I'm just writing down my thoughts, the text will be jumping around, but I had to get them out of my head. ITT I look at our economic problem at a micro and a macro level.



Taxing the rich AND cutting wasteful welfare/unemployment.
I don't think this is a question. I think it is an answer.


Everyone is in this boat together. Instead of EITHER taxing to rich OR taxing the poor, we should do the best of both worlds.

Exhibit A:

Stop giving welfare and unemployment money to people that don't need it (15% of my customers use EPPI cards to pay for my expensive [compared to the grocery store] pizza. There is rampant abuse everywhere. There is a convenience store RIGHT across the street that trades cash for food stamps for a fee). You know what? All a government agency has to do is come in and ask me if I have any complaints of welfare abuse. This is why I suggest forming an oversight committee that walks door to door or provides an anonymous tip hotline. By forming an oversight committee, the committee will pay for itself by saving the country tons of money.

Why should we stop giving hand outs?
Money == labor.

If someone comes into my store and gives me $20, I assume they worked for it.
They buy a pizza, I'm $20 richer because I worked for it.
But that's not the case, is it?

The guy was given $20 to not work. (he'd lose his benefits if he got a job)
Now, he gives the money to me. I'm $20 richer! Woohoo.
Damn, I pay taxes. The taxes go back to the guy with no job.
Guy with no job buys another pizza another $20 pizza from me.
This is bullshit.

If someone gives me $20 for a pizza. Why don't I just give them the $20 (for free) back so they can buy ANOTHER pizza?

The guy will continuously pay me $20 for another pizza, 1000 times. I did a shitload of work, I brought in $20,000, but wtf... I'm broke. It looks like I'm getting richer because I have more work and am selling more pizzas, but instead I'm just putting myself in the hole!

That's what welfare/unemployment is doing to the country. We are paying people to NOT work, they spend the money, the money goes to taxes, taxes go right back to the people NOT working. It's the same as giving them back their money at the time of purchase. We work harder, they get more by not working at all.


Exhibit B.

Tax the rich. There is nothing wrong about being rich EXCEPT when the rich have more money than they can spend in a lifetime.
A slight 1% increase in taxes on the rich can feed 51% of the nation.

But it's stupid to increase taxes on rich to give free handouts to the poor. The working class is the only one that suffers! Poor people can't save a penny, rich people can't spend a penny.
Therefore the money is always going to flow back to the rich. But physically, the middle class is fucked, doing more work for nothing benefit for themselves.


The working class IS THE ENGINE OF AMERICA, without it, the rich and poor would not exist. For instance... take all the rich and all the poor and put them on one continent. Someone is going to have to work in order to survive. Who is it going to be? The people that start to work will now be the working class.


-------
Simplification:

If one person is on an Island, and the other person is disabled, the first person does all the work. The first person has to share everything with the disabled person in order for both of them to survive. What's in it for the person that works? Companionship? Perhaps. What if the guy who works becomes old or disabled? Now they both die.

I don't think that it's a problem that a guy shares the fruits of his labor with someone less fortunate. But I know there has to be a fine balance. If a guy could produce a lifetime of apples and had enough to last him his entire life and then some, he has no excuse to share the excess apples. Rich people have more apples than they can spend in a lifetime. No need for them to have more apples than they need. Taking the excess is not going to have an affect on the rich, but it'll have a big affect on the people that need it.

At the same time, if someone only has 10 apples, but the disabled person demands 6 apples (more than a reasonable amount of what the worker makes), the worker has the right to say "fuck you"... or at least I would. As the person who did the work, consistent with the law of life, you are entitled to survive more than the disabled person. It's the circle of life... the weak die, the strong survive. At most, a weak person can "beg" for a handout, and at very least, a strong person can "charity" a free handout. But there is definitely a line that is crossed when the begger asks for too much or the giver gives too little.


