The Elite: It's a Big Club and You're Not in it
- Thread starter OfficePants
- Start date
- Messages
- 22,314
Would be interesting to see projections between what a consumption tax vs. the current system is with respect to what one might pay and what comes in to the treasury.
Grand Potentate
makes a good point that the elite will not spend as much of their earnings than others. They will pay more in absolute consumption but does this approach current taxation amounts
Leitmotif
Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
- Messages
- 4,621
You are such a drunk, you are arguing with yourself once again.
- Messages
- 40,417
How can you possibly be this naive?
- Messages
- 40,417
??? Have you never heard of sales tax?
- Messages
- 22,314
There has to be a threshold that if you are below it you should not to have to pay income tax.
If it is a consumtion tax, and it actually takes money out of the pocket of people on welfare or a low fixed income at a rate higher than the current tax system you are marginalizing some people even more.
There has to be a threshold where the higher consumtion rate does not apply.
If it is a consumtion tax, and it actually takes money out of the pocket of people on welfare or a low fixed income at a rate higher than the current tax system you are marginalizing some people even more.
There has to be a threshold where the higher consumtion rate does not apply.
- Messages
- 40,417
I literally just face palmed.
Currency is a textbook definition for a means of exchange. Money is a real world definition for a means of power. There is a reason people hoard wealth and its not just so that they can engage in trade more widely.
I think I understand finally why almost all of your posts in the news are impossible for me to understand - you have very little idea of how things work in the real world and a very broad idea of how they work in textbooks.
A sales tax is a form of a consumption tax.
- Messages
- 40,417
Jimmy, he's a communist AND an insane person. You two have to be related somehow.
Do the two of you read each others posts? One bitches about the rich being able to control everything with their piles of money and then the other wonders why people want to hoard money if they can't buy things with it. Its like an Abbott and Costello show in here.
- Messages
- 40,417
Where's
doghouse
when you need him?
doghouse
when you need him?
- Messages
- 40,417
Jesus christ on a cracker. Yes, if nuclear war breaks out and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, your savings account at Merrill Lynch isn't going to be worth too much.
- Messages
- 22,314
Stick to the point at hand.
Stop flipping back and forth.
You want fairness but are now advocating the the old retired person with minuscule savings and on old age security should pay 30 percent consumption tax.
Friskies cat food is 69 cents a tin, now they have to pay 30% for their supper?
- Messages
- 12,492
Where's
I told you I wasn't participating in this idiot fest anymore. And I was justified by the fact that you, OfficePants and Russell proceeded to use strawmen in the three successive replies after my last post.
You fools have fun.
- Messages
- 40,417
These latest posts have your name written ALL over them. Too bad.
- Messages
- 22,314
OfficePants
suggested 20 to 30 percent. Two percent would not derive enough $$$ to do it. Even if it meant doing away with IRS and its 100000 plus employees.This article suggests a progressive 15 to 35% consumption tax
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/06/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax/
- Messages
- 22,314
You get a lower tax rate and deductions now = tax breaks = loop holes in your parlance and you are not elite.
It is not so cut and dried. You have to establish what consumables are taxed and not. Are there things in society that are consumed but by taxing them would create a disincentive to consume which might add to costs in other areas? Health care?
You are a scientist, put you mind to work and stop thinking like a fucking philosopher cause all they are is a drain on society
- Messages
- 22,314
Do some reading. 2% consumption tax in lieu of income tax will not get it done.
- Messages
- 9,933
Fuck that, this is the best thing going.
- Messages
- 9,933
This article suggests a progressive 15 to 35% consumption tax
http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/06/04/a-progressive-consumption-tax/
I don't like progressive because it now means you have to report you income. Fuck them knowing what I make.
The tax on consumption is by its own nature already progressive.
- Messages
- 22,314
I agree it would be simpler to set a rate for all. The destruction of the IRS and such organs has to be an end point of this as well.
But by all, we have to be careful. Because if someone at the low end of the income stream expends all of their income on the necessities of life they will be penalized, no?
