Flat tax

[rwh11385]

a quarter of americans are lower class. for individuals that's making less than 20,000 a year. that's barely more than $10 an hour sometimes. that's not a lot of money. that's not much money

that's not a strong argument, no matter how many times you repeat it.

And that $10/hour also assumes they work full-time (or at all). And also that a new tax system couldn't maintain their welfare, let alone improve it.


And perhaps instead of trying to solve their problems by taking more from others to hand them more, maybe try solving the problem of lower economic classes - like people dropping out of high school and lack of good vocational training options. Or supporting organizations like Goodwill. Or you yourself do shit like help build them a house with Habitat.

Supporting to keep a ridiculous tax code out of fear of being educated on something new won't help the country.

[squidmaster]

lol you assume way more than I ever did I don't think you can/should use that as an argument.

and yes, I was assuming 40 hour weeks, which we ALL know that people don't always work.... which means they usually make even less than $10 an hour.........

"the median hourly wage for the [lower class] worker in these families is about $9"
http://www.urban.org/publications/900832.html

you also ignored a lot of pertinent information in the posts.

I need to get back to work, and i haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts and links fully, so give me some time to properly reply to them. it's going to be a long day today.

And perhaps instead of trying to solve their problems by taking more from others to hand them more, maybe try solving the problem of lower economic classes - like people dropping out of high school and lack of good vocational training options. Or supporting organizations like Goodwill. Or you yourself do shit like help build them a house with Habitat.

Supporting to keep a ridiculous tax code out of fear of being educated on something new won't help the country.

lol by taking more money from others? you mean by making the rich pay the same rates that the middle class and lower class pay? lol. lolololololololol.
educating myself? I'm the one posting facts and links (that other guy posted links to, but my point is to focus on you right now).
If you'll actually go back and read the posts, you might recognize that you're arguing with me about things that I either agree with you about, or never mentioned, or covered already. the arguments you are bringing around are over 360'.... (they've already been around... get it?)

[rwh11385]

lol you assume way more than I ever did I don't think you can/should use that as an argument.

and yes, I was assuming 40 hour weeks, which we ALL know that people don't always work.... which means they usually make even less than $10 an hour.........

"the median hourly wage for the [lower class] worker in these families is about $9"
http://www.urban.org/publications/900832.html

you also ignored a lot of pertinent information in the posts.

I need to get back to work, and i haven't had a chance to read through the previous posts and links fully, so give me some time to properly reply to them. it's going to be a long day today.

What assumptions did I make in arguments exactly?

And funny that now you assume that they worked all-year and more than full-time (>2000 hours), instead of allowing for the possibility the other way... on what basis?

I'd rather see people improve from their house-keeping or fast-food job than simply use transfer payments to increase their welfare...

What information did I ignore? Most of it seemed to be basic data and a lot of your opinions mixed in.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING IF YOU DIDN'T YET TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE POSTS?

lol by taking more money from others? you mean by making the rich pay the same rates that the middle class and lower class pay? lol. lolololololololol.
educating myself? I'm the one posting facts and links (that other guy posted links to, but my point is to focus on you right now).
If you'll actually go back and read the posts, you might recognize that you're arguing with me about things that I either agree with you about, or never mentioned, or covered already. the arguments you are bringing around are over 360'.... (they've already been around... get it?)

The problem with the bullshit media is that they focus on the rich getting cuts, whereas they overlook how anyone else benefited by the "Bush tax cuts":





And America accepts that the rich are evil mostly because a lot are too dumb to know the difference between their marginal and their effective tax rates.

Likewise, you are way too focused on how someone else might benefit to actually consider what impacts a VAT or FairTax would bring to the economy as a whole, and EVERYONE in it. Instead of our stupid system which rewards finding loopholes and politicians making exemptions for whatever they want, we could encourage saving, economic growth, and investment, while also including welfare considerations for the less fortunate. But they would benefit from the reduction in complex and ridiculous tax system by more jobs and more growth that would be enabled by FairTax.

And think about how much better the revenue for the country would be with the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction, $99.8 billion in the coffers, and reduction of encouraging people to take out a lot of debt for buy a bigger house than they otherwise would.


You're in college (from other posts) and in the process of getting educated (in something) but that doesn't mean you are educated in the subjects you are speaking about, or have any worldly experience in such things. It is clear from your posts that you assume the world is just like you and base your "understanding" of the entire country and economy off of yourself. Some of the people you have argued against I know have a great deal of knowledge about taxes and and make good points that you brush aside with typical rhetoric. Instead of answering questions or explaining 'logic', you focus on points that you have already said or information of stuff that most people are already aware of, yet are incapable of opening up your stubborn mind to consider that our system is not the most efficient or helpful for our country or its citizens.

[rwh11385]

If you are going to take a while to read and respond, and maybe actually take into consideration what is being said instead of just repeating rhetoric... here are some more links to specifically look over. Z31maniac sent you to the main page, and I know finding content is so hard, but read these - they are short.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheImpactOfTheFairTaxOnEducation.pdf

The FairTax embodies the principle that investments in people (human capital) and investments in things (physical capital) should be treated comparably. The current tax system, in stark contrast, treats education expenditures very unfavorably.

The FairTax does not tax education expenditures.6 Education is paid for with pre-tax dollars. This is the equivalent of making educational expense deductible against both the income tax and payroll taxes today.

Education is the best means for the vast majority of people to improve their economic position. It is the most reliable means that people have to invest in themselves and improve their earning potential. Yet the tax system today punishes people who invest in education, virtually doubling its cost. Only the FairTax removes this impediment to upward mobility.