In conclusion: We are a living force on a single speck of dust in the Universe. We were left here to fend for ourselves. We have no help. At most we have a God that doesn't interfere and watches us for his amusement or own experiment.

We the people of the planet Earth can either make life hard OR make life easy. If we all work together, we can make living easier. If we work against each other, we make living harder or damn near impossible and we die. Everyone has their own agenda, but 99.999999% of the people on this planet have an agenda to survive, minus the .0000001 percent who commit suicide.

Goddamn it people, let's all work together.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2011 2:41:44 PM

GeniuSxBoy endorses a handicap holocaust?

8/21/2011 2:59:15 PM

$20 for a pizza? Jeez. Stop being greedy.

8/21/2011 3:02:44 PM

Now if we can keep GeniuSxBoY's stupid in this section of the forum, everyone would happen.

8/21/2011 3:05:55 PM

A lot of handicapped people can still work.


Those that can't work should get a free ride.



Seriously, what the fuck is the use of keeping people that can't work or have a mental capacity of doing anything productive alive? If we left food in front of them, can they eat it? Seriously.

Assuming the person that can't work or think has feelings... he can't use them because he can't work, have fun, or do anything productive with them


[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2011 3:12:59 PM

Quote :

"If someone gives me $20 for a pizza. Why don't I just give them the $20 (for free) back so they can buy ANOTHER pizza? The guy will continuously pay me $20 for another pizza, 1000 times. I did a shitload of work, I brought in $20,000, but wtf... I'm broke. It looks like I'm getting richer because I have more work and am selling more pizzas, but instead I'm just putting myself in the hole!"

What the fuck kind of math is this?

Quote :

"That's what welfare/unemployment is doing to the country."

Welfare/unemployment abuse happens, is bullshit, and should be dealt with more seriously, but that's not what's financially breaking the country. It's barely more than a drop in the bucket.

Quote :

"There is nothing wrong about being rich EXCEPT when the rich have more money than they can spend in a lifetime."

There's nothing wrong with that, either.

Quote :

"A slight 1% increase in taxes on the rich can feed 51% of the nation. "

1. I don't buy the math.
2. Didn't you just make half your argument about the problems of taxing the producers and extending food stamp benefits to the masses who'll just abuse them?

Quote :

"But it's stupid to increase taxes on rich to give free handouts to the poor. The working class is the only one that suffers! Poor people can't save a penny, rich people can't spend a penny. Therefore the money is always going to flow back to the rich. But physically, the middle class is fucked, doing more work for nothing benefit for themselves."

This part I mostly agree with--on a macro level, the rich are rich and the poor are poor for a reason, and attempts to alter this will just have things revert to their natural state.

...but I don't see what the middle class has to do with taking from the rich and giving to the poor, only to have the poor fuck it all away again and give it back to the rich. If anything, they'll give some of it back to the middle class, too, in the process of fucking it all away (again).

8/21/2011 3:29:28 PM

Quote :

"I don't see what the middle class has to do with taking from the rich and giving to the poor, only to have the poor fuck it all away again and give it back to the rich. If anything, they'll give some of it back to the middle class, too, in the process of fucking it all away (again)."

The state of the union is: The rich has too much money. The poor is getting too much free money. The working class is in debt!

8/21/2011 3:36:43 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — News flash: Congressional Republicans want to raise your taxes. Impossible, right? GOP lawmakers are so virulently anti-tax, surely they will fight to prevent a payroll tax increase on virtually every wage-earner starting Jan. 1, right? Apparently not. Many of the same Republicans who fought hammer-and-tong to keep the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts from expiring on schedule are now saying a different "temporary" tax cut should end as planned. By their own definition, that amounts to a tax increase. The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn. http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html "

Seriously, this is another blow to the working class. I doubt it's going to pass with Obama, but the nerve for the republicans to do this blows my mind

