Originally Posted by hair-on-fire

Scope is not in our PEA.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver

Wow, I was NOT asking the question because I didn't know the answer.

I will try again.

Question one asks how someone that spends 500,000, 5,000,000, and 25,000,000 would have the SAME tax rate (you said "close to 23%"). You say it is a progressive tax, but I gave you 3 vastly different spending levels and you said the tax rate was the SAME "close to 23%".

The question was to illustrate that for all practical purposes, beyond the poor and lower middle class, that this is actually a VERY flat tax for the upper middle class, rich and super rich.

Spending tax rate on A is .22724%, B is .229999724% and C is .2299999448. So, it is technically progressive, but only if you are looking at 2 tens of 1%, or less. In other words, you are talking about .002.... This is a VERY flat tax with exeption of the poor and lower middle class.

Question 2 shows you that as a tax on INCOME, most rich people will have an effective tax on INCOME much lower than the middle class and upper middle class. People don't become rich, or stay rich by spending a high ratio of their annual earnings... They get rich and stay rich by spending much less each year than they earn, thus avoiding taxes on a high percentage of the their income, be that annually, 3 year lookback, 10 year lookback. They can't stay rich if they spend a high ratio of their earned income, and most of them DON'T. Much of that wealth may SOMEDAY be spent, but firstly, how do we fund the government while we wait for decendents decades from now to spend the money, and secondly, there is nothing stopping these people from buying used cars, boats, homes, airplanes....

As a tax on income in the short term, IT IS REGRESSIVE as wealth increases, because the rich CLEARLY spend a smaller percentage of their income, while saving and investing HIGHER percentages of their income, avoiding taxes. In the long term, we may recapture some of that lost revenue, but that is dependant on spending/savings/investment habits and whether or not they bias their purchases toward used luxury items to keep the gubament from getting their hands on it.

Your scheme will also cause the prices of used homes, cars, boats and other durable goods to be bid up by people who don't want the big bad gubament to get their money, and the prices for used items would also naturally rise to close the gap with NEW items which will fall out of favor because they cost 30% more PLUS the difference in the depreciation from new-used.

Also, stop saying 23% inclusive. It is a 30% tax. It is amazing that they have you typing 23% inclusive. It is misleading. It is a 30% tax in the context of how Americans understand taxation. Sales tax in my state is 6.5%. You don't see people saying the tax is 5.2% inclusive.... You are using a very unconventional way of calculating taxes in order to show a misleadingly low tax rate of 23%, all the while have to type the word inclusive after every time you quote the tax rate of 23%. It is misleading, requires extra unnessasary key strokes, and is annoying. It is a 30% tax. People that insist on say it is "23% inclussive" are being manipulative and misleading to those that don't understand the distinction.

Either way, your unicorn with herpes will never become law, so I am checking out of this tax discussion.

Originally Posted by Climbto450

I know that but is in the PPA, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't a well if you don't vote for this we won't give you that kind of deal.

Originally Posted by benzoate

The level of ignorance amongst this pilot group remains high.

Originally Posted by benzoate

One of the keys to all this is talking to your peers. The level of ignorance amongst this pilot group remains high. Don't pass up the opportunity.