral perspective, any number other than zero is incorrect.
  • like_that
    queencitybuckeye;1882476 wrote:From a moral perspective, any number other than zero is incorrect.
    This. I had two buddies try to mock me for saying something similar so I asked them if our country would work more efficiently if they taxed us at 100% or 0%. Of course they said 100%. People love themselves moar government.
  • Spock
    subject has morphed into 2 different things: consumption tax and income tax.

    Salto wont answer the question of what is a fair income tax. Just like every Democrat ever. THey wont answer it because their number is ridiculous.

    Salto I will take your bait and tell what I think: I think that different tax rates are a joke. Everyone should pay something equal. Federal "income" tax should be something around 10% for every person in the US. You earn $15,000 a year you pay $1500, you earn $100,000 a year you pay $10,000 a year and so on.

    So what is your number? Remember people are taxed at state and local also.

    About consumption.......the more you spend the more you are taxed. Simple.