8/21/2011 3:45:49 PM

8/21/2011 3:52:59 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — A look at Social Security's disability program: About 13.6 million people receive federal disability benefits. —7.6 million receive Social Security disability. —4.4 million receive Supplemental Security Income. —1.6 million receive both. ___ Social Security disability: —Reserved for people with a substantial work history. —Average monthly payment: $927 —Financing: A portion of Social Security payroll taxes (the rest goes to the retirement fund). —Payroll taxes collected for disability program in 2010: $93 billion. —Total benefits paid in 2010: $124 billion. —Assets in Social Security disability trust fund at end of 2010: $180 billion. —Year when trust fund projected to be exhausted: 2017. ___ Supplemental Security Income: —Reserved for the very poor. —Average monthly payment: $500. —Maximum monthly payment: $674 for individuals, $1,011 for couples. —Many states provide additional payments. —Financing: General revenue funds. —Total benefits paid in 2010: $48 billion. http://news.yahoo.com/look-social-securitys-disability-program-143141346.html "

These people are going to be S.O.L in 2017. Might as well pretend it's now and get it over with.

[Edited on August 21, 2011 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/21/2011 4:04:46 PM

Quote :

"this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes"

Heaven forbid we ask everyone to contribute. One of the biggest problems we have is our entitlement system, where we have a large percent of our population that pays nothing to very little in taxes. You want a lot of government services, fine, then everyone should pay into it, even if it is a small amount. (maybe those that pay 0% income tax should be 5%)

8/21/2011 4:14:01 PM

Quadruple post? Lock this mods, plenty of other threads for this discussion.

8/21/2011 4:14:02 PM

Quote :

""A slight 1% increase in taxes on the rich can feed 51% of the nation. ""

actually 50 billion could feed every hungry person in the world for a year. Allowing the bush tax cuts on the rich to expire would generate 750billion in extra revenue, enough to feed every hungry person in the world for 7 years.

8/21/2011 4:14:48 PM

Ok, I'm down, remove the tax cuts, but also remove the regulations that have stifled corporate America. Big business and small business alike.

8/21/2011 4:17:23 PM

Yeah, I'm somewhat confused by the juxtaposition of those two stances. You point to abuse of a social safety net as a problem, because tax money simply goes towards perpetuating the abuse, but you also want to raise taxes?

I agree with you that welfare abuse is a problem, but the disincentive to work lies in the very existence of the safety net itself. Extensive social programs, to me, are not evil merely because they redistribute wealth regardless of merit, but because they keep poor people...well, poor. There's little incentive for me to better my lot in life if the government will hand me enough money to get by, and I don't have to work for it, to boot. And as long as politicians promise these people that their entitlements will continue unabated, the poor will keep them in power. So, politicians have no incentive to better these people, either. It's a terrible, evil thing we do to these people, and the only way I see to fix it is to bite the bullet and slash the safety net up. We will never do this, however, because in the short-term, people will suffer, and we would rather place ourselves in a worse situation in the long run than have people suffer in the short-term.

Am I saying we need to get rid of the safety net altogether? No, and I think the vast majority of people are of the same thought. But it's not sustainable. Social security? I will never see money I pay towards social security in my lifetime, and I'm OK with that. Someone has to bite the bullet, might as well be my generation, because as of now, all it is, is a tax by any other name. And on that note, whatever level of safety we eventually agree on, we have to manage the money we put towards it responsibly. Going back to SS, that's why we're hurting so bad right now. Instead of taking that money and, say, investing it on behalf of the people who paid in to it, we use that money as another source of revenue when we can't spend responsibly.

So, long story short - social programs keep the poor poor and we need to dramatically decrease their use, but it will only work if the government budgets responsibly and the money going towards programs is able to grow/sustain itself over time.

8/21/2011 4:20:03 PM

Herman Cain put it nicely, that these social programs have gone from a system of support to a system of entitlement.
AWWWWWW YEAAAAAAH HERMAN CAIN.

