Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Last year, the Obamas paid a 25% higher tax rate than Mitt Romney - on only 3.5% of his last reported income   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, tax rates, adjusted gross income  
•       •       •

4340 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 3:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



329 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-12 02:50:21 PM  
WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??
 
2013-04-12 02:56:19 PM  
They only paid 18%?

Bunch of scammers
 
2013-04-12 03:11:11 PM  
BUT WHYCOME HE AINT GIVE IT ALL TO THE BLACKS BECAUSE HES SOCIALISM
 
2013-04-12 03:13:09 PM  
How much writing off is he doing?
 
2013-04-12 03:14:53 PM  
Indefinite reference is indefinite. Whose "his last reported income"?
 
2013-04-12 03:16:38 PM  
But Romney was a Job Creator*.

/*for China
 
2013-04-12 03:18:02 PM  
Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.
 
2013-04-12 03:18:22 PM  
I'm not racist but, I wasn't aware a person could write off certain food items just because that person is a you know what.
 
2013-04-12 03:18:32 PM  
This just in, if you work for a living, you pay a higher rate than somebody who just shuffles ones and zeroes around a digital marketplace.

/ in before somebody compares idle investing to computer programming
 
2013-04-12 03:18:36 PM  

s2s2s2: How much writing off is he doing?


47%
 
2013-04-12 03:18:49 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??


So the Bush tax cuts were fair after all!
 
2013-04-12 03:19:42 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: s2s2s2: How much writing off is he doing?

47%


BOOM

though to be fair, it was Romney who wrote off the 47%.
 
2013-04-12 03:21:22 PM  
How long before somebody confuses effective tax rates and marginal tax rates?

And Uncle Joe needs a better accountant. He's up at 22%.
 
2013-04-12 03:21:39 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


Login:    Lawyers With Nukes     
Account created:    2013-03-30 15:44:11

hmm....
 
2013-04-12 03:22:15 PM  
This just in: the election was 6 months ago

/what does this matter now?
 
2013-04-12 03:23:35 PM  

FlashHarry: Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Login:    Lawyers With Nukes     
Account created:    2013-03-30 15:44:11

hmm....


Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


I've let it sink in. Yes I should put you on my ignore list you're right.
 
2013-04-12 03:23:39 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This just in: the election was 6 months ago

/what does this matter now?


I'm not voting for Obama for a third term.
 
2013-04-12 03:24:11 PM  
I paid 25% in federal income tax alone last year - ouch. More than Obama, even after adjusting for his big charitable deductions.
 
2013-04-12 03:24:40 PM  

skullkrusher: though to be fair, it was Romney who wrote off the 47%.


and this is why I love you.
 
2013-04-12 03:24:44 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This just in: the election was 6 months ago

/what does this matter now?


It is difficult to release your 2012 taxes returns ten weeks before 2012 ends.
 
2013-04-12 03:26:47 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


Of course, they gave a hair under 25% of their income away to charities - actual charities, like Fisher House, not their private social club - so it only makes sense that their effective tax rate is a bit lower.
 
2013-04-12 03:29:36 PM  
  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: I paid 25% in federal income tax alone last year - ouch. More than Obama, even after adjusting for his big charitable deductions.


My Marginal was 25% this year, but my effective was 19%.
 
2013-04-12 03:29:40 PM  

static.guim.co.uk
JOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOB C REATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREAT ORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORSJOBCREATORS

 
2013-04-12 03:30:20 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: skullkrusher: though to be fair, it was Romney who wrote off the 47%.

and this is why I love you.


jeez, get a room us
 
2013-04-12 03:30:26 PM  
Now I have to read another shiatty Politics Tab thread.

THANKS, OBAMA.
 
2013-04-12 03:31:53 PM  
The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.
 
2013-04-12 03:32:07 PM  
It's also worth noting that Obama didn't elect not to claim his charitable contributions on his tax return in order to artificially inflate his own tax rate while people were watching, leaving himself free to later amend his return and claim it after all.
 
2013-04-12 03:32:23 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


well....lookit who we have here.


back to gray 2 with you.
 
2013-04-12 03:32:57 PM  

kronicfeld: didn't elect not to


wut?
 
2013-04-12 03:34:09 PM  
Therefore Mr. John Galt is automatically President and Mr. Obama must carry a giant globe on his back.

/I am certain that someone will provide reference to President Obama criticizing the burdensome tax rate of families earning more than $500,000 per year.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:24 PM  
i79.photobucket.com


now that's just sad.
 
2013-04-12 03:34:35 PM  

Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.


you were not farking paying 30% in federal income tax, marginal or effective hth
 
2013-04-12 03:34:55 PM  

Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.


that had to include state and local
 
2013-04-12 03:35:35 PM  

kronicfeld: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Of course, they gave a hair under 25% of their income away to charities - actual charities, like Fisher House, not their private social club - so it only makes sense that their effective tax rate is a bit lower.


Fisher House Foundation, David A. Coker, President.
2011 Compensation:  $393,850

Oh my Farking God. This dude got $400k to administer a charity?

Buddy, I don't think the Fisher House should have been your first example!
 
2013-04-12 03:37:24 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Oh my Farking God. This dude got $400k to administer a charity?


I live with my mom
 
2013-04-12 03:38:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local


Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.
 
2013-04-12 03:39:04 PM  
Jackson Herring: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

you were not farking paying 30% in federal income tax, marginal or effective hth

Point of reference: I made $22k last year.  My effective rate was 5.53%.

/I'm at home, the tax documents were handy
 
2013-04-12 03:39:09 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.


I assumed that the Obama number included that
 
2013-04-12 03:40:39 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??


See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!
 
2013-04-12 03:41:30 PM  
WHAR 1040 LONG FORM, WHAR?!


/you know that will be next
 
2013-04-12 03:41:51 PM  

sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??

See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!


*rolleyes*
 
2013-04-12 03:42:25 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: WHAR 1040 LONG FORM, WHAR?!


/you know that will be next


"I hid it in the stack of Romney's returns.  Happy hunting!"
 
2013-04-12 03:43:00 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that


Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while
 
2013-04-12 03:43:23 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while


sure it's on there.
 
2013-04-12 03:43:30 PM  
I'm just glad that he paid any taxes, what with him not being a US citizen and all.
 
2013-04-12 03:43:45 PM  

skullkrusher: sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??

See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!

*rolleyes*


What, are you trying to deny that there isn't a recently put-forth pretender to the position of POTUS that didn't espouse the view that it's the highest form of patriotic to pay the lowest taxes possible?
 
2013-04-12 03:44:00 PM  

Kome: I'm just glad that he paid any taxes, what with him not being a US citizen and all.


He's got a TIN
 
2013-04-12 03:44:46 PM  
The President's effective federal income tax rate is 18.4 percent.
 
2013-04-12 03:45:12 PM  

sugardave: skullkrusher: sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??

See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!

*rolleyes*

What, are you trying to deny that there isn't a recently put-forth pretender to the position of POTUS that didn't espouse the view that it's the highest form of patriotic to pay the lowest taxes possible?


no, I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that the two of you are, presumably unwittingly, referring to the Bush tax cuts as a "fair tax rate" for a couple who made over $600k last year.
 
2013-04-12 03:45:23 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

sure it's on there.


On your 1040? I know its on your W-2, but I didn't think you put that on your 1040 anywhere.
 
2013-04-12 03:46:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?


No. SS & Medicare taxes do not appear anywhere on a federal income tax return unless you are paying the self-employment tax.
 
2013-04-12 03:46:35 PM  

skullkrusher: sugardave: skullkrusher: sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??

See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!

*rolleyes*

What, are you trying to deny that there isn't a recently put-forth pretender to the position of POTUS that didn't espouse the view that it's the highest form of patriotic to pay the lowest taxes possible?

no, I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that the two of you are, presumably unwittingly, referring to the Bush tax cuts as a "fair tax rate" for a couple who made over $600k last year.


No, I was just thinking of the percentage number.  I'm still in the hospital (checking out today) with meds coursing through me, so don't expect anything deep from me.
 
2013-04-12 03:47:51 PM  

skullkrusher: no, I'm rolling my eyes at the fact that the two of you are, presumably unwittingly, referring to the Bush tax cuts as a "fair tax rate" for a couple who made over $600k last year.


It's a much fairer effective rate for a couple who gave away to legitimate charities and thereby relinquished all use of $150,000 of that income.
 
2013-04-12 03:48:10 PM  

Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.


You were a college freshman in 1946?
 
2013-04-12 03:48:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

sure it's on there.

On your 1040? I know its on your W-2, but I didn't think you put that on your 1040 anywhere.


huh... maybe not. Turbotax does the heavy lifting. I guess I am thinking of the W2
 
2013-04-12 03:50:51 PM  
He must have written off an awful lot of farts and bongos.
 
2013-04-12 03:53:06 PM  
He needs a better accountant.
 
2013-04-12 03:54:37 PM  
Godamammit so much. When are we going to stop burning calories over who pays what tax rate? The current tax code has so many deductions, exceptions, loopholes, ins and outs that it makes the whole subject useless to discuss without talking about wholesale reform.
 
2013-04-12 03:55:58 PM  

ManRay: Godamammit so much. When are we going to stop burning calories over who pays what tax rate? The current tax code has so many deductions, exceptions, loopholes, ins and outs that it makes the whole subject useless to discuss without talking about wholesale reform.


FAIRTAX!!!

/jk
 
2013-04-12 03:57:10 PM  
Who in the hell is Mitt Romney?
 
2013-04-12 04:01:32 PM  

ManRay: Godamammit so much. When are we going to stop burning calories over who pays what tax rate? The current tax code has so many deductions, exceptions, loopholes, ins and outs that it makes the whole subject useless to discuss without talking about wholesale reform.


Because actions speak louder than words. These people preach about giving back to your country, then they pull this in broad daylight. Their arrogance is just absolutely astounding.

When are we going to wake up and realize we've been bamboozled?
 
2013-04-12 04:02:33 PM  

Mrtraveler01: FAIRTAX!!!


Have you read the proposal?
 
2013-04-12 04:04:08 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while


Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"
 
2013-04-12 04:04:52 PM  
18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.
 
2013-04-12 04:08:42 PM  
Don't question your betters, submitter.
 
2013-04-12 04:11:22 PM  

Tom_Slick: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"


it's a real PITA. This is the last year I am doing it myself. I say that every year but I mean it this time. I did a good number of options trades last year and they do not get reported on the standard 1099-B so you have to do all the farking calculations yourself. Can't even download them directly into TurboTax like you can ordinary stock trades because they don't appear in a standardized format. Plus fark the AMT. I wanna find a crooked accountant who will take all the blame for massaging things so I don't have to pay that shiat anymore
 
2013-04-12 04:11:51 PM  

Epoch_Zero: 18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.


everyone who makes that kind of jack should.
 
2013-04-12 04:12:02 PM  

Epoch_Zero: 18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.


Just him?
 
2013-04-12 04:12:26 PM  
silverunderground.com

Does not approve.
 
2013-04-12 04:15:59 PM  
Romney isn't a hypocrite, before he supported low taxes.  Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.
 
2013-04-12 04:18:38 PM  

SlothB77: Romney isn't a hypocrite, before he supported low taxes.  Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.


And both support paying what you statutorily owe. So?
 
2013-04-12 04:19:08 PM  
Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story
 
2013-04-12 04:20:24 PM  
Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.

He is a hypocrite because he paid the amount of taxes that he is supposed to?
 
2013-04-12 04:21:11 PM  

SlothB77: Romney isn't a hypocrite, before he supported low taxes.  Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.


Following the rules while arguing they should be changed is not hypocrisy.
 
2013-04-12 04:21:32 PM  

SlothB77: Romney isn't a hypocrite, before he supported low taxes.  Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.


Man, you tortured that logic like a prisoner in the gulag!
 
2013-04-12 04:21:48 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Mrtraveler01: FAIRTAX!!!

Have you read the proposal?


Yeah, replace the income tax with a 30% sales tax.

The rest is just accounting BS to mask what a terrible idea it really is.
 
2013-04-12 04:22:22 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Epoch_Zero: 18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.

everyone who makes that kind of jack should.


meh
 
2013-04-12 04:23:39 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Indefinite reference is indefinite. Whose "his last reported income"?


Pay no attention to that whargharbll, because whargarbll whargharbll!!!  Headline obfuscation is so much fun and profitable!
 
2013-04-12 04:23:40 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Epoch_Zero: 18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.

Just him?


YES
EVERY MAN IS HIS OWN SOVEREIGN COUNTRY
i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-04-12 04:24:17 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.
 
2013-04-12 04:26:34 PM  

Epoch_Zero: JusticeandIndependence: Epoch_Zero: 18% is bullshiat.  He should pay 40%.

Just him?

YES
EVERY MAN IS HIS OWN SOVEREIGN COUNTRY
[i3.kym-cdn.com image 374x400]


FREE MAN ON THE LAND
 
2013-04-12 04:27:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.


If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.
 
2013-04-12 04:27:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 The President and CEO of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers, Inc thanks you for your business.

 
2013-04-12 04:27:49 PM  

SlothB77: Romney isn't a hypocrite, before he supported low taxes.  Obama is a hypocrite, because he supports tax hikes for the rich.

's blah.
 
2013-04-12 04:28:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story



Let's say 90%. That way the Owners of the Means of Production still get 10% of the profit, which will still give them more money than they deserve.

