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 330
    More: Obvious, First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, tax rates, adjusted gross income  
•       •       •

4332 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 3:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



330 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 30 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report