8/21/2011 4:23:25 PM

Quote :

"this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes"

Heaven forbid we ask everyone to contribute. One of the biggest problems we have is our entitlement system, where we have a large percent of our population that pays nothing to very little in taxes. You want a lot of government services, fine, then everyone should pay into it, even if it is a small amount. (maybe those that pay 0% income tax should be 5%)




----------------------------------------

Why can't this site have nested quotes. I feel like we're living in the stone age.


In case you didn't know, businesses have to double all the payroll taxes. If you pay $20, we have to send in $40. You get to get your $20 at the end of the year, because your employer pays your taxes.
It APPEARS you don't pay the taxes because... well you don't... but the tax is still paid by us.

8/21/2011 4:31:10 PM

Quote :

"Herman Cain put it nicely, that these social programs have gone from a system of support to a system of entitlement. AWWWWWW YEAAAAAAH HERMAN CAIN."

What does that even mean? Social Security and Medicare sound like they'd be both. You are entitled to that support for a reason: because you are too old/disabled/etc for work.

If he's talking about TANF, I guess he slept through the 90s.

8/22/2011 11:10:47 AM

if we got rid of wasteful welfare and unemployment, there go the reasons for taxing the rich.

8/22/2011 7:44:24 PM

Let's see you back that up with numbers...

because that's an asinine assertion. I hate the "soak the rich" attitude, but those things are a drop in the fiscal bucket.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 8:23 PM. Reason : asdfasd]

8/22/2011 8:23:33 PM

Wasteful welfare makes me think of the medicare and social security warren buffet is receiving.

8/22/2011 8:28:25 PM

I think Social Security and Medicare benefits should be cut off from anyone that doesn't actually need it. I'm not sure where the cutoff should be, but if you're a millionaire, you don't get Social Security. I don't give a shit if you paid in. I'm paying in, and I'm fucked, so you're going to get fucked with me.

8/22/2011 8:32:08 PM

I think that's crap. I think that if you pay in, you should get the benefits.

I mean, I think it would be better yet to just wean ourselves towards much more minimal systems there, but I don't think screwing people because "they don't need the money anyway" is the way to do it.

8/22/2011 8:52:04 PM

I'm not going to get the benefits. You are not going to get the benefits. We pay in. Why are you standing up for the same people that allowed government to grow unrestrained? Cuts have to be made. Unless I get to opt out of FICA, then some other generations should take a hit too.

8/22/2011 9:01:39 PM

Well then by that argument, they aren't going to get the benefits either, so what are we even discussing it for?

and yeah, I'd love to be able to opt out.

8/22/2011 9:23:02 PM

Well, someone brought up Warren Buffet. He's rich as fuck, but he's eligible to receive SS/Medicare right now. We need to address entitlements very soon, and there are two easy areas to hit: apply FICA to all income (not just 115k/year or whatever it is this year), and cut off benefits to those that are wealthy.

My generation is graduating into a shit economy with absurd student loan debt, mediocre job prospects, and we still have to pay FICA taxes. I don't have a problem asking some older generations to take a hit as well.

You don't get to promise yourself the money of future generations. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were quite clear on this point. Future generations have no obligation to pay the debt incurred by their fathers, which is another reason that I think we should default.

[Edited on August 22, 2011 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/22/2011 9:29:32 PM

The people in office are the children from the 70s.


We knew they were going to fuck things up... didn't we

8/22/2011 10:30:27 PM

Quote :

"I think that's crap. I think that if you pay in, you should get the benefits. I mean, I think it would be better yet to just wean ourselves towards much more minimal systems there, but I don't think screwing people because "they don't need the money anyway" is the way to do it. "

I totally agree.

If you start with cutting benefits for those with over 1 M, which wont amount to shit anyway, then dont act surprised when 50k becomes the new cutoff a couple years later. Dont think it will happen? Learn history. You pay income taxes? Yeah, those were started just to tax those evil rich. Politicans play chess with these things and the people play checkers and fall for this kinda crap.

