How To Fund The Gubmint

[NOIRTRASH]

AND STOP FUCKING AVERAGE AMERICANS.

Put a 1/2 percent national sales tax on everything. Kerry would pay $35000 on his 7 million dollar yacht. Youd pay $100 on your new car.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Got any figures on how much revenue this would generate?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Got any figures on how much revenue this would generate?

I don't know it will produce a dime. Hillary will swear she sleeps in her Cadillac or Gulfstream and claim both as homes.

 

[PoppingTom]

AND STOP FUCKING AVERAGE AMERICANS.

Put a 1/2 percent national sales tax on everything. Kerry would pay $35000 on his 7 million dollar yacht. Youd pay $100 on your new car.

Somebody said the VAT is cruel to the poor.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't know it will produce a dime.

Then there's not much point in considering it, is there?

 

[Liar]

Somebody said the VAT is cruel to the poor.

Cruel is probably stretching it, but it taxes the poor disproportionally, yes.

 

[PoppingTom]

Cruel is probably stretching it, but it taxes the poor disproportionally, yes.

Don't see how. Except the rich don't consume.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Don't see how. Except the rich don't consume.

If you take 10% from the person making 30k a year they feel it more than the guy who makes 30 million a year. Even though they both pay 10% living on 27k instead of 30 is a hell of a lot harder than having to live on 27 million a year instead of 30.

You can take 90% from the guy making 30 and he'd STILL be living 1,000 fucking times better than a wage slave.

That's one of our biggest problems....they rich aren't spending money.

There is no trickle down unless they are spending, they stop spending they get filthy rich and we all get left high and dry.

 

[Liar]

Don't see how. Except the rich don't consume.

Exactly, the poor consume with every penny they earn, so they get to pay VAT on their whole paycheck. If you're rich enough to hoard money, the part you don't spend you pay less taxes on.

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you take 10% from the person making 30k a year they feel it more than the guy who makes 30 million a year. Even though they both pay 10% living on 27k instead of 30 is a hell of a lot harder than having to live on 27 million a year instead of 30.

You can take 90% from the guy making 30 and he'd STILL be living 1,000 fucking times better than a wage slave.

That's one of our biggest problems....they rich aren't spending money.

There is no trickle down unless they are spending, they stop spending they get filthy rich and we all get left high and dry.

So let's enact a tax on their assets -- a tax they can avoid only by spending them -- not investing, but spending.

 

[phrodeau]

So let's enact a tax on their assets -- a tax they can avoid only by spending them -- not investing, but spending.

But we need to keep government out of our bedrooms, and our mattresses are filled with cash.

 

[PoppingTom]

Exactly, the poor consume with every penny they earn, so they get to pay VAT on their whole paycheck. If you're rich enough to hoard money, the part you don't spend you pay less taxes on.

But what's the use of being rich if you don't spend money?

If I ever save money for myself, I want it to be taxed lowest, too.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I've always wondered if instead of an actual tax. Those over a certain tax bracket MUST buy government bonds. It's a safe investment with an acceptable rate of return, yet cash goes straight to gov. And no extra burden on poor folk.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So let's enact a tax on their assets -- a tax they can avoid only by spending them -- not investing, but spending.

Because taxing assets will fuck the middle class the hardest. They can barely hold on to what little assets they have left. Besides the rich will just find another way to hide it, they ALWAYS do. Every fuckin' time.

You could up a luxury tax... but I wouldn't want to discourage investing, I'd want to encourage it actually, but in a positive manner. Invest in America, give them a break for doing so. Penalize them for sending jobs/money to China and other slave labor joints.

Make the American company/worker/farmer/mom n' pop competitive again by discouraging investment in 3rd world slave labor.

 

[Sean Renaud]

But what's the use of being rich if you don't spend money?

If I ever save money for myself, I want it to be taxed lowest, too.

What you want and what is ideal for society aren't quite the same and in a consumer economy saved money is a bad thing ANYWAY.

As for spending money it's not quite as easy as you think. You're just accustomed to being poor and not ALL of us have uber expensive tastes. If I ever had the money for a Astin Martin I would have enough money to pay other people to drive me places. But I can only buy so many houses and fill them with so much stuff (and that's if I'm trying) and that's only for the absolutely super rich. The guys making a 1 mill a year don't buy two houses, they buy one fairly nice one.

 

[PoppingTom]

What you want and what is ideal for society aren't quite the same and in a consumer economy saved money is a bad thing ANYWAY.

As for spending money it's not quite as easy as you think. You're just accustomed to being poor and not ALL of us have uber expensive tastes. If I ever had the money for a Astin Martin I would have enough money to pay other people to drive me places. But I can only buy so many houses and fill them with so much stuff (and that's if I'm trying) and that's only for the absolutely super rich. The guys making a 1 mill a year don't buy two houses, they buy one fairly nice one.

I get that, but even if they buy one expensive house: they have to pay. Fill them with expensive things: they have to pay. Only diference here in Germany: if they buy it for business, they can depreciate it from taxes. This encourages business investitions a lot.