The government will take their 90% cut, and use it to improve the condition of the people that did the actual work, you know, THE WORKERS.
 
2013-04-12 04:28:19 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: I'm not racist but, I wasn't aware a person could write off certain food items just because that person is a you know what.


If you start your sentence with that, then you likely actually are racist.

/ 6/10
 
2013-04-12 04:29:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.


Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?
 
2013-04-12 04:29:54 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


Bullshiat bullshiat bullshiat.

So then on my labor income, can I count the money that my company paid in taxes? That's money that I helped contribute so that should lower my burden right? Not to mention that it's not like we actually do that math at the corporate level.  If GE pays an effective rate of 0% this year, suddenly are stockholders asked to pay 30% on their capital gains for sales of GE stock? No, they aren't.
 
2013-04-12 04:33:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.


Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?
 
2013-04-12 04:34:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Yeah, replace the income tax with a 30% sales tax.

The rest is just accounting BS to mask what a terrible idea it really is.


In other words you haven't read it. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-04-12 04:36:00 PM  

nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Bullshiat bullshiat bullshiat.

So then on my labor income, can I count the money that my company paid in taxes? That's money that I helped contribute so that should lower my burden right? Not to mention that it's not like we actually do that math at the corporate level.  If GE pays an effective rate of 0% this year, suddenly are stockholders asked to pay 30% on their capital gains for sales of GE stock? No, they aren't.


No, your company deducted the wages they pay you from their taxable income, so they didn't pay taxes on it. You do pay taxes on that income. It's taxes once.

Conversely, companies are not allowed to to deduct dividend payments to investors. They pay a tax on earnings, and then investors pay a tax when they get what's left. Taxed twice.
 
2013-04-12 04:36:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?


I consider people who think dividend and capital gains income, which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people in this country, is inherently different from wages made by the little people in the context of paying income taxes to be idiots.

Does that answer your question.
 
2013-04-12 04:36:09 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?


Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.
 
2013-04-12 04:37:11 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?


Hilarious.
 
2013-04-12 04:38:35 PM  

kronicfeld: It's also worth noting that Obama didn't elect not to claim his charitable contributions on his tax return in order to artificially inflate his own tax rate while people were watching, leaving himself free to later amend his return and claim it after all.


Somehow I missed that part, but since it was stated right there in the effing article how much he claimed for charitable deductions, I'm not sure what I missed???

But keep at it.  I'm sure if you spin and troll long enough, I'll finally realize that he is, in fact, black.
 
2013-04-12 04:39:25 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?


By the way, I'm sure you know that short-term capital gains are taxed as regular income. I know because I got a modest stock option award a few years ago and surprisingly didn't have 10s of thousands of dollars handy to buy the shares and sit on them for over a year before selling to take advantage of that special rate. I had to buy/sell in the same day in order to realize some of the proceeds.

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?
 
2013-04-12 04:40:58 PM  

kronicfeld: It's also worth noting that Obama didn't elect not to claim his charitable contributions on his tax return in order to artificially inflate his own tax rate while people were watching, leaving himself free to later amend his return and claim it after all.


wow, I missed the word "not" in your double negative sentence and don't I feel like a douchebag now...  My apologies
 
2013-04-12 04:41:31 PM  

theknuckler_33: Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?


I don't know that there are any stats on this but it would make sense that people with lower incomes tend to have more LTCGs than STCGs, not the other way around
 
2013-04-12 04:41:49 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?

Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.


Stock price is absolutely reflexive of investors expectations regarding future profits, inclusive of taxes.

If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expense will be). Conversely, if we raised corporate income taxes to 75%, stocks would crater. Again, because investors are cognizant of corporate taxes and include them in their valuation models.
 
2013-04-12 04:42:16 PM  

ourbigdumbmouth: They only paid 18%?

Bunch of scammers


gave away 1/4 of their income to charity, which helps
 
2013-04-12 04:46:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?

By the way, I'm sure you know that short-term capital gains are taxed as regular income. I know because I got a modest stock option award a few years ago and surprisingly didn't have 10s of thousands of dollars handy to buy the shares and sit on them for over a year before selling to take advantage of that special rate. I had to buy/sell in the same day in order to realize some of the proceeds.

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?


Because the tax code was structured to incentivize long term investment, not short term trading or speculation.

Gains on options is somewhat speculative and are treated as ordinary income, I believe whether you hold the option for a day or two years.

What you describe is also a point of many liberals who believe hedge funds get a benefit from lower cap gains rates. Many hedge funds buy and sell on a short term basis and therefore pay ordinary rates.
 
2013-04-12 04:46:50 PM  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: I paid 25% in federal income tax alone last year - ouch. More than Obama, even after adjusting for his big charitable deductions.


Nope he edged you ever so slightly.  He had 609000 in Gross income, donated 25% of that to charity and paid 109000 of just a we bit over 1/4 or 25% of the remaining income in taxes
 
2013-04-12 04:47:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Mrtraveler01: FAIRTAX!!!

Have you read the proposal?


I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax. Tell us all the merits of replacing income tax with a 30% federal sales tax.

While massive fail will you pick? Will it be the standard fair tax advocate basic math fail of not understanding that the proposal does indeed call for a 30% tax on top of the base cost of things? Will you engage in the typical denial and hand waving about how a 30% sales tax will create a massive black market? I can't to hear your defense of the fair tax!
 
2013-04-12 04:48:16 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. If I then sell that car later to someone else, that person has to pay sales tax on it... at the same rate.  Don't give us that double-taxation bullshiat. It is income and should be taxed as income just like wages.

Oh my god, " sales taxes". I love that argument.

I generally try not to use the term "double taxation", because it's not exactly double.

Do you consider people who describe corporate tax/dividend and capital gains tax as "double taxation" to be idiots?

I consider people who think dividend and capital gains income, which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people in this country, is inherently different from wages made by the little people in the context of paying income taxes to be idiots.

Does that answer your question.


No, not at all. But if you are correct and corporate income is no different from wages then why is corporate income taxed twice?
 
2013-04-12 04:49:12 PM  
I don't know why I'm looking at someone else's tax returns, but for some reason the "Your Occupation: US PRESIDENT  Spouse's occupation: US FIRST LADY" cracks me up.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:14 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?

Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.

Stock price is absolutely reflexive of investors expectations regarding future profits, inclusive of taxes.

If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...


Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:43 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

I don't know that there are any stats on this but it would make sense that people with lower incomes tend to have more LTCGs than STCGs, not the other way around


I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.
 
2013-04-12 04:49:49 PM  

GAT_00: I made $22k last year.


What's your degree in again?
 
2013-04-12 04:50:26 PM  

Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax


Your quote is evidence that you haven't.
 
2013-04-12 04:50:29 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


Let's say 90%. That way the Owners of the Means of Production still get 10% of the profit, which will still give them more money than they deserve.

The government will take their 90% cut, and use it to improve the condition of the people that did the actual work, you know, THE WORKERS.


You are a delusional neo-communist, but at least you answered my question, so thank you.

Anybody else want to take a shot at providing a number?
 
2013-04-12 04:51:35 PM  
Did he deduct the White House mortgage interest?
 
2013-04-12 04:52:21 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This just in: the election was 6 months ago

/what does this matter now?


Well, taxes weren't due in October you know, so we had to use the time machine.
 
2013-04-12 04:52:41 PM  
theknuckler_33:

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

That's the problem with using morality arguments when people bring up taxation.  They fall apart quickly. Short term capital gains are taxed higher as a way to encourage more stable behavior from investors.

Moral arguments about taxation are simply retarded in my book. "It's theft if you make people that make more pay a higher rate!"  Ok, but it's not theft to make them pay more in absoloute values but pay the same percent for some reason?  Either way they are paying more.  Isn't that just as immoral? Are we all supposed to pay 10k a year and be done with it?

All I know is that I pay a higher effective rate than most people do, and I also pay a higher absoloute dollar value than most people do. Why is it fair that Romney pays a lower rate than I do? Obama seems to be beating me too, but at least that is due to huge charitable contributions.

Debeo Summa Credo: nocturnal001: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Bullshiat bullshiat bullshiat.

So then on my labor income, can I count the money that my company paid in taxes? That's money that I helped contribute so that should lower my burden right? Not to mention that it's not like we actually do that math at the corporate level. If GE pays an effective rate of 0% this year, suddenly are stockholders asked to pay 30% on their capital gains for sales of GE stock? No, they aren't.

No, your company deducted the wages they pay you from their taxable income, so they didn't pay taxes on it. You do pay taxes on that income. It's taxes once.

Conversely, companies are not allowed to to deduct dividend payments to investors. They pay a tax on earnings, and then investors pay a tax when they get what's left. Taxed twice.


Yes, I used a bad example you got me on that one.

So, then why isn't it just dividends that receive the lower rate? Why not price appreciation which has nothing to do with what the company pays out and which represents the bulk of stock returns?

Either way. Taxed twice is a silly argument. I'm taxed twice all the time. I'm taxed on my income, when I spend that income I pay federal gas taxes, local income, sales tax, a bazillion different taxes on my phone/cable internet bills, import tariffs and on and on.
 
2013-04-12 04:53:28 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.


Perhaps you shouldn't talk about "stupid" when you are repeating the same untruth that has been explained to you countless times.

No, only dividends were already taxes at the corporate level. Capital gains, like the gains of a stock transaction, are not taxed at the corporate level. The money (outside of public offerings) never is even in the hands of the company. It never gets directly taxed at the corporate level since it never even exists at the corporate level.

How many time does this need to be explained to you? Hey, remember just the other day when you were complaining about "farklibs" who pretend they know about economics and business but don't? And yet here you are, demonstrating once again you don't have the first farking clue about any of these things despite this very topic being explained to you repeatedly using small words so you might one day understand. You are the perfect example of what you decry.
 
2013-04-12 04:53:39 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

Capital gains weren't taxed at the corporate level.

I buy buy stock in DSC Corporate Cocksuckers at $10 a share. Your business is so good that 5 years later I sell it at $100 a share. The income I derive from the increase in the value of the stock never passes through the hands of DSC Corporate Cocksuckers to be taxed.

Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Or do you assume that all investors are as stupid as you, and don't consider the taxes that will be paid on the company's future great earnings?

Nope. DSC Corporate Cocksuckers stock value could have increased without ever showing a dime in taxable profit. Stock price is not a direct reflection of the company's profit., let alone it's tax bill.

More importantly , the money that changes hands in the stock transaction is entirely independent of the company, and in no way is subject to corporate taxes.

Stock price is absolutely reflexive of investors expectations regarding future profits, inclusive of taxes.

If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.


I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.
 
2013-04-12 04:54:57 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: I consider people who think dividend and capital gains income, which disproportionately goes to the wealthiest people in this country, is inherently different from wages made by the little people in the context of paying income taxes to be idiots.

Does that answer your question.

No, not at all. But if you are correct and corporate income is no different from wages then why is corporate income taxed twice?


It's not. Corporate income is taxed once. Personal income is taxed once. Maybe the 'owners' should just actually work for the company and pay themselves a higher salary if they want more money. At least that way it is a deductible expense on the business' balance sheet.

Oh right... working is for THOSE people.
 
2013-04-12 04:56:00 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.

I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.


You can't argue because you are profoundly wrong about basic facts.
 
2013-04-12 04:56:56 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

I don't know that there are any stats on this but it would make sense that people with lower incomes tend to have more LTCGs than STCGs, not the other way around

I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.


That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.
 
2013-04-12 04:58:30 PM  

nocturnal001: theknuckler_33:

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially?  In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

That's the problem with using morality arguments when people bring up taxation.  They fall apart quickly. Short term capital gains are taxed higher as a way to encourage more stable behavior from investors.


short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.
 
2013-04-12 04:58:43 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Sure it is, you idiot. Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?


Ah, and the standard backpedaling has begun. To answer your question, it might, it might not. Stocks are crazy things. Sometimes their price has fark all to do with the taxes they pay. Stocks can rise on companies who haven't even yet mad a profit to tax.

Now let's remind you of the argument you actually made, since it was not "taxes can potentially have an effect on stock prices", it was, and I quote:

"Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level."

Are you now ready to admit that this not true?
 
2013-04-12 05:00:07 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: If we abolished corporate income taxes tomorrow, stock prices would skyrocket because investors would now anticipate after tax earnings going up by 30-40% (whatever the impact of the reduction in tax expe ...

Even if one could make that claim with certainty, that in no way effects your original false statement. (But to play your silly little game, if it was announced tomorrow that corporate taxes were entirely eliminated, it is likely that the value of stocks across the board would plummet in reflection of what that insane act would do to government revenues and spending and the effect on the over all economy. Most investors are smarter than you and understand those kind of effects)

The money involved in transactions from sales of stock that are subject to capital gains are not taxed at the corporate level because that money is entirely independent of the corporation. That money never appears in the corporate books. It is not taxed at the corporate level.

I just can't hope to get through to someone so deluded to think that the elimination of corporate taxes would cause stocks to plummet.

You can't argue because you are profoundly wrong about basic facts.


Oh and let me add this little fact that you will claim is simply impossible:

Corporate taxes went up in various ways on January 1, 2013.

Since that time the S&P 500 had risen 11.41%
 
2013-04-12 05:00:50 PM  
How does anybody know what Romney paid?
 
