Rob's House Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Frankly I think they should spend the first year reminding everyone that regardless of what you've seen and heard for the last eight years, America doesn't actually suck, police are not the enemy, we can kick ISIS ass, we can build a pipeline from Canada, we don't need to stick our political noses into every single mishap at the state level just to rile up nutjobs begging for a reason to burn things down. Oh, and you kids can have a decent lunch again. I was going to say Supreme Court justices, but I like this answer better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I was going to say Supreme Court justices, but I like this answer better. I keep waiting for Obama to kneecap Ginsberg to move her along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 OK 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 no deductions all income taxed the same 10% federal sales tax on everything except food and medicine .5% financial transaction tax 12% corporate tax no deductions You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I wouldn't be killing the country's ability to tax, I'd be shifting it from taking money from people as they earn it to taxing as they spend it. People would have significantly larger paychecks, increasing their spending power. The more you spend, the more you're taxed - wealthy people spend more, and would therefore be taxed more. Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously? A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers. It means that drug dealers, organized crime, prostitutes - anyone who earns their income illegally automatically become taxpayers as well. It also gives a greater incentive to government officials to quit screwing with the economy and allow it to flourish, since their precious tax revenue will be dependent upon a healthy economy. And before you start giving people crap about their replies, remember that you're the one who asked. Tax is 15% here and tax dodging is rampant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You're an idiot. It's actually estimated that a "Fair Tax", which is nothing other than a federal sales tax would need to be in the 20-23% range to be revenue neutral to what we have now. It would appear that lyrbob pulled those numbers out of his ass. A 5% financial transaction tax? If i buy a shirt for $40 am I going to have to pay $4 in sales tax and $2 as a financial transaction tax, or is he just trying to stymie stock traders? Anyway, your response to him is probably better. No use engaging him because you know all you'll get is a bunch of useless schit. Calling him an idiot is so much easier. Yes, he's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 OK 50% flat tax on all income over $100,000 Where did you come up with these numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The "Fair Tax" is the way to go. It is a federal sales tax and is only levied on the end user. It is in no way a Value Added Tax which would allow the government to hide taxes and show favoritism. It also has a provision to rebate the tax to the low income people so that they would not be any worse off than they are now. While gator may have a point regarding black markets springing up and there might be a little more bartering going on, the benefits of bringing everyone into the tax base would appear to far outweigh those points. I agree with this - from what I know of he fair tax, I like it. I don't get the potential for black markets springing up for common merchandise, though. Tax is 15% here and tax dodging is rampant. What kind of tax is it? Income? VAT? Corporate? I don't see how anyone can dodge a consumption tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 I agree with this - from what I know of he fair tax, I like it. I don't get the potential for black markets springing up for common merchandise, though. What kind of tax is it? Income? VAT? Corporate? I don't see how anyone can dodge a consumption tax. Sales tax. It's easy, pay cash save the taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Where did you come up with these numbers. Like most progs, I'm sure he came to that number by factoring in the four key elements of all liberal economic solutions: Eenie, Meenie, Miney and Moe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Sales tax. It's easy, pay cash save the taxes. Right, but wouldn't the removal of our focus from making sure every individual pays income tax/dealing with all the business loopholes, free up a hell of a lot of time to focus merely on businesses paying sales tax? I don't know that we need to fully abolish the IRS. Rather give it a job that for the first time in it's history is scoped properly, and one that it actually has a real chance of doing objectively/properly? I think all decisions about non-profit tax status shold be a state-level issue anyway, and only brought to the Feds when such corporations operate over state lines. Then rather than the IRS doing it, leave it the the FEC. IF you separate the acitivity from the $, etc. Have one Federal group focus on the behavior, and another on the $, then you can defeat the agenda of a Lois Lerner type, because you need both groups to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) I keep waiting for Obama to kneecap Ginsberg to move her along. I think her weekend at Bernie's ( as Bernie) run is almost over. I'd be shocked if she stayed on the court past 2016. Edited June 1, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 Do you really believe that adding a 12-17% tax to a pair of 200 dollar sneakers will cause rampant black market activity? Seriously? A consumption tax means no more tax dodgers. Wow! Never heard of the black market before? And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Wow! Never heard of the black market before? And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole? I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Wow! Never heard of the black market before? And where do you get you 12-17% figure? How did you calculate such a low number? Pulled it out of your dirty butt hole? Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you. You really ought to just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you. You really ought to just go away. You should try to speak more nicely to a guy who is thinking about, and writing about, your dirty butt hole. Do you play the banjo? Edited June 1, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 You should try to speak more nicely to a guy who is thinking about, and writing about, your dirty butt hole. Do you play the banjo? I hadn't thought of it that way before, but he does appear to have a creepy preoccupation with my can. I don't play the banjo, but I'm told I'm pretty decent with a guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 Listen up you immature little fool - the 12-17% is the range most often suggested for a comsumption tax, but you'd have had to actually been reading the various proposals over the years to know that, which you very obviously do not, since it involves both learning and cogitating, conecpts which are completely foreign to you. You really ought to just go away. Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 (edited) Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous Seeing there in no consumption tax in place now any number is going to be a suggestion. Who here is using that number as a stated fact? Edited June 1, 2015 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Lol, oh, its suggested which means its true. Please don't go away, your ignorance is humorous I got to thinking, and yes gator, this is directed at you. The republicans may control the presidency and both legislative houses, but they may not have a super majority in the Senate. In your opinion, should they be free to put the "Nuclear Option" in play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts