6 String Tax Plan
POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 10:35
VIEWED: 9512
PAGE 1 of 1
In case you havent notised, I hav yet to put a TAX paje up on my site. Its been a yir and the other pajez were on line within 3 or 4 months.
Its kuz the entire subject borez me to stone. I created this a few weeks ago to try to get started on it: 
Didnt help. I still hav zero enthuziazm for the subject and not enuf spesific ideaz uv my own to fill a paje.
In sharp contrast, SixStringJack haz a bunch uv well defined ideaz with good reazoning behind them.
Its a complicated subject that haz been left to lawyerz and lejislatorz for ever and az a rezult, the US Tax Code iz another tool to extract welth from the American public for the benefit uv The Rich.
So, 6, my frend, hav at it!
Then anybody who haz an interest can critique it and hopefully we can all refine it to the nth degree uv perfection and I'll turn it into a paje on my site.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I toss in a few ideaz?
Maybe there shouldn't be an income tax. Maybe the government should run its own banks and utilities, and tariff imports, and make THAT its revenue base.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Feel free to contribute, but let 6ixstring do hiz thing first.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks J0. Although I'm still reserving judgement for the time being on the current Admin, two of my three biggest issues with the last two were how they handled money and war. I think we're pretty much on the same page for war, so an endorsement of my tax ideas from you oddly enough makes you the most viable candidate for my vote in 2020.
My ideas change a bit through input from others, as my process usually is thinking and re-thinking something to death and bouncing them off of others is a great way of doing that. For instance, my insistance on creating a Constitutional Amendment in my ideas for Social Security changes wasn't even considered until Second had mentioned why the lowest earners were chosen to pay for it in the first place was to ensure that the rich and powerful couldn't take it away without a huge fight.
So I'm just going to post that here right now, and maybe a few other things we've discussed before, and if people have any constructive criticisms of parts of them they can be modified.
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX PLAN:
1. Eliminate the 7.65% Social Security/Medicaid tax on employees (15.3% for self-employed) for the first $100,000 of income and force ALL companies to give the matching half they were paying to the employees. This would be an instant 15.30% pay increase to every single one of the working class that are in poverty all the way up to those making $100,000 per year.
Currently, anybody making up to $127,200 has to pay this on every penny of income. So without doing the actual math, I believe that anybody making up to around $225,000 in a single year would actually see some benefit to this, although those making over $100,000 would see gradual decreases up until the limit.
Make this $100,000 number tied completely to inflation, so it never decreases in real life.
2. Remove the cap completely on income. Everyone making over $100,000 per year will have to pay it on every dime they make over $100,000.
3. Most importantly, make this a constitutional amendment that no person in political power can EVER change this or remove it. A majority of the wealth in this country, as we know, is in the hands of very few relatively speaking. As Second had mentioned when I initially brought this up, it wouldn't be long until the lobbyists for rich people would be fighting these new taxes and calling for the destruction of social security. As the abolition of alcohol and the repealing of that amendment has proven, this isn't a bulletproof measure, but it would make it very hard to ever change and it would have the attention of all of the people if some were to try to make another amendment removing it.
4. Not exactly part of the tax plan, but immediately tie minimum wage to inflation from here forward. The last minimum wage increase was in 2009 to $7.25. 9 years ago. 21 years ago when I was a kid at Toys R Us, it was boosted to $5.25. Back then, kids worked retail jobs and gas was less than a buck a gallon. Now I see almost all adults working them today and the pay is barely any higher than it was in the late 90's.
BENEFITS OF THE PLAN:
Immediate 15.3% pay increase for everyone making less than $100,000 per year, as well as diminishing returns on that number for those making more than $100,000 all the way up to roughly $225,000 per year.
Unlike a LARGE bump in minimum wage that many people are calling for, this increase would not cost most of the companies providing goods and services most people need any more money than they're already paying for a LARGE majority of their employees. This would mean that there should be no reason we start seeing a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread going over $5.00 a few weeks later to pay for these wage increases.