SS is a pretty easy fix actually and not too big a problem (although that trust fund line is a load of crap). The biggest help will be raising the retirement age, which seems to be impossible for some reason. Medicare/medicaid are the big MFers. I suppose you could cap annual benefits per year, but that will never pass though. I dont see a realistic way out of those honestly. Moving younger generations in HSAs that can be transferred to relatives would help overtime.

8/22/2011 10:42:44 PM

Wasteful welfare/unemployment is a drop in a bucket compared to some of the other social programs that are contributing to our fiscal demise.

That said, I still believe that we need to put the unemployed to work. Pick up trash from the highway. Paint walls. Plant a tree. Work 15-20 hours a week and you get paid. Don't work, don't get your check.

If the poor receive the majority of the entitlements, then they need to pay their part for the benefits, even if it is a small percentage. It may not be much, but it'll make a lot of people feel better about it.

Change the capital gains/dividend tax rate for those that make $$ > $Texas. If you're under the $Texas threshold, then you get taxed at a marginal rate. If your $Texas is making $Alaska, then get taxed more. Maybe offer an incentive (marginal rate) if you actually spend your money on tangible goods and services that help to stimulate the economy.

Close the tax loopholes. Simplify the tax brackets. I know Obama meant well when he didn't end Bush's tax cuts, but don't make the same mistake twice.

We can get through this, but it will probably be painful. We need to stop painting a rosy picture and get everyone to understand that it's going to take real work and sacrifice to make things right for our generation and future generations.

8/22/2011 11:51:17 PM

^^Medicare is the biggest part of the equation. If you get the benefits you paid in, great. What about when costs go way beyond the amount you paid in, though? With the way that health care costs have exploded, it's quite easy to exceed that amount.

8/23/2011 12:02:28 AM

^^I agree with pretty much all that, with the one exception being that my sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts wouldn't simply be a reversion to what they were before under Clinton.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 10:28 AM. Reason : ^^]

8/23/2011 10:28:37 AM

Quote :

"What about when costs go way beyond the amount you paid in, though?"

I was at a conference and the speaker asked what the current generation on medicare paid in on average. Apparently there was a poll. That generation stated that they paid in a little over 100k, when in reality it was actually 11k. One trip to the ER and you are paid back.

The system of medicare needs restructuring. I would prefer your money goes into HSA and medicare is a high deductible insurance...or you cap the total per year expense.

To really address the rising costs of healthcare you have to reengage the consumer with the cost. Until that happens costs will still rise or you have severe rationing/limit services. (which is where we are heading, imo)

8/23/2011 10:59:05 AM

Rationing/limiting services is coming. It's just a matter of whether it's self-imposed, business/market imposed, or gov't imposed.

8/23/2011 11:10:24 AM

DEATH PANELS!

It's quite hilarious that "death panels" were cited as an exaggeration used by the right, when in reality, it's simply an inevitability. With our budget problems, we can't afford to provide top notch (or even adequate) health care to elderly people for the next 30 years. Someone's going to get cut off, it's just a matter of who and over what time frame.

As soon as Social Security/Medicare allowed you to reap benefits that you never paid in, the system was doomed. If you're going to do a forced retirement savings plan, then fine, do that, but don't have the money go into a trust fund that gets raided by politicians on a regular basis.

8/23/2011 11:30:18 AM

Quote :

"As soon as Social Security/Medicare allowed you to reap benefits that you never paid in, the system was doomed. "

which is why libs oppose any cuts and people LOVE these programs that are going bankrupt.

I agree with Duke, I prefer letting the market ration care than govt. It is the easiest to understand and most peaceful way to ration anything.

