VoiceOfReason wrote:Whoa... a post with actual content. OK!awesome guy wrote:VoiceOfReason wrote:LOL... looks like somebody failed math. But what would you expect from pequeno pecker over there?awesome guy wrote:ip_law-hokie wrote:
Lower taxes, revenue neutral and not regressive. Gotcha.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.
Do Doctors have a name for what's wrong with you? Being an asshole isn't a medical diagnosis, but it appears to be the issue.
Let's see genius, what happens when the handouts the 47%ers receive via "tax credits" goes away? That frees up monies that go towards lower taxes while keeping revenue neutral. I'm sure you'll call removing your income redistribution "regressive", but if you knew the meaning of words, you would know that's not what regressive taxation means.
It still seems that you a working on remedial math, so let me explain what your words above mean...
1) what happens when the handouts the 47%ers receive via "tax credits" goes away?
The poor get poorer, that's what happens. People with low incomes that pay no taxes today would still pay no income taxes under a consumption system. BUT... when they buy things they would then owe taxes... so their overall tax burden goes up.
2) That frees up monies that go towards lower taxes while keeping revenue neutral.
No it doesn't. If they pay no taxes today... how does it free up any money? Oh... you mean that in the new system the poor will be paying more... so the more well to do have their taxes lowered an equal amount? That would be revenue neutral. It would also be regressive... so you lied. Shocker.
3) For your own education. Only a dumbass accuses other of not understanding a term when you have demonstrated clearly that you don't understand it.
Definition of 'Regressive Tax': A tax that takes a larger percentage from low-income people than from high-income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower-income individuals harder.
Example: Let's say it costs $8000 to feed and cloth a human for a year. And let's say there is a 10% consumption tax. The tax to provide basic sustenance is $800 per person. A person making $16,000 annually is paying 5% of his income to live. A person making $160,000 annually is paying 0.5% of his income to live. That is a regressive tax.
But wait... you may say... the wealthier guy could eat out more and buy designer clothes. He could spend more because he makes more... thus increasing his tax rate. If he spends alot more... like buying a boat or something... than maybe his rate for all of his purchases will exceed 5% of his income... and dolts could make the claim that the tax is therefore not regressive. But that would be incorrect.
I swear you're suffering from projection. Just keep this in mind. You are the dunce. Whenever you look down between your legs and feel inadequate, I don't have the same issue. You being cursed with idiocy, a small penis, and bad breath doesn't mean I have the same afflictions. That out of the way...
1. Under different incarnations of the fair tax, the poor would get some kind of credit approximating the taxes on what it costs someone to cloth and feed themselves. Generally, someone making under about 40k would still not pay taxes. But I threw another word in there that you don't understand. That is tax "credit". So what is that? A tax credit is amount the tax payer gets back, no matter what they paid in. I think you're confusing this with a tax cut. So what's the difference? If we have a $1,500 tax cut and you make $0(which would be expected by someone with your critical thinking skills and douchbagery) then you pay $0 in taxes. But if instead that was a tax credit, then you would actually get back $1,500 since everyone, regardless of income, gets it. So that's one area income redistribution takes place in our tax system. The fair tax still has some of this as a payback for those at the bottom income levels, but also pays out less than the current system as to just enable feeding and clothing instead of full fledged living off the government.
2. Yes it does. As stated above, they're losing much of the current income redistribution. That's a cost saving that can be passed on to the tax payer or kept to offset any tax shortfalls.
3. I used the appropriate definition. I think your general ignorance outlined in my point 1 is feeding your ignorant in your point 3. Removing income redistribution is just removing socialism, not introducing a regressive tax policy.