2013-04-12 05:01:34 PM  
Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?
 
2013-04-12 05:02:25 PM  

Lord_Baull: How does anybody know what Romney paid?


pretty sure it's in reference to his 2011 returns
 
2013-04-12 05:02:42 PM  

Thrag: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level.

Perhaps you shouldn't talk about "stupid" when you are repeating the same untruth that has been explained to you countless times.

No, only dividends were already taxes at the corporate level. Capital gains, like the gains of a stock transaction, are not taxed at the corporate level. The money (outside of public offerings) never is even in the hands of the company. It never gets directly taxed at the corporate level since it never even exists at the corporate level.

How many time does this need to be explained to you? Hey, remember just the other day when you were complaining about "farklibs" who pretend they know about economics and business but don't? And yet here you are, demonstrating once again you don't have the first farking clue about any of these things despite this very topic being explained to you repeatedly using small words so you might one day understand. You are the perfect example of what you decry.


Again, do you not realize that tax rates on corporate income affect the valuations (stock prices) of those companies, and therefore the capital gains earned upon sale of stock by owners? Do you truly believe that stock investors completely disregard corporate income taxes?

If you are too feeble minded to understand that stock prices are reflective of expected future earnigs, including anticipated taxes, then stick to dividends. At least you are bright enough to recognize that that income is taxed twice.
 
2013-04-12 05:02:54 PM  

Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?


Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.
 
2013-04-12 05:02:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax

Your quote is evidence that you haven't.


Please correct me then. If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?
 
2013-04-12 05:03:30 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.



Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?
 
2013-04-12 05:05:28 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?

Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.


that cheap fark should pay her in BRK-A stock so she should enjoy the benefits too. Here you go, Mrs Secretary. Your full year's salary. 1 share.
 
2013-04-12 05:05:39 PM  

theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.


Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.
 
2013-04-12 05:05:56 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Cletus C.: Any word on what Warren Buffett's secretary paid?

Yes.  An effective rate higher than Warren Buffet.


Maybe. She might have gotten a raise and paid less this year.
 
2013-04-12 05:06:46 PM  

madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.


oh FFS
 
2013-04-12 05:09:03 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.

That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.


I was making a point about how LTCG income disproportionately goes to the ~1% (or 5%... whatever). Sure a person with a modest income can accumulate small amounts of shares over time and eventually take advantage of the LTCG rates after years of investing... compared to someone who can buy thousands and thousands of shares (or more commonly gets them as part of their executive compensation package) every single year so that, after the first year has a steady supply of shares he can dump and only pay 15% on the income.
 
2013-04-12 05:12:33 PM  

madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.


So, like a "flat" tax?
 
2013-04-12 05:12:56 PM  

skullkrusher: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

oh FFS


I agree with him (her?)... although I'm ok with an exemption on inheritances up to a certain amount ($5 mil?).
 
2013-04-12 05:13:22 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Who in the hell is Mitt Romney?


Isn't he the guy from that book that stops working because of the "takers"?
 
2013-04-12 05:14:38 PM  
oh god some double-tax moron is in this thread.

Income is income is income.  Don't give me some word-salad rich guys paid nerds to come up with to justify why they get special privileges.
 
2013-04-12 05:15:03 PM  

Thrag: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I have. Please go ahead and advocate a 30% national sales tax

Your quote is evidence that you haven't.

Please correct me then. If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?


According to them, it would still be $100.

How you ask? It's magic!
 
2013-04-12 05:20:24 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

oh FFS

I agree with him (her?)... although I'm ok with an exemption on inheritances up to a certain amount ($5 mil?).


the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.
 
2013-04-12 05:21:11 PM  
[reaches through the monitor, twists LawyersWith Nukes' head off, begins to gnaw thoughtfully on the squishy bits]
 
2013-04-12 05:21:25 PM  

pacified: oh god some double-tax moron is in this thread.


It's not just some dobule tax moron, it's fark preeminent double tax moron. Someone who has had the facts pointed out to them literally dozens of times and yet still goes on repeating the same lies, all the while calling everyone else ignorant. It's like this guy has a bot to alert him of any mention of capital gains taxes so he can make the same bougs claims that all capital gains are taxed at the corporate level.

We've got both a "double tax" and a "fair tax" moron. My favorite types of economic morons. Although the fair tax morons always demonstrate that they lead all others in sheer ignorance and idiocy, usually by making it clear they cannot understand either basic math or the actual fair tax proposal itself (which today's fair tax moron seems about to demonstrate unless he flees the thread).
 
2013-04-12 05:22:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?


Last I checked, there were no atheists in Fox holes. ;)

Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.
 
2013-04-12 05:22:17 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.

That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.

I was making a point about how LTCG income disproportionately goes to the ~1% (or 5%... whatever). Sure a person with a modest income can accumulate small amounts of shares over time and eventually take advantage of the LTCG rates after years of investing... compared to someone who can buy thousands and thousands of shares (or more commonly gets them as part of their executive compensation package) every single year so that, afte ...


that's just a matter of wealthier people having more money to invest and therefore earn greater amounts. I don't think there's a bias against lower income people when it comes to paying LT vs ST cap gains. If they have cap gains, it makes sense to me that they are more often than not of the LT variety
 
2013-04-12 05:23:14 PM  
I want to remind some people in this thread that Obama has advocated for higher taxes on high income earners like himself.  He has said this many times in his speeches.  If his effective tax rate of 18% is too low, that's not because he wants it or likes it.  He's willing to pay more in taxes because he can afford to do so.
 
2013-04-12 05:25:17 PM  

Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?


$100
 
2013-04-12 05:26:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100


Oh sweet mother of God......
 
2013-04-12 05:28:41 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Lord_Baull: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?

Last I checked, there were no atheists in Fox holes. ;)

Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.


what the fark are you trying to say?  Spit it out man.
 
2013-04-12 05:29:12 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


Deductions and effective tax rates...how do they work.
Here's a tip- real lawyers would know.
 
2013-04-12 05:30:00 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.


There's a distinct lack of "sheeple" in your post.
 
2013-04-12 05:30:12 PM  
So....BamBam is a hypocrite merely for paying his income taxes.
 
2013-04-12 05:31:30 PM  

skullkrusher: the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.


The system could easily be set to percentage-out the principle from the gains and pay different rates for each. My 401k is already about 3/4 gains. And I do agree that a 401k is a great deal. But the mother of all great deals is the LTCG tax rate - a flat 15% and no exposure to payroll taxes. To get a better deal than that requires offshore action or loopholes put their by your bought & paid for Congress-critter.

To put it simply, rich people can afford to get paid in stock. By holding it over a year they get to pay only 15% in addition to the benefit of not having to pay anything to Social Security or Medicare.

Hence my argument about treating all money received the same. Keep the same marginal rates, maybe add one more at 40% at 500k or 750k, but otherwise treat every method of receiving money / gains the same,
 
2013-04-12 05:33:27 PM  
my fellow tax livestock citizens

Oh, I geddit now.

Lawyers, whose head I am still contemplatively gnawing on like a hunk of jerky, is one of those WHITE PEOPLE R TEH JUUZ 4 0BAMMA's OVENS types.
My, this jerky is chewy.
 
2013-04-12 05:34:05 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100


I have to remember to close the door to my office before reading your posts. I don't need everyone wondering why I'm laughing so hard at work.

I thought the fair tax guy in this thread was the stupidest possible fair tax supporter. And here you are to prove me wrong.

But hey, this should be fun, so why not go ahead and explain how a "23% inclusive" tax (which translates to a 30% sales tax) will make an item whose pre-tax price is $100, remain at $100. Remember, we are only talking about how much the tax adds to a purchase price, this has nothing to do with the "but companies will magically lower their prices when income taxes disappear" part of the fair tax "plan". I asked you only what the exact amount of tax on a $100 item is. If it helps  consider that $100 after the magical cost reduction benefits take place. What is the amount of tax on that $100? Are you still going to go with $100?
 
2013-04-12 05:34:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100


Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.
 
2013-04-12 05:38:22 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Lord_Baull: Lawyers With Nukes: $608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.

Let that sink in? We've been biatching that people in the upper tax brackets haven't been paying their fair share for YEARS! Where have you been, in a Fox hole?

Last I checked, there were no atheists in Fox holes. ;)

Me and my ilk have been watching from the sidelines, endlessly amused at the electorate unquestioningly supporting the Wrestlemania that is American politics. Even when presented with absolute proof, IN BLACK AND WHITE, that the politicos are merely actors playing their assigned roles, my fellow tax livestock citizens simply refuse to see, so complete is their indoctrination.



The important thing is that you've managed to feel superior to everyone else.
 
2013-04-12 05:38:34 PM  

madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.


Someone correct me if I am wrong but I though the price point was supposed to be close to the same because the cost of the items has taxes built into it already?
 
2013-04-12 05:38:47 PM  

Thrag: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

I have to remember to close the door to my office before reading your posts. I don't need everyone wondering why I'm laughing so hard at work.

I thought the fair tax guy in this thread was the stupidest possible fair tax supporter. And here you are to prove me wrong.

But hey, this should be fun, so why not go ahead and explain how a "23% inclusive" tax (which translates to a 30% sales tax) will make an item whose pre-tax price is $100, remain at $100. Remember, we are only talking about how much the tax adds to a purchase price, this has nothing to do with the "but companies will magically lower their prices when income taxes disappear" part of the fair tax "plan". I asked you only what the exact amount of tax on a $100 item is. If it helps  consider that $100 after the magical cost reduction benefits take place. What is the amount of tax on that $100? Are you still going to go with $100?


It is pretty simple if you just think about it:


Benghazi!
 
2013-04-12 05:39:19 PM  

madgonad: skullkrusher: the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.

The system could easily be set to percentage-out the principle from the gains and pay different rates for each. My 401k is already about 3/4 gains. And I do agree that a 401k is a great deal. But the mother of all great deals is the LTCG tax rate - a flat 15% and no exposure to payroll taxes. To get a better deal than that requires offshore action or loopholes put their by your bought & paid for Congress-critter.

To put it simply, rich people can afford to get paid in stock. By holding it over a year they get to pay only 15% in addition to the benefit of not having to pay anything to Social Security or Medicare.

Hence my argument about treating all money received the same. Keep the same marginal rates, maybe add one more at 40% at 500k or 750k, but otherwise treat every method of receiving money / gains the same,


your point is taken about the disparate tax rates for different types of income but 401k is pretty awesome and you're better off with that than you would be paying taxes on income now, investing it and then paying LTCGs down the road on the profits.

I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can
 
2013-04-12 05:39:30 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

oh FFS

I agree with him (her?)... although I'm ok with an exemption on inheritances up to a certain amount ($5 mil?).

the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.


It is an awesome deal. Not sure it's better than saving 20+% on the vast majority of my income every year for decades... but yea, it's a great deal.
 
2013-04-12 05:41:22 PM  

Kittypie070: So....BamBam is a hypocrite merely for paying his income taxes.


He wouldn't be if he did like Romney and never posted his income taxes, according to a FARKer above.
 
2013-04-12 05:41:39 PM  

madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.


apparently the only time taxes aren't legal theft is when they are disproportionately collected from the poors
 
2013-04-12 05:42:58 PM  

skullkrusher: I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can


I just wish the cap was a little higher.
 
2013-04-12 05:44:02 PM  

I alone am best: madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I though the price point was supposed to be close to the same because the cost of the items has taxes built into it already?


For that to be true, you would have to believe that all taxes get reflected in the costs of goods. However there are taxes, such as capital gains and inheritance taxes which would not be reflected in the cost of goods. You would also have to believe that corporations would pass along 100% of their tax savings onto consumers.
 
2013-04-12 05:44:22 PM  

Lord_Baull: Kittypie070: So....BamBam is a hypocrite merely for paying his income taxes.

He wouldn't be if he did like Romney and never posted his income taxes, according to a FARKer above.


Does he have to? We get these annual "what the president paid" stories. Is it required or just some tradition?
 
2013-04-12 05:45:17 PM  

I alone am best: skullkrusher: I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can

I just wish the cap was a little higher.


player
 
2013-04-12 05:46:18 PM  

Thrag: But hey, this should be fun, so why not go ahead and explain how a "23% inclusive" tax (which translates to a 30% sales tax) will make an item whose pre-tax price is $100, remain at $100. Remember, we are only talking about how much the tax adds to a purchase price, this has nothing to do with the "but companies will magically lower their prices when income taxes disappear" part of the fair tax "plan". I asked you only what the exact amount of tax on a $100 item is. If it helps  consider that $100 after the magical cost reduction benefits take place. What is the amount of tax on that $100? Are you still going to go with $100?


There are a lot of impacts from shifting to a consumption tax.

First off, retail would wither anywhere within 100 miles of the Mexico / Canada border. That would hammer San Diego, Los Angeles, Seatle, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and various parts of New England.

Second off, those hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists that come from Europe and Asia to drop serious money in New York and LA - that goes away too. Part of the reason they come here is to avoid their local sales and Value Added Taxes. A high consumption tax here would do just the opposite.

Third, the new car industry would kerplode. That $30k sedan just got an effective price boost up to almost $40k.

Fourth, property crime would have a renaissance. Stolen goods would become even more lucrative.

Fifth, the complexity of changing the point of enforcement from tens of thousands of HRs and annual filing to millions of POS's and trillions of transactions.

Sixth, the wealthy in this country would leave the country whenever possible to spend. An expensive trip to New York would relocate to London or Paris.

Seventh, RV and boat purchases would plummet at well.

I could go on.
 
2013-04-12 05:46:40 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: I don't know too many low income folks that can a) afford the kind of outlays that you need to buy stocks and hold onto them for over a year and b) tolerate the risk associated with such activity.  The only way to mitigate the risks is to have a diversified portfolio which requires even more investments in a variety of stocks across different sectors of the economy and I'd bet that there are even fewer lower income folks who can do that.  That doesn't even mention that the how much cap gains income you might even have if you are a low income investor. I mean... how many shares of IBM can a guy making 50k conceivably buy on an annual basis?

Most investments by low income folks, I think, are generally in IRAs or 401Ks where they invest in mutual funds, but withdrawals from IRAs and 401ks are taxed as regular income (unless its a Roth IRA)... so you don't get any benefit from cap gains rates there.

That's why lower income people who do invest directly (outside of a pension or 401k) tend to do so via mutual funds or in some cases, buying little bits of individual stocks at a time. To me that sounds more likely than lower income people flipping stocks for a quick profit.

Sharebuilder.com is a decent way to do that since it allows you to purchase fractional shares so even if you only have $100 a month to invest or whatever, you can buy .2326 shares of AAPL or 7.39 shares of F. That's usually impossible with most "traditional" brokers unless you already own stock and are set up for automatic dividend reinvestment.

I was making a point about how LTCG income disproportionately goes to the ~1% (or 5%... whatever). Sure a person with a modest income can accumulate small amounts of shares over time and eventually take advantage of the LTCG rates after years of investing... compared to someone who can buy thousands and thousands of shares (or more commonly gets them as part of their executive compensation package) every single ye ...


By default it is a bias though. If one class of people are essentially limited to labor income,and the other make the bulk of their income through investment income, then you are treating those two groups differently.

Not to open up a whole other can of worms, but this is also exacerbating the increasingly large division between the upper 1% or .1% and the rest of us.  Then of course you have the excellent arguments that the capital gains tax preference is not supposed to apply to people like Romney as their income really is labor income when you look at what they are doing.

The reality was that this tax rate was changed as a giveaway to the wealthy. All arguments as to why it was fair to do are just attempts to obscure that fact. Prior to 97 these guys paid 28%, which is what my marginal rate is.  Funny how it was fair before 97, but now it's a crime against humanity.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7696957/83583753#c83583753" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7696957/83583753#c8 3583753">theknuckler_33: nocturnal001: theknuckler_33:

Why is it ok to treat SOME capital gains preferentially? In particular, the kind of capital gains that again are mostly realized by a certain segment of society?

That's the problem with using morality arguments when people bring up taxation. They fall apart quickly. Short term capital gains are taxed higher as a way to encourage more stable behavior from investors.

short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.


Mmm, yeah that's what I meant. STG are taxed higher than LTCG, not higher than normal income.
 
2013-04-12 05:47:17 PM  
i wonder if we'll ever see mitt's '09 return - the one that likely shows that he took the swiss amnesty.
 
2013-04-12 05:47:50 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh sweet mother of God....


Yes?

madgonad: f the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.


Perhaps you should read it.

Jackson Herring: apparently the only time taxes aren't legal theft is when they are disproportionately collected from the poors


You too.

Until you have you are attempting to discuss something that you know nothing about. And y'all keep trying to tell me that you're the learned....Well, go do some learnin' and get back to me.
 
2013-04-12 05:48:15 PM  

skullkrusher: I alone am best: skullkrusher: I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can

I just wish the cap was a little higher.

player


If I want to eat Raman now so I can eat lobster when i'm senile I should be able to.
 
2013-04-12 05:48:53 PM  

I alone am best: madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I though the price point was supposed to be close to the same because the cost of the items has taxes built into it already?


Yeah, that is BS. Corporations pay taxes on profits - not gross. Prices are based upon material cost and labor. Anything extra they get to keep. Lowering income taxes doesn't provide ANY incentive to lowering prices. Just think about it. If your tax rate dropped, would you work for a lower salary?
 
2013-04-12 05:48:54 PM  
Historical capital gains rates, since we all seem to forget that 15% is a relatively new thing.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161"> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Hmm, I bet if you graph that and overlay it with a graph depicting middle class wealth those two will be about opposite on average.
 
2013-04-12 05:50:39 PM  

Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: Kittypie070: So....BamBam is a hypocrite merely for paying his income taxes.

He wouldn't be if he did like Romney and never posted his income taxes, according to a FARKer above.

Does he have to? We get these annual "what the president paid" stories. Is it required or just some tradition?



A tradition started by his father. Does he HAVE to? No. Does it bode well when every candidate since the 60's has done it, but he doesn't? Yes.
 
2013-04-12 05:52:54 PM  

I alone am best: skullkrusher: I alone am best: skullkrusher: I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can

I just wish the cap was a little higher.

player

If I want to eat Raman now so I can eat lobster when i'm senile I should be able to.


just don't eat lobster flavored Ramen because that's just gross
 
2013-04-12 05:53:24 PM  

madgonad: I alone am best: madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I though the price point was supposed to be close to the same because the cost of the items has taxes built into it already?

Yeah, that is BS. Corporations pay taxes on profits - not gross. Prices are based upon material cost and labor. Anything extra they get to keep. Lowering income taxes doesn't provide ANY incentive to lowering prices. Just think about it. If your tax rate dropped, would you work for a lower salary?


Oh, I know they wont. Just like how everyone's credit card interest rates were going to go down when they tightened up the bakruptcy rules. That was supposed to be the concept.
 
2013-04-12 05:53:35 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Until you have you are attempting to discuss something that you know nothing about. And y'all keep trying to tell me that you're the learned....Well, go do some learnin' and get back to me.


From the FairTax website:

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due tothe prebate. The FairTax rate afternecessitiesis 23% and equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.

So it's a large sales tax. Unless, of course, you would like to actually make an argument instead of stamp your feet and say "nu-uh!" some more.
 
2013-04-12 05:54:41 PM  

skullkrusher: I alone am best: skullkrusher: I alone am best: skullkrusher: I wish 401ks had more flexibility in terms of investment choices and the ability to invest in individual stocks but Imma still load mine up as much as I can

I just wish the cap was a little higher.

player

If I want to eat Raman now so I can eat lobster when i'm senile I should be able to.

just don't eat lobster flavored Ramen because that's just gross


I wont care, I will be senile, but my underwear will be made out of 100 dollar bills.
 
2013-04-12 05:56:52 PM  

skullkrusher: that's just a matter of wealthier people having more money to invest and therefore earn greater amounts.


That is the entire point. A HUGE amount of personal income has been declared 'special' and taxed at a lower rate and the vast majority of that particular kind of income just happens to go to the wealthy. the difference here is that some folks say "hey, the rules are the same for everyone, that's fair" while others are saying "the rules are different  depending on where the income comes from, that's not fair".

Income is income.
 
2013-04-12 05:57:27 PM  

Lord_Baull: Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: Kittypie070: So....BamBam is a hypocrite merely for paying his income taxes.

He wouldn't be if he did like Romney and never posted his income taxes, according to a FARKer above.

Does he have to? We get these annual "what the president paid" stories. Is it required or just some tradition?


A tradition started by his father. Does he HAVE to? No. Does it bode well when every candidate since the 60's has done it, but he doesn't? Yes.


I was asking about the president. It turns out he does not need to release his returns and many have only released partial returns or a summary.
 
2013-04-12 05:57:50 PM  
A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.
 
2013-04-12 05:58:28 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: And y'all keep trying to tell me that you're the learned...


Other than the voices in your head, who tells you that?  Oh, that's right.  Nobody.  Y'all.
 
2013-04-12 05:58:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: that's just a matter of wealthier people having more money to invest and therefore earn greater amounts.

That is the entire point. A HUGE amount of personal income has been declared 'special' and taxed at a lower rate and the vast majority of that particular kind of income just happens to go to the wealthy. the difference here is that some folks say "hey, the rules are the same for everyone, that's fair" while others are saying "the rules are different  depending on where the income comes from, that's not fair".

Income is income.


I thought we were talking about whether the cap gains paid by lower income earners tended to the ST or LT categories?
 
2013-04-12 06:04:56 PM  

Kittypie070: my fellow tax livestock citizens

Oh, I geddit now.

Lawyers, whose head I am still contemplatively gnawing on like a hunk of jerky, is one of those WHITE PEOPLE R TEH JUUZ 4 0BAMMA's OVENS types.
My, this jerky is chewy.



Kittypie070, please please please, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD...


...be sure to clean your plate!
 
2013-04-12 06:07:14 PM  

madgonad: skullkrusher: the reason you pay regular income taxes when you draw down a 401k or a traditional IRA is because you don't pay any taxes on the money you put it (up to a point). You don't accrue LT or ST cap gains while you trade, you don't pay cap gains taxes on investments in the account,  while getting the benefit of using pre-tax money. It's an awesome deal, not the consolation prize.

The system could easily be set to percentage-out the principle from the gains and pay different rates for each. My 401k is already about 3/4 gains. And I do agree that a 401k is a great deal. But the mother of all great deals is the LTCG tax rate - a flat 15% and no exposure to payroll taxes. To get a better deal than that requires offshore action or loopholes put their by your bought & paid for Congress-critter.

To put it simply, rich people can afford to get paid in stock. By holding it over a year they get to pay only 15% in addition to the benefit of not having to pay anything to Social Security or Medicare.

Hence my argument about treating all money received the same. Keep the same marginal rates, maybe add one more at 40% at 500k or 750k, but otherwise treat every method of receiving money / gains the same,


What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.
 
2013-04-12 06:14:11 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

So, like a "flat" tax?


Flat in the sense that income is income and certain types don't need to be elevated above the types normally associated with labor instead of capital.
 
2013-04-12 06:15:51 PM  
everystockphoto.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-12 06:17:02 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: that's just a matter of wealthier people having more money to invest and therefore earn greater amounts.

That is the entire point. A HUGE amount of personal income has been declared 'special' and taxed at a lower rate and the vast majority of that particular kind of income just happens to go to the wealthy. the difference here is that some folks say "hey, the rules are the same for everyone, that's fair" while others are saying "the rules are different  depending on where the income comes from, that's not fair".

Income is income.

I thought we were talking about whether the cap gains paid by lower income earners tended to the ST or LT categories?


You were. I was talking about the fact that the vast majority of LTCG income goes to the already wealthy. I suppose it is more likely that the cap gains income that IS realized by lower income earners tends to be LT rather than ST. But that's like discussing how much lower income earners fly first-class for recreation internationally vs. domestically. Either way, it's not much.
 
2013-04-12 06:18:27 PM  
I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

According to the website, the wealthy spend more money on stuff, so of course they are going to pay more in taxes. However, used items are untaxed, and I see no mention of home sales, so I must assume that all used home sales are untaxed, along with whatever capital gain may come with the sale. The wealthy can also afford to invest more of their income in stocks, bonds, etc., the capital gains of which would be untaxed. They would be able to grow their money at a much higher rate than now, and I can't see how that would drive them to buy so much they'd pay an even higher tax rate. They could maintain an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle but still grow their money at an even more extraordinary tax free rate and end up even wealthier with a lower tax burden as a result. People can only consume so much.

Business transactions including goods and services are untaxed, so would it be possible for two "business owners" to do favors for each other that end up untaxed as a result, even if the underlying reason was for personal gain? How would you prove otherwise?

That's not even getting into the sales tax business, which claims to help the poor with a "prebate", a prebate based on spending on new goods and services. Poor people buy a lot of used stuff, so no prebate. A used house would be untaxed at sale, so no prebate on that mortgage. Is their a sales tax on rent? If not, no prebate. Poor people are going to be spending most of their money on their living expenses and used vehicles, they're not out buying a lot of nice new stuff. That seems to make the whole prebate thing kind of useless. Are people supposed to keep track of everything they spend money on so they can get their prebate? There's no IRS, so who do you report this to? Am I missing some fundamental component?

How the fark is this supposed to be "fair"? The whole thing screams "fark you poor people".
 
2013-04-12 06:19:37 PM  

skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.


Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.
 
2013-04-12 06:22:21 PM  

mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

According to the website, the wealthy spend more money on stuff, so of course they are going to pay more in taxes. However, used items are untaxed, and I see no mention of home sales, so I must assume that all used home sales are untaxed, along with whatever capital gain may come with the sale. The wealthy can also afford to invest more of their income in stocks, bonds, etc., the capital gains of which would be untaxed. They would be able to grow their money at a much higher rate than now, and I can't see how that would drive them to buy so much they'd pay an even higher tax rate. They could maintain an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle but still grow their money at an even more extraordinary tax free rate and end up even wealthier with a lower tax burden as a result. People can only consume so much.

Business transactions including goods and services are untaxed, so would it be possible for two "business owners" to do favors for each other that end up untaxed as a result, even if the underlying reason was for personal gain? How would you prove otherwise?