8/23/2011 11:56:27 AM

I mean...come on man

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029273/Woman-encouraged-husband-sex-12-year-old-girl-benefits.html

Quote :

"Woman 'encouraged husband to have sex with 12-year-old girl so that she would get pregnant and they could claim more benefits' A woman encouraged her husband to have sex with a 12-year-old girl so that she would get pregnant and they could claim extra cash benefits. Alicia Bouchard even sat and watched while her 26-year-old husband had sex with the underage girl at their Florida home. According to an arrest warrant, the 41-year-old wanted the girl to fall pregnant so that she and her husband would have extra income from state benefits. ..."

8/23/2011 2:32:55 PM

Quote :

"With our budget problems, we can't afford to provide top notch (or even adequate) health care to elderly people for the next 30 years."

Given our current electorate, I'd wager we'd invade Canada and steal their money before we let old people die.

8/23/2011 2:42:46 PM

itt i finally get that "geniousboy" is a nick name like "tiny" which is usually only given to huge mother effers.


#1 drug test the poor and welfare will thin out people will work to get high... or atleast sell drugs.
#2 even warren buffet says "raise my taxes" http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/08/15/139638342/warren-buffett-please-raise-my-taxes?sc=tw
#3 politicians are so concerned with voting on party lines that they actually made our interest rates go up... "but if i don't listen to the party i won't get that 190% presidential nomination"
#4 if unemployment were stopped as many request/demand you would have been looted by your out of work middle class neighbors and all hell would break loose.
#5 congress has no balls, it requires so much money to be elected these days they're all cooperate puppets for someone and thus don't have the guts to raise taxes on the people that hold OVER 90% of US Currency.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%



[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 3:27 PM. Reason : yep... the richest 20% are in control of 90% out US Capital ]

8/23/2011 3:15:42 PM

^gotta love these type of envy arguements.


"I cant afford my bills because my neighbor makes too much money."


Raising taxes on the "rich" alone doesnt come close to solving our problems. If anything it is the people making UNDER 250k that need to pay more to make a bigger difference AND CUT SPENDING.

8/23/2011 3:43:03 PM

^ wait... did you just say that making the bottom 80 % in control of less then 7% pay more will have a bigger effect?

btw... i can't and don't complain about my income. I'm not trying to fix my debt problem... i'm trying to fix our countries. And when i am in that upper 20% i'll gladly help pay taxes.

This is exactly why politicians should be engineers, mathematicians.

I would include accountants but they're some dirty mofo's.



[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 4:21 PM. Reason : You're either a trust fund baby or a regular moron i'm not sure... maybe just a troll.]

8/23/2011 4:02:18 PM

Quote :

"you would have been looted by your out of work middle class neighbors and all hell would break loose. "

My Sig Sauer P229 begs to differ.

8/23/2011 4:33:40 PM

and the top 10% pay like 70% of the taxes. And 50% pay 97% of all income taxes.

You realize we tax INCOME not wealth? In order to shrink our budget we have to CUT SPENDING and increase the number of tax payers.

SS income does not take nearly as big a dip during recessions, now why is that? It is because it is a flat tax that ALL tax payers pay. It isnt weighted on such a few, which makes it MUCH less volatile.

Just use that brain of yours and look at the costs of extending the bush tax cuts for those OVER and UNDER 250k.

OVER 250k = 81.5B
UNDER 250k = 463B

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

In case you want to read it for yourself.

You are buying into the politics of envy, the math just doesnt add up. It simply isnt a solution. Sorry

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 4:57:28 PM

Quote :

"You realize we tax INCOME not wealth?"

We tax a lot of things, for example, capital gains.

Quote :

"SS income does not take nearly as big a dip during recessions, now why is that? It is because it is a flat tax that ALL tax payers pay. It isnt weighted on such a few, which makes it MUCH less volatile."

This is not true. In addition to that statement not being true, we don't want taxation to remain stable. We want to tax more during periods of growth and less during periods of decline. An income tax does this automatically.

