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

133743Hokie · Post by **133743Hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:06 pm

VoiceOfReason wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
HokieJoe wrote:It takes away the carrot and stick game played so well by the Feds and crony capitalist's alike. It would make the business landscape more robust and more competitive. Individuals pay taxes- corporations do not...They just pass that along in the form of higher prices to consumers.
Well, this discussion certainly dried up quickly...

Sure did! VOR is probably doing opposition research right now.
LOL! Nah... I don't really consider consumption tax to be a conservative idea. It's been around for decades, so I am a little confused why you guys are so much in the tank for it now.

The other thing I don't get is... TAX is TAX. And TAX sucks. I don't get why you guys love this so much... unless somebody has told you that consumption tax would reduce your taxes? But that is not very likely unless conservatives don't spend money

It's simple for me... tell me if MY taxes go up or down... and I will tell you how I will vote on the issue.

Anytime somebody uses the term "fairness" I think it's time to grab my ankles because somebody is trying to screw me and me make feel good about getting it...

Because it's all about you, not about the greater decision that is best for the country as a whole going forward. Got it.

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:29 pm

Hokie5150 wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:LOL! Nah... I don't really consider consumption tax to be a conservative idea. It's been around for decades, so I am a little confused why you guys are so much in the tank for it now
If that's the case, why are libs so dead set against the idea?

Because I have no doubt it will be regressive if you support it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RiverguyVT · Post by **RiverguyVT** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:34 pm

“The disorganisers are those who want to level everything: property, comforts, the price of commodities, the various services rendered to the State… who want the workmen in the camp to receive the salary of the legislator… who want to level even talents, knowledge, the virtues, because they themselves have none of these things.”
Jacques Brissot

Hokie5150 · Post by **Hokie5150** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:35 pm

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 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...

awesome guy · Post by **awesome guy** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:35 pm

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:LOL! Nah... I don't really consider consumption tax to be a conservative idea. It's been around for decades, so I am a little confused why you guys are so much in the tank for it now
If that's the case, why are libs so dead set against the idea?
Because I have no doubt it will be regressive if you support it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fairness is regressive. The poor are victims.

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:38 pm

Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 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

awesome guy · Post by **awesome guy** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:44 pm

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 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.

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:49 pm

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 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

awesome guy · Post by **awesome guy** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:51 pm

ip_law-hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 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.

Marine Hokie · Post by **Marine Hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:56 pm

So the current tax system should stay because YOU have a lower tax bill with your current situation? That seems pretty selfish of you.

VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:The proposals have been made (see the Fair Tax)..."progessives" simply shoot it down.
Well... I would shoot it down because it is not fair. LOL! Kinda depends who defines "fair" as to what "fair" is.

I can say this. As a homeowner who uses the mortgage interest deduction and a charitable giver ("bleeding heart") I am heavily reliant on the current system. So you guys want to come along and eliminate income taxes and all my deductions? Screw that! If you you guys do that, then all of a sudden my mortgage to income ratio grows. And those that have no large mortgages or charitable deductions are sitting pretty... yeah, you can keep that change.

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:03 pm

Marine Hokie wrote:So the current tax system should stay because YOU have a lower tax bill with your current situation? That seems pretty selfish of you.

VoiceOfReason wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:The proposals have been made (see the Fair Tax)..."progessives" simply shoot it down.
Well... I would shoot it down because it is not fair. LOL! Kinda depends who defines "fair" as to what "fair" is.

I can say this. As a homeowner who uses the mortgage interest deduction and a charitable giver ("bleeding heart") I am heavily reliant on the current system. So you guys want to come along and eliminate income taxes and all my deductions? Screw that! If you you guys do that, then all of a sudden my mortgage to income ratio grows. And those that have no large mortgages or charitable deductions are sitting pretty... yeah, you can keep that change.

I have a higher income tax with the progressive system. Try again.

Edit: not sure if you were talking to me, Marine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hokie5150 · Post by **Hokie5150** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:07 pm

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

Correct. the poor will pay nothing at the federal level and the rest will pay based on their personal consumption...

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:09 pm

Hokie5150 wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:Lower taxes, revenue neutral and not regressive. Gotcha.
Correct. the poor will pay nothing at the federal level and the rest will pay based on their personal consumption...

You live in a wonderful world.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:11 pm

Hokie5150 wrote:
VoiceOfReason wrote:LOL! Nah... I don't really consider consumption tax to be a conservative idea. It's been around for decades, so I am a little confused why you guys are so much in the tank for it now
If that's the case, why are libs so dead set against the idea?

Don't ask me... I am not a lib. (Being to the right of you guys HARDLY makes me a card-carrying lib, LOL!)

I think any resistance you get for this idea comes back to my question - who are the winners and who are the losers with this tax?

If the answer is the rich get tax breaks and the middle class and poor pay more... then there is your answer on why libs may oppose it.

If the answer is "everybody wins"... then nobody believes you and the idea is not taken seriously. If everyone's taxes go down... the debt explodes. Yea, good plan...

So please explain who benefits from this fairness and you may start seeing some support for the idea.

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:14 pm

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.

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:16 pm

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?

ip_law-hokie · Post by **ip_law-hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:18 pm

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?

The Fair Tax also provides AG with a 10' dong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

133743Hokie · Post by **133743Hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:19 pm

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.

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.

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:20 pm

Marine Hokie wrote:So the current tax system should stay because YOU have a lower tax bill with your current situation? That seems pretty selfish of you.

Yes, it would seem that way if it were true. There are many questions to be answered... the very first of which is...

WHOSE TAXES WILL GO UP?

That answer will show one of three things:
1) If the answer is "nobody's"... then people are either lying or planning to increase the deficit. Neither of which I support.

2) If the answer is the "takers" (poor and middle class) pay more and the "givers" (upper middle and rich guys) pay less... I can see why you guys would like it... but I would not be for it.

3) If the answer is rich pay more and poor & middle class get a break... then I would love it. But I would wonder why you guys would support it... so I'm just gonna guess this is not the answer. Show me if I am wrong, LOL!

awesome guy · Post by **awesome guy** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:31 pm

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?

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.

Marine Hokie · Post by **Marine Hokie** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:31 pm

To be clear, I'm not defending the fair tax, so don't include me in "you guys".
I'm only responding to your issue that you would personally pay more given your current situation.

VoiceOfReason wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:So the current tax system should stay because YOU have a lower tax bill with your current situation? That seems pretty selfish of you.
Yes, it would seem that way if it were true. There are many questions to be answered... the very first of which is...

WHOSE TAXES WILL GO UP?

That answer will show one of three things:
1) If the answer is "nobody's"... then people are either lying or planning to increase the deficit. Neither of which I support.

2) If the answer is the "takers" (poor and middle class) pay more and the "givers" (upper middle and rich guys) pay less... I can see why you guys would like it... but I would not be for it.

3) If the answer is rich pay more and poor & middle class get a break... then I would love it. But I would wonder why you guys would support it... so I'm just gonna guess this is not the answer. Show me if I am wrong, LOL!

Hokie5150 · Post by **Hokie5150** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:37 pm

VoiceOfReason wrote:WHOSE TAXES WILL GO UP?

If it is revenue neutral, taxes need not go up. People tend forget that a national sales captures more taxpayers such as those who operate "off the books", tourist and business travelers form out of the country, etc...all would pay sales taxes on their purchases.

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:32 pm

ip_law-hokie wrote:
The Fair Tax also provides AG with a 10' dong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He needs the extra 9 inches

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:34 pm

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.
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?

VoiceOfReason · Post by **VoiceOfReason** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:52 pm

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?

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.

United We Stand - uwsboard.com