That's not even getting into the sales tax business, which claims to help the poor with a "prebate", a prebate based on spending on new goods and services. Poor people buy a lot of used stuff, so no prebate. A used house would be untaxed at sale, so no prebate on that mortgage. Is their a sales tax on rent? If not, no prebate. Poor people are going to be spending most of their money on their living expenses and used vehicles, they're not out buying a lot of nice new stuff. That seems to make the whole prebate thing kind of useless. Are people supposed to keep track of everything they spend money on so they can get their prebate? There's no IRS, so who do you report this to? Am I missing some fundamental component?

How the fark is this supposed to be "fair"? The whole thing screams "fark you poor people".


The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings. It makes perfect sense because rich people got rich by working against their own financial interests.
 
2013-04-12 06:24:57 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.

Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.


Define "poor". If it is anything less than money to cover the necessities and some spending money, why don't you read what I said again.

In any case, I meant progressive in terms of an income tax structure. I would never suggest something "progressive" as you interpreted the word ;)
 
2013-04-12 06:27:26 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: theknuckler_33: short term cap gains are not taxed higher. they are taxed the same as regular income. LTCG are the income that is being specially treated here. I accept the premise, but if STCG promote risky or speculative investing, then tax those gains HIGHER than regular income. Taxing STCG the same as regular income is not a penalty, taxing LTCG is a benefit... one that by and large is realized only by the wealthy.

Taxing LTCG is categorically unfair because only the wealthy can take advantage of it. Your 401K or traditional IRA - now THAT is long term. Builds up over your entire life. How is it taxed? As regular income - the same as short term capital gains.

All income, of all types (including inheritance) should be taxed the exact same way.

So, like a "flat" tax?

Flat in the sense that income is income and certain types don't need to be elevated above the types normally associated with labor instead of capital.


I realize that's what he meant but it's ironic to hear a liberal ask for all income to be taxed the same way when they are pretty adamant that they want some income to be taxed at much higher rates than other income.
 
2013-04-12 06:27:41 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.


Wrong. Your company gives you a grant of X shares at Y dollars. They didn't give you any money at all. You can choose to exercise that grant... ie. buy the shares. If you buy the shares when the current price of the stock is Y+Z, you pay ordinary taxes on X(Z-Y).  I have done exactly this several times the in the past year. Nowhere near 500k of course, but the cost of my transaction was thus:

(number of shares being bought X option price) + ((current stock price - option price) X applicable regular income tax rates)

This assumes the current stock price is higher than the option price. I'm not sure what happens if you buy at a lower price than the option price.
 
2013-04-12 06:29:03 PM  

odinsposse: So it's a large sales tax


You're learning! Keep up the good work!

mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.


Read up.
 
2013-04-12 06:30:57 PM  

mak3_7up_y0urs: How the fark is this supposed to be "fair"? The whole thing screams "fark you poor people".


These are the same guys supposedly crying about everyone "paying their fair share".  Yet the first addendum is "well, let's carve out a bit at the bottom".
 
2013-04-12 06:31:48 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

According to the website, the wealthy spend more money on stuff, so of course they are going to pay more in taxes. However, used items are untaxed, and I see no mention of home sales, so I must assume that all used home sales are untaxed, along with whatever capital gain may come with the sale. The wealthy can also afford to invest more of their income in stocks, bonds, etc., the capital gains of which would be untaxed. They would be able to grow their money at a much higher rate than now, and I can't see how that would drive them to buy so much they'd pay an even higher tax rate. They could maintain an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle but still grow their money at an even more extraordinary tax free rate and end up even wealthier with a lower tax burden as a result. People can only consume so much.

Business transactions including goods and services are untaxed, so would it be possible for two "business owners" to do favors for each other that end up untaxed as a result, even if the underlying reason was for personal gain? How would you prove otherwise?

That's not even getting into the sales tax business, which claims to help the poor with a "prebate", a prebate based on spending on new goods and services. Poor people buy a lot of used stuff, so no prebate. A used house would be untaxed at sale, so no prebate on that mortgage. Is their a sales tax on rent? If not, no prebate. Poor people are going to be spending most of their money on their living expenses and used vehicles, they're not out buying a lot of nice new stuff. That seems to make the whole prebate thing kind of useless. Are people supposed to keep track of everything they spend money on so they can get their prebate? There's no IRS, so who do you report this to? Am I missing some fundamental component?

How the fark is this supposed to be "fair"? The whole thing screams "fark you poor people".

The part of the fairtax is that ...


A ton of businesses buy stuff from other businesses that never even ends up at the consumer level, and none of those transactions would be taxed. So Company A makes a profit from selling their stuff to Company B, but no tax ever actually gets paid. I know businesses can write off purchases already, but now you've got the other company not paying anything on their profits on top of that. The whole Fairtax thing baffles me.
 
2013-04-12 06:31:51 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.


This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.
 
2013-04-12 06:32:13 PM  
UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.
 
2013-04-12 06:32:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!


Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes
 
2013-04-12 06:33:07 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.

This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.


You can't explain it to us?
 
2013-04-12 06:33:08 PM  
So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.
 
2013-04-12 06:33:48 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.


What is it with Obama's critics and they're massive obsession with his penis?
 
2013-04-12 06:34:24 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.

Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.

Define "poor". If it is anything less than money to cover the necessities and some spending money, why don't you read what I said again.

In any case, I meant progressive in terms of an income tax structure. I would never suggest something "progressive" as you interpreted the word ;)


Gah... I retract my comments about the poor saving for retirement. That was stupid.

The healthcare thing was valid though.

I think a progressive system is, basically, a graduated tax bracket structure like we have. When you acknowledge that economic activity is driven by the 'masses'... ie. the not wealthy... devising a tax strategy that applies the same rate to everyone, essentially, out of a childish sense of fairness, does nothing but undercut the very driver of economic activity.

The wealthy pay the same rate on the first X dollars of their income as someone who just makes X. that's fair. You want to give everyone a tax cut... cut the lowest rates. The wealthy get the same benefit as the poor. That's fair.
 
2013-04-12 06:38:07 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.

Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.

Define "poor". If it is anything less than money to cover the necessities and some spending money, why don't you read what I said again.

In any case, I meant progressive in terms of an income tax structure. I would never suggest something "progressive" as you interpreted the word ;)

Gah... I retract my comments about the poor saving for retirement. That was stupid.

The healthcare thing was valid though.

I think a progressive system is, basically, a graduated tax bracket structure like we have. When you acknowledge that economic activity is driven by the 'masses'... ie. the not wealthy... devising a tax strategy that applies the same rate to everyone, essentially, out of a childish sense of fairness, does nothing but undercut the very driver of economic activity.

The wealthy pay the same rate on the first X dollars of their income as someone who just makes X. that's fair. You want to give everyone a tax cut... cut the lowest rates. The wealthy get the same benefit as the poor. That's fair.


What does this have to do with healthcare? A progressive tax means your effective rate increases as you earn more. You don't need anything more than 2 rates to achieve that. 0% up to x income and flat rate past that is progressive. It is a tax hike on the wealthiest who live on LTCG income
 
2013-04-12 06:38:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: odinsposse: So it's a large sales tax

You're learning! Keep up the good work!

mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

Read up.


So what, is the Fairtax website just a sneak peek? Does the book actually explain prebates for taxes that are supposed to paid on consumption, when the highest spending a poor family will undertake is for untaxed expenses like used vehicles and rents/mortgages, and therefore not be subject to the prebate? Does it explain how the wealthy will be taxed way more efficiently under this system because all the untaxed capital gains they're going to be earning are totally going to be used to buy way more stuff?
 
2013-04-12 06:39:03 PM  
"remember everybody... do as i say, not as i do!"
 
2013-04-12 06:39:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: How does anybody know what Romney paid?


ALL YOU PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW IS YOUR PLACE!
QUESTION ME NOT, PEON!!!


[/edict]
 
2013-04-12 06:40:21 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.

Wrong. Your company gives you a grant of X shares at Y dollars. They didn't give you any money at all. You can choose to exercise that grant... ie. buy the shares. If you buy the shares when the current price of the stock is Y+Z, you pay ordinary taxes on X(Z-Y).  I have done exactly this several times the in the past year. Nowhere near 500k of course, but the cost of my transaction was thus:

(number of shares being bought X option price) + ((current stock price - option price) X applicable regular income tax rates)

This assumes the current stock price is higher than the option price. I'm not sure what happens if you buy at a lower price than the option price.


Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.
 
2013-04-12 06:41:07 PM  
Don't blame Romney, blame the system. I'll use whatever loopholes I can find, personally.
 
2013-04-12 06:44:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.


Dear Tebow in Gainesville, people are dumb.
 
2013-04-12 06:44:15 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh sweet mother of God....

Yes?

madgonad: f the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Perhaps you should read it.

Jackson Herring: apparently the only time taxes aren't legal theft is when they are disproportionately collected from the poors

You too.

Until you have you are attempting to discuss something that you know nothing about. And y'all keep trying to tell me that you're the learned....Well, go do some learnin' and get back to me.


So far it seems you're the only one discussing the fair tax proposal who doesn't have the barest of clues as to what it is. You apparently can't even attempt to describe it. All you can do is say "you didn't read it". I've read it, I've quoted it directly on fark many times, including in the thread I linked earlier. I've shown I know the details of the proposal, you can't even provide an outline.

Why don't you at least attempt to describe or cite something relating to the proposal to counter what people have said instead of just projecting your personal ignorance. You can't even answer the basic question about what the tax rate will be and you claim others need to do some learning.
 
2013-04-12 06:47:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.

Wrong. Your company gives you a grant of X shares at Y dollars. They didn't give you any money at all. You can choose to exercise that grant... ie. buy the shares. If you buy the shares when the current price of the stock is Y+Z, you pay ordinary taxes on X(Z-Y).  I have done exactly this several times the in the past year. Nowhere near 500k of course, but the cost of my transaction was thus:

(number of shares being bought X option price) + ((current stock price - option price) X applicable regular income tax rates)

This assumes the current stock price is higher than the option price. I'm not sure what happens if you buy at a lower price than the option price.

Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.


D'OH!  my bad.
 
2013-04-12 06:48:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes


It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.
 
2013-04-12 06:50:05 PM  
I gotta say, there'd be a huge boom in the thrift shop industry if the Fairtax were ever actually enacted.

Someone should open a thrift shop for luxury yachts.
 
2013-04-12 06:51:47 PM  

Thrag: Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes

It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.


I just thought they couldn't do basic math. Well...I suppose that still right even after this finding.

Makes me wonder if the same creative accounting skills were the same creative accounting skills used in Ryan's budget.
 
2013-04-12 06:54:36 PM  
Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.

No part of the FairTax makes any sense, and every time it's explained to me, I can think of 15 loopholes that would be exploited worse than those girls in the dark corners of the internet before College-to-Middle-Aged White Guy is done "explaining" it.

The argument literally boils down to: "The rich will totally play fair this time, because now taxes are FAIR, you see."

// and furthermore
 
2013-04-12 06:55:29 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


A couple with two kids, MFJ, who made $50,000 last year, all wages, taking only standard ($11,900) + exemptions ($14,600, 2 PEs and 2 Dependents), and no other credits, has $23,500 TI. They'll pay $2,655 on that TI ($1,740 on the first $17,400, plus $915 on the other $6,100), for an effective federal tax rate of 5.31%.  If this couple isn't getting back a sizable refund check, they're doing it wrong.

Had the Obamas done the MFJ/only standard + exemptions on their income, and assuming it's all regular income, they'd've paid $172,878.35 in taxes, for an effective tax rate of about 28%. Obviously, they got a lot more out of itemizing their deductions, which anyone can do.  They got so much out of Schedule A'ing that they paid AMT as well, or that effective tax rate would've been a lot lower.
 
2013-04-12 06:58:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thrag: Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes

It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.

I just thought they couldn't do basic math. Well...I suppose that still right even after this finding.

Makes me wonder if the same creative accounting skills were the same creative accounting skills used in Ryan's budget.


When fair tax advocates demand that it's only 23%, I link this page from the fair tax site where they try to explain how calling it a 23% tax is not disingenuous, which only succeeds in confirming how completely disingenuous it is. At that point the fair tax advocate usually doubles down and shows they don't even understand what's written on the fair tax site.
 
2013-04-12 07:02:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.


Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.

From their site

Important to note: the FairTax is the only tax plan currently being proposed that includes the removal of the payroll tax.

So this 30% sales tax is supposed to not only generate all the money that personal and corporate incomes taxes generate, but the money that payroll taxes generate as well.
 
2013-04-12 07:02:26 PM  

Thrag: When fair tax advocates demand that it's only 23%, I link this page from the fair tax site


The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?

// you have to assume a spherical tomato...
// the honest conclusion would be: "you can call it 23%, or you can call it 30%. We prefer the lower number, for obvious reasons."
 
2013-04-12 07:02:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.

This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.

You can't explain it to us?


Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.  It's in there so it must be true.
 
2013-04-12 07:05:26 PM  

Thrag: Dr Dreidel: Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.

Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.

From their site

Important to note: the FairTax is the only tax plan currently being proposed that includes the removal of the payroll tax.

So this 30% sales tax is supposed to not only generate all the money that personal and corporate incomes taxes generate, but the money that payroll taxes generate as well.


Not to mention estate taxes.

And it's "revenue neutral" plus it will give everyone a huge bonus in pay.
 
2013-04-12 07:06:45 PM  

Thrag: Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.


Oh, my mistake:
How is the Social Security system affected?
How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?


Neither of which contain actual math. "Nothing is affected. Go about your business. Consume. Consuuuuuuuume."