There is no lesser payment with a VAT, though I'm with the opinion it's not good to have it as the only tax.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Because taxing assets will fuck the middle class the hardest.

Not if it's a sharply progressive tax that does not even kick in until your net worth exceeds a million or so.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I get that, but even if they buy one expensive house: they have to pay. Fill them with expensive things: they have to pay. Only diference here in Germany: if they buy it for business, they can depreciate it from taxes. This encourages business investitions a lot.


There is no lesser payment with a VAT, though I'm with the opinion it's not good to have it as the only tax.

Yes they do, it's just they don't buy enough to fund the government which is the discussion at hand. I have little problem with a minor VAT tax but others have pointed out why it's regressive.

 

[Liar]

I get that, but even if they buy one expensive house: they have to pay. Fill them with expensive things: they have to pay. Only diference here in Germany: if they buy it for business, they can depreciate it from taxes. This encourages business investitions a lot.


There is no lesser payment with a VAT, though I'm with the opinion it's not good to have it as the only tax.

Do you have VAT on houses in Germany?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not if it's a sharply progressive tax that does not even kick in until your net worth exceeds a million or so.

That never happens, 80k-250k a year gets fucked the hardest, every time.


And I still don't see how taxing them just because will get them spending money again.

 

[Sean Renaud]

When, precisely do the 80-250k get fucked. Just one actual example cus "everytime' seems to be something bring up a lot for no reason.

And while I think an assett tax is just to complicated to do I don't think the goal is to get them spending again.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Then there's not much point in considering it, is there?

You don't understand taxation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

When, precisely do the 80-250k get fucked. Just one actual example cus "everytime' seems to be something bring up a lot for no reason.

If you go tax assets equally, the people with assets (80-250k) will be hit the hardest, from the bottom up.

Name a "fuck the rich" tax scheme that has actually hurt someone other than the middle class.....name ONE. And point out how taxing assets won't fuck the middle class more than the rich just like all the other "fuck the rich" taxes have??

Every time we go after the rich we fuck the middle class the hardest....every time.

And while I think an assett tax is just to complicated to do I don't think the goal is to get them spending again.

Why the fuck would we not want the rich to start spending and spending on/in the USA again?

You don't understand taxation.

Doesnt' change his point.......if you can't keep the lights on with it, it's a bad tax plan.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Because taxing assets will fuck the middle class the hardest. They can barely hold on to what little assets they have left. Besides the rich will just find another way to hide it, they ALWAYS do. Every fuckin' time.

You could up a luxury tax... but I wouldn't want to discourage investing, I'd want to encourage it actually, but in a positive manner. Invest in America, give them a break for doing so. Penalize them for sending jobs/money to China and other slave labor joints.

Make the American company/worker/farmer/mom n' pop competitive again by discouraging investment in 3rd world slave labor.

My enthusiasm for fascists is how they protect their workers and companies. If you sell your stuff in a fascist nation you must make your stuff in that nation. This employs people. You cant import cheap stuff to sell your stuff for less. Your stuff must sell for a minimum price congruent with a comparable domestic good. Youre welcome to move your headquarters to the fascist place then do as you please. No one gets a bonus for foreign slave labor.

 

[Sean Renaud]

If you go tax assets equally, the people with assets (80-250k) will be hit the hardest, from the bottom up.

Paying an extra tax when you make 100k a year is going to hurt far more than paying extra tax when you make 100k a month.



Why the fuck would we not want the rich to start spending again?



Doesnt' change his point.......if you can't keep the lights on with it, it's a bad tax plan.

The amount of money you're making a month is ultimately unimportant if we are taxing you on your assets rather than your income. However you specified 80-250k as a window. I want to know why people below and above your thresholds making out, ideally on this in particular.

I get that on income tax there is a perception (one that I think is generally incorrect but at least has a ring of truth) that the poor don't care because they are poor and the rich can pay to avoid it. It's the guys in the middle with enough to lose but not enough to avoid that get hammered. I don't see how this would be true of an asset tax. In fact I think an asset tax would probably slam the poor twice as hard since even handmedown assets do have value. Worse there is almost definitely a squishy middle where you don't have a whole lot more in assets than the people below you. Like I don't own my house, car is reliable and I like it but nobody is going to steal my car. My phone doesn't even have a front facing camera for fucks sake and my TVs are still fat. Even Bart Simpson upgraded a few years back.

I DO want the rich to start spending and spending more. The fact that I don't think an asset tax would have that effect is unrelated. I think if your goal is to make people spend more the only real ways your going to do that are to put whatever obstacles up that just mean you have to spend the money either on taxes or on brilliant people to figure out that your horse is an investment and yadda yadda. The other is to just start setting some sort of barrier to how much you can make. Perhaps a flat amount, perhaps by comparison to your employees, perhaps some guy in Washington spins a fucking wheel. Whatever it takes to break up the 1% into say the 10-15%.

Oh it's a terrible tax plan.