Global warming hoax fools millions

Quote from bigdavediode:


What you just described is impossible. How can a flat tax lower the amount paid (because there's no capital gains anymore) and still bring in the same amount of revenue? Answer: it can't.
More...
Impossible? :D It's not time travel Dave.

I'm not nor did I say anything about lowering the amount paid. My whole premise is that the amount paid would be +/- the SAME hence the "revenue neutral" mentioned repeatedly.


Hypothetical examples

Big Dave

Income $100,000
Deductions $25,000
Tax owed $20,000

Smart Dave

Income $100,000
Tax Owed 20,000


Only difference is that Big Dave spent an entire day doing his taxes
and Smart Dave filled out his tax return on a post card sized form.
 
Quote from jem:

big dave - do you really have the studies you are talking abuout. could you provide a link so I could examine their assumptions.

I just did research.

There are former eastern block countries like lithuania with a flat tax and their flat tax raised revenues.
More...

Lithuania suffered Europe's second worst recession in 2009, and had a 14% slump. Would you also like to credit this to the flat tax?

Plus, their flat tax was set at 33% for a while, and has now been reduced to 24% with a 21% sales tax. No. Thanks.

Allow me to repeat myself: No. Thanks. You're welcome to send more money in if you want to. Send it to my wife -- she will dispose of it into the shoe industry.

http://www.ctj.org/html/armchr.htm
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Impossible? :D It's not time travel Dave.

I'm not nor did I say anything about lowering the amount paid. My whole premise is that the amount paid would be +/- the SAME hence the "revenue neutral" mentioned repeatedly.


Hypothetical examples

Big Dave

Income $100,000
Deductions $25,000
Tax owed $20,000

Smart Dave

Income $100,000
Tax Owed 20,000


Only difference is that Big Dave spent an entire day doing his taxes
and Smart Dave filled out his tax return on a post card sized form.
More...

Okay, so everybody will pay the same percentage of their income as they do now on a sliding scale where the rich pay more. Um... wait... a sliding scale isn't a flat tax.
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Okay, so everybody will pay the same percentage of their income as they do now on a sliding scale where the rich pay more. Um... wait... a sliding scale isn't a flat tax.
More...
A "flat/simplified" tax
idea isn't set in stone on how it could/would be implemented. A graduated/sliding scale flat tax would still be a flat rate tax and much simpler to boot.

Although I see now you're opposition to a overhauled tax system. You're scared to death the "rich" won't be paying "more".
At least that's been clarified. As for a legitimate objective reason for not exploring the idea, I have have yet to see one.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

A "flat/simplified" tax
idea isn't set in stone on how it could/would be implemented.
More...

That's true, because there's no variation of it that will work so the promoters of it have to shuffle from one type to another type.

A graduated/sliding scale flat tax would still be a flat rate tax and much simpler to boot.

Although I see now you're opposition to a overhauled tax system. You're scared to death the "rich" won't be paying "more".
At least that's been clarified. As for a legitimate objective reason for not exploring the idea, I have have yet to see one.
More...

Oka, ahere are some legitimate, objective reasons for not implementing a flat tax:

1) Because I don't want my taxes raised.

2) Because it will increase the deficit, as per the Treasury Department.

3) Because it is impossible to get rid of capital gains taxes and then have everybody paying less -- everybody (except the very rich) will pay more.
 
The problem with a flat tax (on income) is the marginal utility of a dollar. It removes the last brake on stratification. Only capital wants a flat tax; (on income, I'm exploring the idea on consumption--please post your links on that if you would).
 
Quote from bigdavediode:

Ok, a here are some legitimate, objective reasons for not implementing a flat tax:

1) Because I don't want my taxes raised.
More...
Why do you keep saying that? What part of REVENUE NEUTRAL don't you want to embrace?

2) Because it will increase the deficit, as per the Treasury Department.
More...
NOT if it's revenue neutral.

3) Because it is impossible to get rid of capital gains taxes and then have everybody paying less -- everybody (except the very rich) will pay more.
More...
Couldn't capital gains simply be counted as income?

You're gonna have to try harder that Dave.
 
When we allow people to keep more of what they make, they earn more- increasing the overall size of the pie. When you punish people for making more money, guess what happens...

When we have punitive tax measures, this removes incentive to create more wealth, and be more productive, create more value. It leads to less overall productivity, and less efficiency. Decreased economic output.

We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Most of Europe doesn't even have capital gains taxes. Of course western europe has more millionaires per capita that the USA now. Many here see this as "progress". When you tax the living hell out of investment, which is the fuel of innovation, this naturally impedes research and development. This slows the process of scientific and technological advancement. This is the "hidden tax" of the capital gains tax- one that we all pay very dearly for... Who knows what the average lifespan would be, and how many cures would have been developed if we didn't tax investment so heavily.

Quote from bigdavediode:

That's true, because there's no variation of it that will work so the promoters of it have to shuffle from one type to another type.



Oka, ahere are some legitimate, objective reasons for not implementing a flat tax:

1) Because I don't want my taxes raised.

2) Because it will increase the deficit, as per the Treasury Department.

3) Because it is impossible to get rid of capital gains taxes and then have everybody paying less -- everybody (except the very rich) will pay more.
More...
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Why do you keep saying that? What part of REVENUE NEUTRAL don't you want to embrace?

NOT if it's revenue neutral.

Couldn't capital gains simply be counted as income?

You're gonna have to try harder that Dave.
More...


No, that's directly from the Treasury Department. They state that a flat tax would increase the deficit massively. (As you can read from the link that I've already posted.)

You're not arguing with me at this point, you just keep repeating that it will be revenue neutral, and I keep trying to explain to you that this is impossible. You don't understand because you haven't reviewed the citations in the link I provided, and won't read them.
If you become any more repetitive I will have to make you my wife and have you mother my children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top