// jerkoff hand motion
 
2013-04-12 07:06:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You can't explain it to us?


I can. I have read the book...twice. However, I think it best that you read it first hand rather than in a fragmented fashion. I would be happy to share my copy with you if you want. Hell, I'll even send Thrag a copy.
 
2013-04-12 07:07:23 PM  

Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.


What's your degree in?
 
2013-04-12 07:14:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.

What's your degree in?


And this matters because?  Are you going to wow us with your GED in economics?
 
2013-04-12 07:15:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.

This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.


No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.
 
2013-04-12 07:15:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.


Debeo, I appreciate 'n' all what you're trying to do here, jousting at windmills in the Fark politics tabs, but so what? Yeah, it's double-taxation; stop giving them ideas. It's gonna be double and triple-nipple dog-dare taxation on everything before it's over and done with. Ain't no rhyme or reason to it, though they got you thinking there is.

One day, the Lawyers in DC take too much from us and it's "tyrany and theft!" The next day, 51% of us schmoes line-up and vote and make it legit and viola: The victim is now a criminal, the criminals are now victims, and previously ethical behavior is now unethical...nay, "a cardinal sin!" says the pope on tax evasion. Democracy is the philosopher's stone of modern morality, and logic and reason be damned.

The whole thing is just an ex-post-facto justification for what they were going to do anyway, all the way back to Jean-Jacques Farking Rousseau and the "Social Contract", whatever THAT is. So just chill, baby, before you get on the IRS's "perma-audit" list. Read my username a couple of times, and remember who's calling the shots.
 
2013-04-12 07:22:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Mrtraveler01: You can't explain it to us?

I can. I have read the book...twice. However, I think it best that you read it first hand rather than in a fragmented fashion. I would be happy to share my copy with you if you want. Hell, I'll even send Thrag a copy.


I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).

How about for the first time in your life you actually make and honestly attempt to support a point? Is that so hard for you?
 
2013-04-12 07:24:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.

What's your degree in?


Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in? Did you also get a GED in economics from a top 50 school like the coconut guy whose been posting here recently?
 
2013-04-12 07:25:51 PM  

Fart_Machine: And this matters because?


I would assume that you read books to gain an understanding of the subject matter in order to attain your sheepskin. This is no different. It's not like it's some religious text as you said. It's a legislative proposal and it's a hell of a lot shorter than say The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.


Why are you so against even learning about the proposal? I just don't get it. Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting  by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!

Is it perfect? Not by a damn sight. But it's a shiatton better than the way you and I are getting farked up the ass now.
 
2013-04-12 07:27:11 PM  

Thrag: I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).


Have you read the book?

Thrag: Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in?


Don't have a degree.
 
2013-04-12 07:33:56 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).

Have you read the book?


No, I have however read all the material on the fair tax site and I have read the legislative proposal. Why would I also need to read a book written by advocates? I have the primary source material in front of me already. If there is something in the book that is so incredibly relevant you can quote it. I mean, you have and have read the book, right?

Now, are you going to be able to make any sort of actual argument here, or are you going to cling forever to the "read this book" deflection? It is amazing how after all this time on fark you don't realize how pathetic your little answer avoidance games make you look.

You claimed that saying the "fair tax" is a 30% sales tax is wrong, yet I have directly linked to the fair tax site to prove that is exactly what is being proposed (there are other aspects of course, but that is the core component of the proposal). Will you actually admit that it is indeed a 30% sales tax or will you make an actual argument as to why that is not the case and give something to support it?

I have asked you what the amount the "fair tax" taxes on an item that costs $100 before tax. You have answered "$100", yet you contradicted yourself by admitting that the fair tax is indeed a sales tax. Do you want to give an actual answer to the question now or do you want to support how you believe it is a sales tax that charges 0%?

Thrag: Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in?

Don't have a degree.


What a huge farking surprise.
 
2013-04-12 07:35:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?


By rulemaking? Perish the thought.

// the 80/20 rule, for example
 
2013-04-12 07:40:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: And this matters because?

I would assume that you read books to gain an understanding of the subject matter in order to attain your sheepskin. This is no different. It's not like it's some religious text as you said. It's a legislative proposal and it's a hell of a lot shorter than say The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.

Why are you so against even learning about the proposal? I just don't get it. Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting  by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!

Is it perfect? Not by a damn sight. But it's a shiatton better than the way you and I are getting farked up the ass now.


I have to commend you on getting those ACA talking points in while presenting a complete non-sequitur. Bravo sir. Yes it's a proposal whose proposed outcome of revenue neutrality is absurd based on how it claims to do it. You might as well be using The Secret to "manifest" the math they try to use.
 
2013-04-12 07:44:58 PM  
So let's do some simple math here.

The 2012 US GDP(which is essentially all new products and services produced in a given year) was roughly 15.65 trillion dollars. Link

Personal consumption is approximately 70% of US GDP (Link), so in 2012 it would've been valued at about 10.955 trillion dollars.

2012 US federal spending was about 3.538 trillion dollars and 2012 federal revenue was about 2.449 trillion dollars, giving a budget deficit of 1.089 trillion dollars. Link

The Fairtax is 23% on consumption of new products and services, so the maximum amount collected in 2012 would have been 2.52 trillion dollars.

So far so good, however, you must include the prebates that everyone gets. According to the "Prebate Explained" PDF on the FairTax website, in 2011, the total prebate cost to the federal government would be 543 billion dollars if everyone participated. I assume that number would increase slightly for 2012, but I'll just use the number provided.

That would leave about 1.98 trillion in revenue, which is about 469 billion dollars less revenue than the feds collected last year under the current system.

That leaves us with a budget deficit of 1.558 trillion dollars.

Where does the revenue neutral part come into play again?

Did I do the math wrong?
 
2013-04-12 07:46:18 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.


that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.

I don't know about sucking his "manhood" but everyone agrees he should be paying more (along with everyone else that are in the same income bracket).
 
2013-04-12 07:48:58 PM  

AeAe: that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.


You can pay as much in taxes as you'd like.
 
2013-04-12 07:53:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!


How can we agree when I'm a radical liberal who supports jacking the capital gains rate, raising the estate and gift taxes by at least double, and offering a direct cost of living deduction to help the poorest in exchange for an across the board increase in income tax rates that are still progressive? Please, enlighten me.
 
2013-04-12 07:57:00 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.

You can pay as much in taxes as you'd like.


One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.
 
2013-04-12 07:57:55 PM  

AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.


You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.
 
2013-04-12 08:09:01 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.

You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.


Pfft.  He does, along with all high income earners.  Don't be a fool.  You know exactly what he wants to do.
 
2013-04-12 08:13:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.

You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.


I really hope for your sake this is how you act online but in real life you aren't this moronic.
 
2013-04-12 08:15:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


If corporations are people (as Romney himself stated), then why shouldn't they pay their own separate income tax?
 
2013-04-12 08:19:53 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.


Unless, of course, you do what Romney did: get stocks valued at $0.01, put 500,000 of them into your IRA, and then watch the value multiply after the IPO.
 
2013-04-12 08:22:58 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-12 08:38:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?


Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!
 
2013-04-12 08:42:37 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!


This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread
 
2013-04-12 08:54:03 PM  

Thrag: Have you read the book?

No

Nuff said.

Fart_Machine: Yes it's a proposal whose proposed outcome of revenue neutrality is absurd based on how it claims to do it.


Have YOU read the book?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: How can we agree when I'm a radical liberal who supports jacking the capital gains rate, raising the estate and gift taxes by at least double, and offering a direct cost of living deduction to help the poorest in exchange for an across the board increase in income tax rates that are still progressive?


How much stroke do you actually think you have in making that happen?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Please, enlighten me.


None. But keep hope alive eh?
 
2013-04-12 09:00:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread


Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.
 
2013-04-12 09:05:15 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!


DSSCS is the name that someone else infantilely made up for a fictional corporation upthread.

What's wrong with what I said? Just pointing out the obvious fact that anticipated taxes on future earnings factor into the value of a corporation or shares of a corporation, and therefore affects capital gains on shares.
 
2013-04-12 09:06:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.


the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).
 
2013-04-12 09:18:10 PM  

Wellon Dowd: And Uncle Joe needs a better accountant. He's up at 22%.


Knowing Biden, he probably files a 1040EZ and does the math with a pencil.
 
2013-04-12 09:29:25 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.

Debeo, I appreciate 'n' all what you're trying to do here, jousting at windmills in the Fark politics tabs, but so what? Yeah, it's double-taxation; stop giving them ideas. It's gonna be double and triple-nipple dog-dare taxation on everything before it's over and done with. Ain't no rhyme or reason to it, though they got you thinking there is.

One day, the Lawyers in DC take too much from us and it's "tyrany and theft!" The next day, 51% of us schmoes line-up and vote and make it legit and viola: The victim is now a criminal, the criminals are now victims, and previously ethical behavior is now unethical...nay, "a cardinal sin!" says the pope on tax evasion. Democracy is the philosopher's stone of modern morality, and logic and reason be damned.

The whole thing is just an ex-post-facto justification for what they were going to do anyway, all the way back to Jean-Jacques Farking Rousseau and the "Social Contract", whatever THAT is. So just chill, baby, before you get on the IRS's "perma-audit" list. Read my username a couple of times, and remember who's calling the shots.


Hey, thanks for the total fark, dude.

Not sure I ever wanted to go down that rabbit hole, but I guess I'll see what it's like on the other side.
 
2013-04-12 09:37:26 PM  

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.

the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).


Agree completely.

The price of a stock, fundamentally, is based on future after tax earnings discounted. Changes in expected after tax earnings affects the stock price. Changes in the discount rate that make the PV of future earnings (and PV of future taxes) higher or lower, affect the stock price as well.

Ill add that other items that might affect the stock price outside of expectations re future after tax earnings such as general market exuberance/despair are noise that are zero sum over time.
 
2013-04-12 09:38:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: Have you read the book?

No
Nuff said.


What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are. What I actually said was:

No, I have however read all the material on the fair tax site and I have read the legislative proposal. Why would I also need to read a book written by advocates? I have the primary source material in front of me already. If there is something in the book that is so incredibly relevant you can quote it. I mean, you have and have read the book, right?
 
Now, are you going to be able to make any sort of actual argument here, or are you going to cling forever to the "read this book" deflection? It is amazing how after all this time on fark you don't realize how pathetic your little answer avoidance games make you look.


And look, you of course not only ignored everything I said but you did exactly what I predicted. You don't even make a case for why reading the book and not the bill or the website is necessary. All you have is deflection since you know you have nothing else. You obviously don't understand the "fair tax" you are peddling. You probably haven't even read the book you are unsuccessfully trying to use as a barrier to discussion. You've shown no evidence that you know anything at all about the fair tax.

Thanks again from proving my point that fair tax advocates are the stupidest people in the world. You're such an ignorant idiot you can't even make an argument much less defend one.

On the bright side, I do enjoy how you are now on record in this thread saying a 30% sales tax is not a huge tax. That should be fun next time you are bemoaning a small rate hike on a bracket you will never get remotely close to.
 
2013-04-12 09:40:37 PM  

Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are


I'm surprised he didn't call you hitler, tbh.  You caught him on a good day.
 
2013-04-12 09:42:19 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /favorited!

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.

the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).

Agree completely.

The price of a stock, fundamentally, is based on future after tax earnings discounted. Changes in expected after tax earnings affects the stock price. Changes in the discount rate that make the PV of future earnings (and PV of future taxes) higher or lower, affect the stock price as well.

Ill add that other items that might affect the stock price outside of expectations re future after tax earnings such as general market exuberance/despair are noise that are zero sum over time.


so, like I said, what you said was sensible. That cap gains being already taxed is a load of horseshiat though ;)
 
2013-04-12 09:43:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

I'm surprised he didn't call you hitler, tbh.  You caught him on a good day.


Heh. Sometimes I miss Gary and how when he was drunk and couldn't actually support his statement he'd just start calling everyone "Boris".
 
2013-04-12 09:54:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"

it's a real PITA. This is the last year I am doing it myself. I say that every year but I mean it this time. I did a good number of options trades last year and they do not get reported on the standard 1099-B so you have to do all the farking calculations yourself. Can't even download them directly into Tur ...


Don't know if anybody responded to this, but you can indeed import options trades into turbotax, depending on where you conducted the trades. I imported mine from GainsKeeper on TDameritrade directly into turbotax. If i didn't, it would be a huge pain in the ass. Get TDameritrade.
 
2013-04-12 09:58:33 PM  

GTATL: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"

it's a real PITA. This is the last year I am doing it myself. I say that every year but I mean it this time. I did a good number of options trades last year and they do not get reported on the standard 1099-B so you have to do all the farking calculations yourself. Can't even download them dir ...


yeah they did suggest TDAmeritrade as the most friendly option. Most of my options trades were through Interactive Brokers though and they are really bare bones when it comes with bells and whistles. Cheap as shiat to trade through though and they give you credit for creating liquidity so sometimes you even get paid to trade options through them
 
2013-04-12 10:23:19 PM  

Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are


Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?
 
2013-04-12 10:27:26 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?


So the book says something different than the legislation proposal?
 