- Messages
- 9,933
I mean, yeah, I see the point. So maybe if you want to quality for loser status and are forgiven consumption tax, you report you income.
- Messages
- 40,417
What? WHAT????
- Messages
- 22,314
Do some reading. We are discussing replacing income tax with a consumption tax.
One of the benefitS of such a tax is enabling saving as well ask flexibility in affording things by not having income tax removed at the source.
You are not going to scale down the size of government other than the IRS.
Show me where a consumption tax of what you suggest is recommended
- Messages
- 22,314
No, a consumption tax is based on what you purchase. If it is progressive it is based on income. If it is a flat consumption tax it is based on what you buy.
Everyone - as per your arguement - pays on what they consume. Now you are saying those wealthy enough not to work are exempt?
- Messages
- 22,314
Because the chance of that is remote. Where is the incentive to dismantle the size of government? If you just want to discuss theoretical things then fine, yes, make government smaller.
Changing the tax system can be done and is less theoretical but probably not in my lifetime.
Dismantling the IRS would save 10 billion.
What else are you going to cut?
Changes have to be palatable to all stakeholders.
- Messages
- 9,933
I think he's saying that if a rich person is living off their coin, they can be get exempt because they technically have no income.
It would be stupid, because leaving money to rot without earning any form of return is pointless.
- Messages
- 22,314
True that
- Messages
- 22,314
I'm too micro to be so macro.
- Messages
- 9,933
A big purchase whose tax total is going to be more than your yearly income + all your life expenses? And the need to find a new job? Put your career back an entire year? Not very likely. Even a home would be hard to justify under this scenario.
This is why I don't think it being progressive makes sense. Just tax consumption across the board, end of story.
- Messages
- 9,933
That covers congressional salaries, I suppose.
You're math is also totally wrong. It would be 2% of all consumption, so the federal budget/spend has shit all to do with deriving consumption. The US GNP is 17+ trillion, but not all of that would be considered consumption.
- Messages
- 22,314
In 2011, total corporate and individual income tax revenues was $2.3 trillion
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes
- Messages
- 9,933
So boom. 20 - 30% covers it. Obviously 2.3 trillion is way too much. 1.5 seems more reasonable. Go down from there over time.
Sorry Jimmy, I misread your post.
Sorry Jimmy, I misread your post.
- Messages
- 9,933
What would those be? It costs more than that to maintain roads.
- Messages
- 9,933
The federal gov dishes out road money to states.
- Messages
- 9,933
- Messages
- 40,417
How are you coming up with these cut figures?
- Messages
- 40,417
So who would work on those other 2/3 of cases?
If we use similar logic on your other cuts, and you axe 2/3 of the coast guard, who would patrol the rest of the oceans?
- Messages
- 9,933
Fuck the coast guard. Drones.
- Messages
- 9,933
I'm humoring you Rustler.
What about military? FBI? National parks?
State governments?
You're views, while awkwardly noble, would create the most criminal country that has ever been. Case in point, no congressional salaries? Ha ha, talk about bribery city.
What about military? FBI? National parks?
State governments?
You're views, while awkwardly noble, would create the most criminal country that has ever been. Case in point, no congressional salaries? Ha ha, talk about bribery city.
- Messages
- 9,933
It wouldn't be a massive distinction from what exists now, I grant you that. But you're talking about a whole different level of criminality when you strip the ability to inspect. Sure, much of it today is window dressing, but take away the basic ability to go deep and it's truly over because the proles would lose faith... then you get revolution.
- Messages
- 22,314
Surely you can find some saving out of the $1.4 trillion spent on Medicaid and Medicare as well as the
Social security about 900 billion; Medicaid/Medicare about a trillion.
About 10 percent of Government spending is at the state level with fed transfer dollars.
Some good numbers that you can shave down here
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending
Social security about 900 billion; Medicaid/Medicare about a trillion.
About 10 percent of Government spending is at the state level with fed transfer dollars.
Some good numbers that you can shave down here
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/current_spending