So those of y'all who think the estate tax ("death tax")

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by awesome guy »

VoiceOfReason wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Lower taxes, revenue neutral and not regressive. Gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
LOL... looks like somebody failed math. But what would you expect from pequeno pecker over there? :mrgreen:

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.
Whoa... a post with actual content. OK!

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.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by Hokie5150 »

VoiceOfReason wrote: 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.
False. They not only get a prebate each month for purchases up to the poverty level, they also have no federal taxes withheld (no income tax, no FICA, etc) so their buying power should increase.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
It frees up money because it captures more taxpayers...those not currently paying (for example: Drug dealers operating on a cash basis and paying no taxes on their revenue. Guess what...everything they buy--food, clothes, cars, etc--they are going to be paying taxes on. Tourist traveling in America? Guess what...they will be taxes on their purchases. And do on...that is what frees up money to lower rates. More taxpayers means the rates can come down.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
Under the Fair Tax plan, the poor would pay nothing. After that, the more one consumes, the more they pay. How is that no progressive?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by awesome guy »

Hokie5150 wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote: 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.
False. They not only get a prebate each month for purchases up to the poverty level, they also have no federal taxes withheld (no income tax, no FICA, etc) so their buying power should increase.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
It frees up money because it captures more taxpayers...those not currently paying (for example: Drug dealers operating on a cash basis and paying no taxes on their revenue. Guess what...everything they buy--food, clothes, cars, etc--they are going to be paying taxes on. Tourist traveling in America? Guess what...they will be taxes on their purchases. And do on...that is what frees up money to lower rates. More taxpayers means the rates can come down.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
Under the Fair Tax plan, the poor would pay nothing. After that, the more one consumes, the more they pay. How is that no progressive?

but, but, but then liberals won't be able to carve out handouts to their favorite people. How can the socially engineer with a fair tax?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by 133743Hokie »

VoiceOfReason wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:Because it's all about you, not about the greater decision that is best for the country as a whole going forward. Got it.
Don't be so obtuse. I am one man... with one vote. When asked my opinion on anything, I generally rely on how it effects me first, then on people like me (working people, middle class) and those less fortunate. Kinda bizarre argument you are trying to make since it is your party that is generally considered the selfish one. :mrgreen:
I don't have a party. And in the context of discussing broad policy issues such as a complete overhaul of the tax system IMO the decision is based on what is best in general for the US. Not what is best for me personally.
Really? So... if the majority of the country came up with a tax policy they felt was more fair... but doubled your tax burden... then you would vote for it?

I would not... and I doubt that anyone on here would either. Maybe I am the only one being honest about it? :mrgreen:
Woosh! I never said more fair. I said what is best for the country. And yes, if it made sense that it was in the best interest of the country. I'm already paying more than 99%+ of the people in the country so it doesn't matter.
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by Hokie5150 »

VoiceOfReason wrote:Really? So... if the majority of the country came up with a tax policy they felt was more fair... but doubled your tax burden... then you would vote for it?
We've already established the "fair" has nothing to do with the tax code...
HokieJoe
Posts: 13122
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by HokieJoe »

awesome guy wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote: 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.
False. They not only get a prebate each month for purchases up to the poverty level, they also have no federal taxes withheld (no income tax, no FICA, etc) so their buying power should increase.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
It frees up money because it captures more taxpayers...those not currently paying (for example: Drug dealers operating on a cash basis and paying no taxes on their revenue. Guess what...everything they buy--food, clothes, cars, etc--they are going to be paying taxes on. Tourist traveling in America? Guess what...they will be taxes on their purchases. And do on...that is what frees up money to lower rates. More taxpayers means the rates can come down.
VoiceOfReason wrote: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.
Under the Fair Tax plan, the poor would pay nothing. After that, the more one consumes, the more they pay. How is that no progressive?

but, but, but then liberals won't be able to carve out handouts to their favorite people. How can the socially engineer with a fair tax?


They couldn't, which is precisely why Progs and establishment types LOATH the idea. It's the trillion ton elephant in the room that they conveniently ignore. It's all about building fiefdoms and wielding power. Nothing more. It's very simple really. If you lower taxes (which municipalities do every day to lure business to their communities) businesses will come. More businesses, more jobs. More jobs, fewer people on government assistance. More jobs, more tax revenue.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
SuwaneeTim820
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:36 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax (

Post by SuwaneeTim820 »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Because I have no doubt it will be regressive if you support it.
In other words, like a typical lib, you have no ration basis for opposing it...
OK. Would your taxes go up or down?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lower taxes doesn't make the tax regressive.
Lower taxes, revenue neutral and not regressive. Gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
How exactly would that work?
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: So those of y'all who think the estate tax ("death tax")

Post by ip_law-hokie »

SuwaneeTim820 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:In other words, like a typical lib, you have no ration basis for opposing it...
OK. Would your taxes go up or down?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lower taxes doesn't make the tax regressive.
Lower taxes, revenue neutral and not regressive. Gotcha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep.
How exactly would that work?
You sprinkle a little libertarian magical pixie dust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply