Jetblue and the PVC
04-15-2013, 01:57 PM
#171
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
What kind of argument is that? I disagree with you because I think you are wrong?
What you don't get, and don't even acknowledge from my argument, is that this isn't a yearly thing. This is NOT a tax on yearly income. It's a tax on ALL wealth! It is not a tax on money you earned and are able to hide somewhere. It doesn't matter if you made it yesterday or 50 years ago or inherited it. It is taxed when you spend it regardless of how you earned it. Therefore ALL wealth is eventually taxed.
It is progressive because as you spend more, your tax and rate increase. And yes, the highest you will ever pay is 23%. But the fact that the poor can actually pay a negative tax rate, by definition, makes it progressive. Maybe it's not progressive enough for you? That's what it sounds like to me but you rejected that when I first asked you.
If you don't believe me, go back and re-read what I wrote earlier. That seems to be your only argument. You just say you disagree but don't actually provide a viable argument. I listed about a dozen positive things about the Fairtax and you can come up with is that you disagree because I don't agree with you? No wonder you have descended to insults in past posts.
But go ahead and continue replying to my arguments. I'm more than entertained replying back, thanks.
What you don't get, and don't even acknowledge from my argument, is that this isn't a yearly thing. This is NOT a tax on yearly income. It's a tax on ALL wealth! It is not a tax on money you earned and are able to hide somewhere. It doesn't matter if you made it yesterday or 50 years ago or inherited it. It is taxed when you spend it regardless of how you earned it. Therefore ALL wealth is eventually taxed.
It is progressive because as you spend more, your tax and rate increase. And yes, the highest you will ever pay is 23%. But the fact that the poor can actually pay a negative tax rate, by definition, makes it progressive. Maybe it's not progressive enough for you? That's what it sounds like to me but you rejected that when I first asked you.
If you don't believe me, go back and re-read what I wrote earlier. That seems to be your only argument. You just say you disagree but don't actually provide a viable argument. I listed about a dozen positive things about the Fairtax and you can come up with is that you disagree because I don't agree with you? No wonder you have descended to insults in past posts.
But go ahead and continue replying to my arguments. I'm more than entertained replying back, thanks.
It is progressive on spending. It is not progressive on income above the levels of the poor. I keep excluding the poor, so you can see how affects the rest of the income spectrum, but you keep talking about the poor. I got news for you, the poor already pay a negative federal income tax rate. As far as the payroll tax, the poor pay payroll taxes, but also get more social security dollars in relation to their income. The rich have a cap on their payroll taxes, but they also have a cap on their social security benefits.
There are many other problems cronicled researchers and economists. You would know them if you didn't only read and believe the promoters.
04-15-2013, 06:11 PM
#173
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
Also, you say it as a progressive tax. Please give me the approximate effective tax rate on:
A. Someone who spends 500,000 per year.
B. Someone who spends 5,000,000 per year.
C. Someone who spends 25,000,000 per year.
A. Someone who spends 500,000 per year.
B. Someone who spends 5,000,000 per year.
C. Someone who spends 25,000,000 per year.
04-15-2013, 09:47 PM
#175
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
What kind of argument is that? I disagree with you because I think you are wrong?
What you don't get, and don't even acknowledge from my argument, is that this isn't a yearly thing. This is NOT a tax on yearly income. It's a tax on ALL wealth! It is not a tax on money you earned and are able to hide somewhere. It doesn't matter if you made it yesterday or 50 years ago or inherited it. It is taxed when you spend it regardless of how you earned it. Therefore ALL wealth is eventually taxed.
It is progressive because as you spend more, your tax and rate increase. And yes, the highest you will ever pay is 23%. But the fact that the poor can actually pay a negative tax rate, by definition, makes it progressive. Maybe it's not progressive enough for you? That's what it sounds like to me but you rejected that when I first asked you.
If you don't believe me, go back and re-read what I wrote earlier. That seems to be your only argument. You just say you disagree but don't actually provide a viable argument. I listed about a dozen positive things about the Fairtax and you can come up with is that you disagree because I don't agree with you? No wonder you have descended to insults in past posts.
But go ahead and continue replying to my arguments. I'm more than entertained replying back, thanks.
What you don't get, and don't even acknowledge from my argument, is that this isn't a yearly thing. This is NOT a tax on yearly income. It's a tax on ALL wealth! It is not a tax on money you earned and are able to hide somewhere. It doesn't matter if you made it yesterday or 50 years ago or inherited it. It is taxed when you spend it regardless of how you earned it. Therefore ALL wealth is eventually taxed.
It is progressive because as you spend more, your tax and rate increase. And yes, the highest you will ever pay is 23%. But the fact that the poor can actually pay a negative tax rate, by definition, makes it progressive. Maybe it's not progressive enough for you? That's what it sounds like to me but you rejected that when I first asked you.
If you don't believe me, go back and re-read what I wrote earlier. That seems to be your only argument. You just say you disagree but don't actually provide a viable argument. I listed about a dozen positive things about the Fairtax and you can come up with is that you disagree because I don't agree with you? No wonder you have descended to insults in past posts.
But go ahead and continue replying to my arguments. I'm more than entertained replying back, thanks.
It is progressive on spending. It is not progressive on income above the levels of the poor. I keep excluding the poor, so you can see how affects the rest of the income spectrum, but you keep talking about the poor. I got news for you, the poor already pay a negative federal income tax rate. As far as the payroll tax, the poor pay payroll taxes, but also get more social security dollars in relation to their income. The rich have a cap on their payroll taxes, but they also have a cap on their social security benefits.
There are many other problems cronicled researchers and economists. You would know them if you didn't only read and believe the promoters.
And in actuality, unless you have a refundable deduction, the poor do not have a negative income tax rate. And everyone who earns income (income from other than capital gains that the rich make) pay social security tax and Medicare tax. The social security tax protects those rich who actually earn income by being capped at around $100k.
Also, social security is NOT means tested. Everyone, regardless of income receive social security. The rich get the same as the poor. No difference. But you seem to get stuck on relativism. I guess that's a philosophical difference between us.
Kolktnikoff is an independent economist who agrees that the Fairtax would benefit everyone.
Also, you say it as a progressive tax. Please give me the approximate effective tax rate on:
A. Someone who spends 500,000 per year.
B. Someone who spends 5,000,000 per year.
C. Someone who spends 25,000,000 per year.
A. Someone who spends 500,000 per year.
B. Someone who spends 5,000,000 per year.
C. Someone who spends 25,000,000 per year.
04-16-2013, 06:03 AM
#176
The REAL Bluedriver
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Airbus Capt
Posts: 6,920
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The rich spend more than anyone less rich than them. Therefore they pay a higher percentage and higher amount of taxes.
And in actuality, unless you have a refundable deduction, the poor do not have a negative income tax rate. And everyone who earns income (income from other than capital gains that the rich make) pay social security tax and Medicare tax. The social security tax protects those rich who actually earn income by being capped at around $100k.
Also, social security is NOT means tested. Everyone, regardless of income receive social security. The rich get the same as the poor. No difference. But you seem to get stuck on relativism. I guess that's a philosophical difference between us.
Kolktnikoff is an independent economist who agrees that the Fairtax would benefit everyone.
Actually, I've already done this on an earlier post. It's going to be close to 23% inclusive while everyone who spends progressively less will see a progressive reduction in their tax rate. Hence, its progressive throughout the entire spectrum, not just the numbers you cherry pick.
And in actuality, unless you have a refundable deduction, the poor do not have a negative income tax rate. And everyone who earns income (income from other than capital gains that the rich make) pay social security tax and Medicare tax. The social security tax protects those rich who actually earn income by being capped at around $100k.
Also, social security is NOT means tested. Everyone, regardless of income receive social security. The rich get the same as the poor. No difference. But you seem to get stuck on relativism. I guess that's a philosophical difference between us.
Kolktnikoff is an independent economist who agrees that the Fairtax would benefit everyone.
Actually, I've already done this on an earlier post. It's going to be close to 23% inclusive while everyone who spends progressively less will see a progressive reduction in their tax rate. Hence, its progressive throughout the entire spectrum, not just the numbers you cherry pick.
1. How can A, B and C all pay "close to 23%" if it is a progressive tax?
2. Now please recalculate A, B and C as an effective tax rate on income if A, B and C spend the same as specified above, but all 3 actually earn 25,000,000 per year.
04-16-2013, 02:34 PM
#180
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. The rich spend more than anyone less rich than them. Therefore they pay a higher percentage and higher amount of taxes.
And in actuality, unless you have a refundable deduction, the poor do not have a negative income tax rate. And everyone who earns income (income from other than capital gains that the rich make) pay social security tax and Medicare tax. The social security tax protects those rich who actually earn income by being capped at around $100k.
Also, social security is NOT means tested. Everyone, regardless of income receive social security. The rich get the same as the poor. No difference. But you seem to get stuck on relativism. I guess that's a philosophical difference between us.
Kolktnikoff is an independent economist who agrees that the Fairtax would benefit everyone.
Actually, I've already done this on an earlier post. It's going to be close to 23% inclusive while everyone who spends progressively less will see a progressive reduction in their tax rate. Hence, its progressive throughout the entire spectrum, not just the numbers you cherry pick.
And in actuality, unless you have a refundable deduction, the poor do not have a negative income tax rate. And everyone who earns income (income from other than capital gains that the rich make) pay social security tax and Medicare tax. The social security tax protects those rich who actually earn income by being capped at around $100k.
Also, social security is NOT means tested. Everyone, regardless of income receive social security. The rich get the same as the poor. No difference. But you seem to get stuck on relativism. I guess that's a philosophical difference between us.
Kolktnikoff is an independent economist who agrees that the Fairtax would benefit everyone.
Actually, I've already done this on an earlier post. It's going to be close to 23% inclusive while everyone who spends progressively less will see a progressive reduction in their tax rate. Hence, its progressive throughout the entire spectrum, not just the numbers you cherry pick.
1. How can A, B and C all pay "close to 23%" if it is a progressive tax?
2. Now please recalculate A, B and C as an effective tax rate on income if A, B and C spend the same as specified above, but all 3 actually earn 25,000,000 per year.
Like I said, this is not a yearly calculation as it is today. You keep getting hung up on that. It's a tax on ALL wealth regardless of WHEN you made or WHEN you spend it. And regardless of whether you earned it from pay checks, capital gains, dividends, inheritance, etc. it's ALL taxed at a 23% inclusive tax rate.
Lets not get stuck thinking congruently. We need to think out of the hectogon that our current tax laws have become.
Anyway, just to put it simply, its progressive because the poor pay negative taxes and the wealthy pay 23%. Those in between being poor and wealthy pay a progressively higher tax rate as they spend more. I don't know how much simpler to explain tax progressiveness.