2013-04-12 10:36:31 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


I work for a corporation, and they're taxed on their income and then paying the money to me as wages.  I shouldn't be taxed because it was already taxed at the corporate level.  Then I should be able to buy things with it and not pay sales tax, and the people who ended up with my money shouldn't pay taxes on it for their business.

After all, it was taxed on the corporate level.

Do you see how completely stupid your argument is?  You are bad and should feel bad.
 
2013-04-12 10:52:22 PM  
Derp. Everywhere.
 
2013-04-12 11:00:50 PM  
www.freedomworks.org
 
2013-04-12 11:02:30 PM  
aplebessite.com
 
2013-04-12 11:11:25 PM  

Xetal: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

I work for a corporation, and they're taxed on their income and then paying the money to me as wages.  I shouldn't be taxed because it was already taxed at the corporate level.  Then I should be able to buy things with it and not pay sales tax, and the people who ended up with my money shouldn't pay taxes on it for their business.

After all, it was taxed on the corporate level.

Do you see how completely stupid your argument is?  You are bad and should feel bad.


If he does it certainly isn't from your shiatshow of a rebuttal
 
2013-04-12 11:12:41 PM  

Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]


Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?
 
2013-04-12 11:15:10 PM  

dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?


I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.
 
2013-04-12 11:23:42 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?


I apparently have a hell of a lot more direct knowledge of the proposal than you do. For example, I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax, something which you incorrectly denied. I've linked the actual bill that was proposed. I've linked the fair tax organization's own site. You have done nothing but say "nuh-uh" to people who do know what they are talking about and when asked to back your statements you can only say "have you read this book?" You haven't shown that you know the first thing about the fair tax, on the contrary you have shown you know exactly fark all about it. Yet here you are, lying about how I have no direct knowledge of the very thing I've linked to multiple times.
 
2013-04-12 11:25:43 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-12 11:30:58 PM  

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.


You're mixing cardinality and income.  The 1% makes 22% of total income and the 50% makes 12%. Why not argue for a VAT?
 
2013-04-12 11:40:40 PM  

dopirt: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.

You're mixing cardinality and income.  The 1% makes 22% of total income and the 50% makes 12%. Why not argue for a VAT?


Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
 
2013-04-12 11:41:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.


The cause of that is that the bottom 50% have seen their real earning power DROP since Reagan. They don't pay taxes because they are either at or near the poverty level. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. They DO pay payroll taxes at the exact same rate as everyone else making $110k and under.
 
2013-04-12 11:44:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...


Actually, the 1% uses all of it. The police. The military. The highways. All of those allow the 1% to make and keep their money. Like the poor give a flying fark what happens in Iraq, North Korea, or Israel.
 
2013-04-12 11:46:13 PM  

madgonad: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.

The cause of that is that the bottom 50% have seen their real earning power DROP since Reagan. They don't pay taxes because they are either at or near the poverty level. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. They DO pay payroll taxes at the exact same rate as everyone else making $110k and under.


They get that money back though through earned income tax credits and the like.

They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

/but but wall street whargarbll
//that's a separate issue, fark them too
 
2013-04-12 11:49:11 PM  

madgonad: Silly Jesus: Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...

Actually, the 1% uses all of it. The police. The military. The highways. All of those allow the 1% to make and keep their money. Like the poor give a flying fark what happens in Iraq, North Korea, or Israel.


To the extent that they use the highways to transport their goods, they pay for that through taxes and permits and registrations on trucks and associated shipping taxes and fees.

I don't understand your other examples.  Maybe you think that the police are on a daily basis holding back the throngs of poor, poor, pitiful, poor folks from attacking the sky scrapers or something?
 
2013-04-12 11:53:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.


Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.
 
2013-04-12 11:57:52 PM  

dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.


Not sure what your point is.....
 
2013-04-13 12:03:03 AM  

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.

Not sure what your point is.....


50% of the US population, 150,000,000 souls, are not all obsessed with hunting rifles, shiny rims, etc. When you invoke such imagery it only reflects on you and diminishes your argument. That's all.
 
2013-04-13 12:09:10 AM  
This is fantastic news and it's just as it should be. 18% on $600k of income is a reasonable tax rate. I'm very happy for president Obama. He definitely works hard for his money. Now let's get rid of all loop holes (and the IRS) and make this an across the board flat tax rate for everyone earning more than "X" amount.
 
2013-04-13 12:19:50 AM  
Silly Jesus (farkied: Jesus must indeed seem silly to this guy): derp

Paris Hilton isn't going to sleep with you.
 
2013-04-13 12:22:47 AM  

dopirt: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.

Not sure what your point is.....

50% of the US population, 150,000,000 souls, are not all obsessed with hunting rifles, shiny rims, etc. When you invoke such imagery it only reflects on you and diminishes your argument. That's all.


Meh, that's what I experience when I'm in the store and see someone holding the food stamp envelope thing and trying to figure out which apple juice they are allowed to buy.
 
2013-04-13 12:23:43 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard: (farkied:  stalker / potato )

OK
 
2013-04-13 12:59:42 AM  
Silly Jesus is anti-preborn and anti-Second Amendment.
 
2013-04-13 01:16:39 AM  
(peeks in thread, backs out slowly)
 
2013-04-13 02:29:19 AM  
Ha ha ha. You guys just talk round and round, stumbling over yourselves, saying Romney is bad cuz he rich, and Obama is rich too, but he okay cuz he got electrolytes, or some idiocracy nonsense. Fake charitable contribution this, more taxes that.

Then Silly Jesus, he come along real quiet like, an just puts up some pictures, you know, for you "visual learners." Didn't say a word, just let you all look and learn. And it was like I could hear something click in yo silly little heads, all the way from the far reaches o the internet, just how absurd it is to demand that so few start paying even more.

Then you guys start stammerin all over again! Knees knockin, stumbling around, and saying "but but but!" WHOOO-WE! Oh Lordy! You get 'em, Silly Jesus!
 
2013-04-13 05:27:52 AM  
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

/Oh no, my money pit isn't being filled fast enough!
 
2013-04-13 05:51:21 AM  

Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,


You know how I know you don't know the plan?
 
2013-04-13 07:57:55 AM  
It's not fair he gets to write off his constituency as dependents
 
2013-04-13 09:54:13 AM  
Well...my effective tax rate is 0%, and my actual tax rate is 0%!!!  Suck on that, losers!

/On social security disability for about the next year, with about 40% of my income coming from disability insurance...
 
2013-04-13 10:12:39 AM  
Silly Jesus (farkied: Jesus must indeed seem silly to this guy): They can have fewer babies

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
 
2013-04-13 11:06:20 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,

You know how I know you don't know the plan?


Because as usual you are completely and utterly wrong, ignorant of the topic, and completely farking insane. I've linked the bill. I've linked the fair tax website. Both say it's a 30% sales tax (or as they like to put it, a 23% tax-inclusive rate).

You are welcome to actually cite something to support your point that it is not a 30% sales tax at any time. Right now you are as I said just going "nuh-uh" with nothing to back up your statement. Put up or shut up already.
 
2013-04-13 11:15:07 AM  

Thrag: I've linked the bill.


But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.
 
2013-04-13 11:16:55 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,

You know how I know you don't know the plan?


Since I don't have the time today to play your deflection games, let's just put you out of your misery.

From wiki:
As defined in the legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional sales tax

From the actual house bill:
`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.`(b) Rate-`(1) FOR 2013- In the calendar year 2013, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
From the fair tax website:

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessitiesis 23%

Here's the article I already linked that explains about it is a 30% sales tax but they call it a 23% "tax inclusive" rate. (once nice thing about this article is how they claim they are totally honest about the "tax inclusive" deception and they always mention it, where the bit I quoted saying 23% makes no such disclaimer).

So, Dancin_In_Anson, you are now welcome to apologize and admit that yes, the plan's core component is a 30% sales tax. As I said, there are other elements, the "prebate", how the rate adjusts from the initial 30%, etc. None of these change the fact that the proposal indeed calls for a 30% sales tax. Are you now going to say that the house bill and the fair tax website itself is wrong about what's the fair tax proposal consists of?
 
2013-04-13 11:19:15 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've linked the bill.

But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.


Unlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help. Since you're here, care to address my direct quotes from the bill and from the fair tax website that clearly say it is a 30% sales tax?
 
2013-04-13 11:29:02 AM  

Thrag: nlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help.


And your ignorance of the subject matter clearly shows that.
 
2013-04-13 11:38:44 AM  

sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WHAR 1040 LONG FORM, WHAR?!


/you know that will be next

"I hid it in the stack of Romney's returns.  Happy hunting!"


Then they'll just go through with the blindfold until they FEEL President Obama's return.

/feel it in their gut
 
2013-04-13 11:43:20 AM  

Thrag: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've linked the bill.

But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.

Unlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help. Since you're here, care to address my direct quotes from the bill and from the fair tax website that clearly say it is a 30% sales tax?


You're being trolled. Hard. This guy's entire shtick involves stringing people along for hours at a time with this kind of vaguely offensive chatter.
 
2013-04-13 11:44:06 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: nlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help.

And your ignorance of the subject matter clearly shows that.


Yes, my ignorance. Me, the guy who just posted direct quotes proving my claim. Not you, the guy who can't make any actual claim other than "no, you're wrong!", hasn't cited a single thing and is evidently incapable of even attempting to make an argument to support what you say.

So, even in the face of direct quotes from the primary sources proving my claim is correct, you're just going to keep up with the bogus deflection. I expected nothing less from you.
 
2013-04-13 11:54:40 AM  

Thrag: Me, the guy who just posted direct quotes proving my claim


That you have not read the book which addresses IN DETAIL every one of your gripes and goes into the plan in greater depth than does the web site. So, yes, your ignorance.
 
2013-04-13 11:56:42 AM  

Biological Ali: Thrag: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've linked the bill.

But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.

Unlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help. Since you're here, care to address my direct quotes from the bill and from the fair tax website that clearly say it is a 30% sales tax?

You're being trolled. Hard. This guy's entire shtick involves stringing people along for hours at a time with this kind of vaguely offensive chatter.


Meh, I've been reading fark since before DIA showed up. I've seen his shtick from back when he'd actually try to make point and thoroughly embarrass himself each and every time. I witnessed the comments that made him the title holder of Fark's #1 laughing stock for years. I know that now he's just the broken shell of a farker who has been beaten down so many times on fark that he can't even bring himself to make an actual argument anymore. I know he'll never make an actual point, never really argue anything, and do the only thing he's capable of doing which is dodge. Still, I always enjoy gathering more evidence of my hypothesis that fair tax supporters are the stupidest people in the world. It's fun for a little while to rub his face in facts and watch as he can't muster any sort of reply other than that of a toddler repeatedly going "nuh-uh". This cycle has been entertaining for a little while, but it's entertainment value is indeed waning quickly. After the continued denial despite direct quotes saying it's a 30% sales tax there's not many more laughs to be had from this game. Unless of course DIA finds the sack he lost years ago and actually tries to make an argument, but we all know that will never happen.
 
2013-04-13 12:01:04 PM  

Thrag: Still, I always enjoy gathering more evidence of my hypothesis that fair tax supporters are the stupidest people in the world.


That's no "hypothesis" - it's pretty much common knowledge at this point.
 
2013-04-13 12:05:04 PM  

Biological Ali: Thrag: Still, I always enjoy gathering more evidence of my hypothesis that fair tax supporters are the stupidest people in the world.

That's no "hypothesis" - it's pretty much common knowledge at this point.


The Theory of the Gravity of Stupidity
(why stupid people are drawn to stupid ideas)
 
2013-04-13 12:24:46 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: Me, the guy who just posted direct quotes proving my claim

That you have not read the book which addresses IN DETAIL every one of your gripes and goes into the plan in greater depth than does the web site. So, yes, your ignorance.


You haven't read the book. That's fairly easy to see. Of course, this is not the first time you've claimed to have read something but haven't...lest we rehash the climate change silliness that you went through.

If you had, you'd know that the fair tax relies heavily on assumptions that aren't realistic. It relies heavily on large corporations not seeking to increase profits out of the goodness of their own hearts; for them to not pass on after profit taxes. Revenue isn't taxed currently...profits are taxed. If you think this is realistic, I feel very sorry for you. The more realistic situation is that corporations maximize their profit margins by keeping the same price of their goods. What makes this possible is the fact that most major industries already have very few players in them. There is no magical competition to drive prices down. Do you think a large corporation like a Monsanto or ConAgra have much in the way of competition to drive down prices? They already compete on the global market at current prices. Why would they lower prices now? It's far more likely that they would be in a situation to increase revenue and their profit margins leaving you footing the bill. And who would they blame? They'd simply blame the government for raising the sales tax. And conservative idiots like yourself would goosestep right along with them blaming the government.

We've seen this in other industries where the cost of "doing business" has been lowered and the corporations haven't followed suit by passing on those savings to consumers. Medical tort reform for instance. When it's been implemented, the cost of "doing business" was lowered dramatically for the malpractice insurers. Did that result in savings for the consumers? Not a damn bit. Malpractice insurance costs increased.

The fact of the matter is that unless there is strict enforcement of profit margins, the fair tax would be disastrous. It would lead to heavy debt, lower take home pay, and a larger division between the poor and the rich. But, then again, this is exactly how failed conservative economics always play out. One only needs to look at the failed track record of the Friedmans and Hayeks of the world. Chile, Argentina, Great Britain, Russia... Yeah. You have fun advocating for that. I'll stick with a progressive taxation system that has proven to be most effective.
 