Quote :

"gotta love these type of envy arguements"

It's not necessarily out of envy, or even fairness. I like progressive taxation systems because they act as automatic stabilizers.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 5:45 PM. Reason : ]

8/23/2011 5:44:03 PM

Quote :

"This is not true. In addition to that statement not being true, we don't want taxation to remain stable. We want to tax more during periods of growth and less during periods of decline. An income tax does this automatically. "

haha, ok Kris. Get out your calculator.

Federal Revenue by year:

2007 2008 2009 2010
Income tax 1533B 1450B 1053B 1090B
Social Ins. 869 900B 890B 864B

33% drop in Income T rev.
4% drop in Social ins

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/#usgs302a

It is pretty clear if you favor a more stable tax system then you would prefer a flat tax, not a progressive one.

8/23/2011 6:37:59 PM

Quote :

"Federal Revenue by year: 2007 2008 2009 2010 Income tax 1533B 1450B 1053B 1090B Social Ins. 869 900B 890B 864B"

Well first off there were legal changes you didn't take into account there, secondly I never stated that it was wrong that SS revenue was less stable than Income tax revenue, I was stating it was incorrect that it was a flat tax.

Quote :

"It is pretty clear if you favor a more stable tax system then you would prefer a flat tax, not a progressive one."

What are the advantages of a flat tax? Simplicity? Is that it? Because inflexibility in revenue is far more of a disadvantage than an advantage. A static tax system does have the feedback mechanism of adjusting for economic ups and downs like a dynamic progressive system.

8/23/2011 6:46:52 PM

Quote :

"Well first off there were legal changes you didn't take into account there"

legal changes? If anything O reducing the payroll tax only boosts my point. The recession had a FAR less effect on payroll revenue than income tax revenue.(even with a reduced payroll tax rate)

Eventually I hope you lose your faith in our central planners/puppet masters.

The reason that the flat tax is FAR more stable is because EVERYONE pays the same tax, no loop holes, no breaks for some at the others expense, but most importantly EVERYONE pays. The numbers make it FAR more stable.

If you look at your progressive tax political favor have pushed the burdern on a smaller minority of people. So when a rough patch hits (although that shouldnt happen with our wise central planners) their income takes a HUGE hit and therefore greatly reduces revenue to govt. Think of this easy example. You are in business selling paper. Having millions of customers is a lot more secure than have 1 LARGE customer. Say that customer only buys half as much paper next year... or buys his paper from overseas...you are fucked. As opposed to one of your million customers having to cut back their purchasing.

And you could also make adjustments to a flat tax if you wish. It would just be a lot harder to get that through. (which is a good thing) You could no longer say I will provide you 100 people with X and we will make this rich bastard pay for it all...What, you mean he doesnt like this? Now he is moving his money overseas so I cant take it? He is just greedy.. hahah. Just gets tiresome.

[Edited on August 23, 2011 at 10:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2011 10:47:59 PM

Quote :

"The reason that the flat tax is FAR more stable"

Again, I never said it wasn't, I want to know why we want stable revenue.

Quote :

"their income takes a HUGE hit and therefore greatly reduces revenue to govt."

I know, which is great! It saves the government from having to hand that money right back.

"No loopholes" is pretty much the only advantage you've stated, and we could obtain that by just getting rid of loopholes.

8/23/2011 10:55:27 PM

Quote :

"#1 drug test the poor and welfare will thin out people will work to get high... or atleast sell drugs."

What about the majority of parents on welfare who have kids. Are we going to starve the children for their parent's drug addictions and poor choices?

8/23/2011 11:01:22 PM

Quote :

"Are we going to starve the children for their parent's drug addictions and poor choices?"

Shouldn't we be taking them away anyway? No way a drug addicted parent on welfare is providing a stable, healthy or even marginally capable home.

8/23/2011 11:05:46 PM

So we kill the disabled unless they have kids? Got it.

8/23/2011 11:06:57 PM