As mentioned before, in the current system you are rewarded for carrying student loan debt, yet FairTax would allow people to get more for their money as far as education - and sees affordable education as a path towards welfare improvement, instead of just more transfer payments. (Teach a man to fish instead of keep giving him more fish) What? Only ~7% of the low income breadearners have college degrees based on a document on one of the links you posted? Most are GEDs or drop-outs. Fixing that system (vocational training) and FairTax's educational benefits would certainly help a bit.

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheImpactOfTheFairTaxOnSmallBusiness.pdf

Over five million strong, small businesses (those employing less than 20 people) account for 89 percent of all U.S. employers and employ over 20 million people, about 4.5 per business.1

According to the Tax Foundation, small businesses spend $724 to comply with the income tax for every $100 they pay in tax. More than 90 percent of all U.S. corporations have assets of $1 million or less and, therefore, bear tremendous relative compliance burdens. Small corporations bear a compliance cost burden about 27 times greater than the largest U.S. corporations, those with $10 billion or more in assets.6

The Tax Foundation estimates that overall compliance costs fall by more than 90 percent.7

http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/TheImpactOfTheFairTaxOnInvestment.pdf

Investment is important to all wage earners because of the relationship that exists between real wage rates and the level of capital investment per worker. In fact, the most significant contributing factor to achieving higher real wages is the level of capital investment per worker.

Higher investment levels per hour worked explain as much as 97 percent of the increase in inflationadjusted wages since 1948

Replacing the current tax system with the FairTax eliminates the tax bias against investment. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson estimates that, after implementation of the sales tax, yearly real investment would initially increase by 80 percent relative to the investment that would be made under present law. Jorgenson’s research shows that this increase would gradually decline over the period of a decade to 20 percent. 2
Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff also predicts an investment boom. Measuring the change in the size of the overall capital invested (rather than annual investment), he predicts that within 10 years total invested capital will be 17 percent larger than it would be under the present tax system.3
The higher productivity caused by more investment per worker is one of the few ways to make U.S. goods more competitive while maintaining high living standards. The U.S. has lower rates of capital formation and a lower savings rate than most of its major trading partners including Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, and Canada.4

After repeal of the income tax, the U.S. will be perhaps the most attractive place on earth to invest. The U.S. will attract investment capital from around the world that will finance new plants and create jobs here in America. U.S. workers will build these plants, much
of the equipment installed in the plants will be American made, and American workers will be employed in these plants to produce goods for both domestic and foreign markets. Additionally, expatriated U.S. investment dollars can also be expected to find their way home. In all, during the 1980s when marginal tax rates were reduced in the U.S. from a top rate of 70 percent down to 28 percent, the U.S. attracted a net capital inflow of roughly one-half trillion dollars.5
Given the proposed tax treatment, strong infrastructure, political stability, relatively sound legal institutions, large domestic market, and educated workforce in the U.S., investment in the U.S. will be singularly attractive – to the benefit of U.S. industry, U.S. workers, and U.S. consumers.

Instead of actually reading up on FairTax, you decided to make assumptions about its affects on lower class by not doing math related to prebates and read a bunch of criticisms that the rich will benefit more than others which is unfair to you. You completely ignored all benefits to the society as a whole and why everyone would benefit from the bigger and better pie, instead of continuing a system that punishes what it should encourage and still let some people get away with shady stuff because the current tax code is built by people who get large contributions to keep it the way it is.


Obama talks a lot about tax shelters and wanting to "bring that money back here". Corporations have a lot of money in other countries and don't want to bring it back stateside because of the high taxes, as well as those who put their personal money in tax shelters. Places like Singapore have grown because of pro-business tax situations, and we are doing quite the opposite currently. We really ought to make the United States more attractive to FDI than it is already, and raise a work force for the jobs of the future - much of which is predicated by good educations and skills.

But to go along with that education boost, we need capital investment which is reduced when saving is taxed. Sure, consumption is important to GDP... but so is business investment which can lead to more income and more consumption later on. If businesses have more capital, their employees are worth more to them and provide a better marginal returns to each worker. The growth in business investment would grow job opportunities and incomes, which would result in a better economy and more people rising up. And more productivity would create better products cheaper so that we can all continue to have large increases in well-being.

Obama also wants to grow small businesses and help them succeed, which is important. But our tax code weighs them down and a better system could allow them to focus on their products or services, and growing their business, rather than a pain of compliance. That means more growth and more jobs.

Instead of hating on a subject based on a few closed-minded opinion pieces and your instant reaction of hate, why not become educated about it?

[rwh11385]

Now, go back to watching glenn beck and sean hannity and having sex with your dog or cat or sister or whatever you choose to rape tonight. Or maybe "call up the boys" and go wrangle yourselves one of them japs or a homosexual. Show them who the big men are.

Not that Beck isn't full of shit and a bad news source, but are you really one to talk doing your 'research' on tumbler?

http://sssquid.tumblr.com/post/32032299111

http://sssquid.tumblr.com/post/31943398589/think-progress-the-truth-about-americas-tax

Source of your comments of "the more you make, the less you pay" yet is a perversion of the post's "The Richer You Are, The More Tax Breaks You Get" from Think Progress. Which is entirely different. And it's not like poor people donate a lot of money to charitable organizations or have a lot of state income taxes or mortgage interest to write off their federal liability.


The big men aren't probably those who brag about making fun of other people's comments on another website and then later on retract it. And big men probably wouldn't call one person liking your post = having a great amount of fun:

http://sssquid.tumblr.com/post/32056327972/why-does-everyone-think-fair-tax-is-flat-tax

p.s. You post some MESSED UP stuff.

[mrsleeve]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA

Wow, I think we have a winner ......................................