2013-04-13 12:47:33 PM  

mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

According to the website, the wealthy spend more money on stuff, so of course they are going to pay more in taxes. However, used items are untaxed, and I see no mention of home sales, so I must assume that all used home sales are untaxed, along with whatever capital gain may come with the sale. The wealthy can also afford to invest more of their income in stocks, bonds, etc., the capital gains of which would be untaxed. They would be able to grow their money at a much higher rate than now, and I can't see how that would drive them to buy so much they'd pay an even higher tax rate. They could maintain an extraordinarily lavish lifestyle but still grow their money at an even more extraordinary tax free rate and end up even wealthier with a lower tax burden as a result. People can only consume so much.

Business transactions including goods and services are untaxed, so would it be possible for two "business owners" to do favors for each other that end up untaxed as a result, even if the underlying reason was for personal gain? How would you prove otherwise?

That's not even getting into the sales tax business, which claims to help the poor with a "prebate", a prebate based on spending on new goods and services. Poor people buy a lot of used stuff, so no prebate. A used house would be untaxed at sale, so no prebate on that mortgage. Is their a sales tax on rent? If not, no prebate. Poor people are going to be spending most of their money on their living expenses and used vehicles, they're not out buying a lot of nice new stuff. That seems to make the whole prebate thing kind of useless. Are people supposed to keep track of everything they spend money on so they can get their prebate? There's no IRS, so who do you report this to? Am I missing some fundamental component?

How the fark is this supposed to be "fair"? The whole thing screams "fark you poor people".


You have to think of it in terms of people who don't know what percentages are.  That's why the Republicans have been farking the education system for years:  so ill-educated people can fall for anything that appeals to them as being 'right' instead of 'factual.'  Notice that whenever Republicans want to scam something, they always fall back to a wild misunderstanding of percentages and go from there, and their voter base eats it up every time because they simply do not get it.
 
2013-04-13 01:04:06 PM  

Doc Lee: If you had, you'd know that the fair tax relies heavily on assumptions that aren't realistic. It relies heavily on large corporations not seeking to increase profits out of the goodness of their own hearts; for them to not pass on after profit taxes.


This is not without historical precedent and is referenced in the book.
 
2013-04-13 02:53:20 PM  
the Obamas paid a 25% higher tax rate than Mitt Romney

I blame racism.

Or a tax system that was designed by rich farks for the benefit of rich farks and passed by the politicians they OWN.

Or it could be racism.
 
2013-04-13 03:26:34 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Doc Lee: If you had, you'd know that the fair tax relies heavily on assumptions that aren't realistic. It relies heavily on large corporations not seeking to increase profits out of the goodness of their own hearts; for them to not pass on after profit taxes.

This is not without historical precedent and is referenced in the book.


Historical meaning not in the last 30 years. Reagan cut corporate taxes. Did it increase or decrease something as simple as say a loaf of bread?

i.imgur.com

What has happened since then? Everything has gotten more expensive. Despite decreasing the cost of "doing business" across the board, costs have risen. The exceptions are few and far between and mainly deal in products that were newly introduced into the market and have since decreased in their intrinsic value. Same argument the idiot libertarians use when they proclaim that the cost of Lasik has decreased because of competition (it hasn't...it's risen year over year except in the Great Republican Recession).
 
2013-04-13 03:34:11 PM  

Doc Lee: Historical meaning not in the last 30 years


Actually it was 1996. It's in the book. Really.

Doc Lee: Despite decreasing the cost of "doing business" across the board


Do whut?
 
2013-04-13 03:47:02 PM  
Why are we using the President as an example?  The man lives in a bubble, and the funds for daily living expenses aren't being personally reported by him because it's going through the White House.
 
2013-04-13 03:55:51 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Doc Lee: Historical meaning not in the last 30 years

Actually it was 1996. It's in the book. Really.


Airline excise tax? Is that what you are referring to? Because modern evidence doesn't support the Fair Tax in that regard. Link Tax expires...airlines raise price.


Doc Lee: Despite decreasing the cost of "doing business" across the board

Do whut?


Corporate taxes were cut. Prices did not reflect those decreases. It's fairly simple. Even a used car finance guy like yourself should be able to understand it.
 
2013-04-13 04:11:04 PM  

Doc Lee: Airline excise tax? Is that what you are referring to? Because modern evidence doesn't support the Fair Tax in that regard. Link Tax expires...airlines raise price.


All except for one. Just like in 1996. And the others followed suit. Markets hppen that way.

Doc Lee: Corporate taxes were cut


The ONLY cost of business eh?
 
2013-04-13 04:29:12 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Doc Lee: Airline excise tax? Is that what you are referring to? Because modern evidence doesn't support the Fair Tax in that regard. Link Tax expires...airlines raise price.

All except for one. Just like in 1996. And the others followed suit. Markets hppen that way.


Except...it didn't. It's been two years since the tax went away. Has anybody else followed suit? Nope. Has Spirit lowered their rate? Nope. In fact, they've raised it and added on extra fees. Markets happen that way in the real world, not some conservative fantasy land that you conservative mythologists claim could be if you just click your heals together three times.

Doc Lee: Corporate taxes were cut

The ONLY cost of business eh?


Did I say that? Jesus Christ. It's like arguing with a two year old. Lowering the corporate tax rate across the board lowers the cost of doing business across the board, or at least that's what Republicans would lead you to believe. Does it happen like that in the real world? Not really. It just increases the profit margin.

Here, let me put it simply for you. You are wrong. Flat out wrong. There are numerous examples out there why you are wrong. If you choose to ignore them, then you are not only wrong, you are also willfully ignorant.
 
2013-04-13 05:57:04 PM  

Doc Lee: Except...it didn't. It's been two years since the tax went away. Has anybody else followed suit? Nope. Has Spirit lowered their rate? Nope. In fact, they've raised it and added on extra fees.


Just ripping customers head's off, aren't they?
 
2013-04-13 05:59:26 PM  
 
2013-04-13 06:03:16 PM  
I propose a new tax, hereby known as the Fair Tax Tax. This tax would be imposed on people who make arguments in favour of the Fair Tax, with the rate owed being proportional to the stupidity of each particular argument.
 
2013-04-13 06:11:09 PM  

Biological Ali: I propose a new tax, hereby known as the Fair Tax Tax. This tax would be imposed on people who make arguments in favour of the Fair Tax, with the rate owed being proportional to the stupidity of each particular argument.


I propose a new tax, hereby known as the Communist Tax Tax.  This tax would be imposed on people who make arguments in favor of the Communist Tax, with the rate owed being proportional to the stupidity of each particular argument.

Communist Tax is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Marx would be proud of you.
 
2013-04-13 06:18:38 PM  

Silly Jesus: I propose a new tax, hereby known as the Communist Tax Tax. This tax would be imposed on people who make arguments in favor of the Communist Tax, with the rate owed being proportional to the stupidity of each particular argument.

Communist Tax is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Marx would be proud of you.


Is this an attempt at some kind of "so bad it's good" form of humour? Because if so, I've got to tell you, you're still kinda stuck in the "bad" part.
 
2013-04-13 06:46:16 PM  

Biological Ali: Silly Jesus: I propose a new tax, hereby known as the Communist Tax Tax. This tax would be imposed on people who make arguments in favor of the Communist Tax, with the rate owed being proportional to the stupidity of each particular argument.

Communist Tax is based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Marx would be proud of you.

Is this an attempt at some kind of "so bad it's good" form of humour? Because if so, I've got to tell you, you're still kinda stuck in the "bad" part.


I value your analysis immensely.

As an aside, why do you add 'u' into words that don't need one?  Humour and favour.
 
2013-04-13 06:50:05 PM  

Silly Jesus: I value your analysis immensely.

As an aside, why do you add 'u' into words that don't need one? Humour and favour.


Have you considered telling actual jokes as opposed to simply trying to annoy people? You clearly enjoy seeking attention, but wouldn't it be better if you got that attention doing something that potentially added to a person's day?
 
2013-04-13 07:03:10 PM  

Biological Ali: Silly Jesus: I value your analysis immensely.

As an aside, why do you add 'u' into words that don't need one? Humour and favour.

Have you considered telling actual jokes as opposed to simply trying to annoy people? You clearly enjoy seeking attention, but wouldn't it be better if you got that attention doing something that potentially added to a person's day?


I'm adding to your day a spelling lesson.  Is that not beneficial?
 
2013-04-13 07:39:13 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: http://skift.com/2013/01/31/global-airlines-posted-1-profit-margin-in - 2012/

Forgot the link


Keep moving those goal posts.  You explicitly stated that in your far-right wing world, one airline passing off savings to their customers would cause others to do the same.  You were wrong.  The other airlines did not follow suit.  Your mythology of market competition failed.  So, now you move the goal post and say, "Well, their profit margins aren't high!"  And?  What does that have anything to do with your failed theories of market competition?  What does it have to do with your failed Fair Tax assumptions?  The 1996 tax cut increased their profit margins.

i.imgur.com

The question is, "Did it lower costs to the consumer?"  The answer is in the short term, barely.  In the long term, no.  And in the long term, even with further cuts, no.  Why do you think these tax cuts proposed in the Fair Tax would cause the cost of goods to decrease if it hasn't for cuts in the past?  A rational person would look at all of the evidence and say, "Hey...that's not going to work out how they say it's going to work out."  You, on the other hand, sit there like a true believer nodding your head.

Are you that easily fooled by other conservative idiots that you just believe anything that comes out of their mouths?  Numerous examples of failures all throughout the history of mankind, yet, you cling to it like a cult member clinging to a cup of kool aid. And that's why you are pathetic.
 
2013-04-13 09:57:48 PM  

Doc Lee: Keep moving those goal posts. You explicitly stated that in your far-right wing world, one airline passing off savings to their customers would cause others to do the same.


And you made the contention that airlines were pocketing additional profits which as we can see is total bullshiat...and when the tax was reinstated the additional tax was passed to the consumer.

But hey...You've convinced me. Let's keep adding layer upon layer of taxes on any and every step of a product or process as decided by an increasingly easily influenced legislative body adding pages and pages of bullshiat to an already Byzantine process...it will work this time! Or at least thats what the fooled liberal idiots keep trying to tell me.
 
2013-04-13 11:11:36 PM  

sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WTF is it with this guy anyway?  Paying a fair tax rate??  Who the heck does he think he is??

See?  Proof all along that he isn't a Real Murkan!  IMPEACH!


Sure. Because what the GOP really wants is Joe Biden in the Oval Office with a vendetta.
 
2013-04-13 11:12:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: And you made the contention that airlines were pocketing additional profits which as we can see is total bullshiat...and when the tax was reinstated the additional tax was passed to the consumer.


What planet do you live on?! It's right there in the chart. 1996, profit margins go up. And in 2013, as the NY Times article stated, the airlines themselves (except for one) stated that they were pocketing the difference. That's the entire point, you goddamn moron. The entire premise behind the flawed Fair Tax is that the corporations will pass along the SAVINGS to consumers. This is not the case. When a tax was cut, they did NOT pass along the SAVINGS to consumers. They pocketed the difference.

But hey...You've convinced me. Let's keep adding layer upon layer of taxes on any and every step of a product or process as decided by an increasingly easily influenced legislative body adding pages and pages of bullshiat to an already Byzantine process...it will work this time! Or at least thats what the fooled liberal idiots keep trying to tell me.

Complete and utter strawman. I can see why you typical Republicans feel the need to lie when your entire failed ideology has been proven false right to your face. Corporate taxes were cut. Consumer costs rose, deficits rose, national debt rose. But noooooo... Now you want to do away with the entire corporate tax structure and shift the entire burden to the consumer even though it has been proven to you several times in this very thread with charts and articles that it doesn't work that way. The savings are not there. The cost shifting is not there. The burden falls straight on those who earn less in this society, i.e. some farking moronic hick out in the middle of nowhere Texas working for some car dealership...you. Do you honestly think that people are going to buy a Ford from the dealership you work for if they have to pay 30% sales tax on top of price because Ford (who already paid only 2.3% corporate tax last year) decides to increase their profit margins and pocket the difference? Hell no. You'll quickly find yourself out of a job.

Maybe you should try listening to those people that actually are telling you what you need to hear. Your entire premise is false. And you're a goddamn moron for thinking otherwise despite being proven wrong again and again. I'm through with you.
 
2013-04-13 11:45:03 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've linked the bill.

But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.


Which is irrelevant to what the actual legislative proposal was.  If the book contains something miraculously different why isn't included in the house bill?  This is why you guys sound like religious zealots.  The Book says it, I believe it, that settles it.
 
2013-04-14 01:03:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I alone am best: madgonad: Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: If an item costs $100 before taxes, what will be the price of that item after the "fair tax" is applied?

$100

Cute.

If the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but I though the price point was supposed to be close to the same because the cost of the items has taxes built into it already?

For that to be true, you would have to believe that all taxes get reflected in the costs of goods. However there are taxes, such as capital gains and inheritance taxes which would not be reflected in the cost of goods. You would also have to believe that corporations would pass along 100% of their tax savings onto consumers.


And you would have to believe that every item that's sold in a small business -- like a jewelry store or bullion dealer -- gets put on the books and taxed.
 
Displayed 329 of 329 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report