Tying minimum wage to inflation is a measure that should have happened a long time ago. It doesn't only benefit those making minimum wage either. Employers will be forced to raise wages for those with more skills that are currently making more and have more job responsibilitie
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You posted some stuff in the 753 for prez thred a wile back. Probably sumwhere else also. You know how thingz alwayz digress off the topic title.
I put the basic paje up: http://7532020.com/TaKS.htm for you to get an feel for where to start. I havent activated the button for it, so it will only be seen thru links like this till its ready.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We will need to communicate directly, so give me a call sum time over the weekend.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice. 
My "weekends" are probably a bit different than yours are. I just got off my first night of work, and they've got me doing my last 40 for a while. I'm working straight through Tuesday night into Wednesday morning. How's Wednesday or Thursday for you?
I don't really mind using my name here either way, but you might want to reconsider it. Doing a Google search on 6ixStringJack, as cool of a name as that was, is going to lead to a lot of embarrassing, drunk idiocy. If it really bothered me all that much, I'd do something about them, but I'm just saying that you might not want to tie your campaign at all to that name. You know how the public can be. :)
Just to be clear, if we are going to be talking to each other in real life, what is your answer to the question I've been asking other people in the other threads? Not that I'd even entertain the notion of personal contact with you if I thought you'd be out to dox me, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it first.
Later.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I hav no skejyool. You can find my number on my corporate site and call any time. I only turn my fone off wen I'm watching a movie.
I looked thru your resent posts and the only Q I found more than wuns iz "iz Steve Bannon the good guy now?"
My ansr iz no, he'z still a turd. Just kuz he'z at oddz with the turd he helped put in the Wite House duznt mean he duznt stink now. If he duz the rite thing and volunteerz info to convict Trump, then he wont stink so bad. Hard to gloss over 8 yirz uv working agenst Obama.
I assume you hav a real name. I put 6ixStringJack on the paje az a plase holder. If for sum reazon you dont want your real name on your plan, I can rite wutevr you want exept falsly giving me credit for it.
Also, its not a dun deal yet. Your off to a good start with the SS ideaz, but therez alot left to do. And other contributorz mite kum up with sumthing better or modify yourz to the point that you disown it!
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You must have somehow missed all of the drama created by Frem's post, lol. True, you didn't post on it at all to my recollection, but it did span several threads. You should look into it. If nothing else, it's mildly entertaining.
I was asking people if they're for or against threatening somebody else's life or livelihood for any reason whatsoever. Some here on this board find this an acceptable practice as long as the person doing the threatening is doing it to people they don't agree with.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just caught up on it. Left a comment.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I replied after you in that thread. I didn't want to further derail this one.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Transfrd from the for the record topic:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well let's just say that I'm not comfortable with having any more personal contact with you than we currently have at this point J0.
I'm still willing to work with you on the tax plan, but we'll have to do it on here. If you have any specific questions, or would like me to take the time to write up something more official, just say the word. If you feel you have a lot more to talk about that you'd rather speak it to me, you have a youtube channel. Send me a video that is set to be viewed, but not available to the public.
Getting too real for you? Remindz me uv my brother'z Watcher* filosofy.
Fine by me. Its the ideaz that count.
That itself iz a consept that coud cure alot uv the worldz illz.
Altho I chide you for falling for Trump, I've seen hiz campain commercialz and
can see how peepl can get drawn in. He iz a very good exampl AGENST not considering the sorse!
*The Watcher iz a Marvel Comic karakter. He iz a member uv an ancient intergalactic sivilization that withdrew from activ partisipation and strictly limit themselvez to obzerving only. Having any influens at all iz a sin to them.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Herez wut I'll do:
I will cobble together a jeneral tax plan on the paje frum wut youv ritten ubuv and in the me for prez topic. I may stir in sum stuff from The Skeptics Society and Marilyn Vos Savant forumz that I like, then you and everybody else who wants can offer comments, ideaz, complaints.
I will be riting an update on the TrumPutin paje tonite, so will get bak to the TAX paje during the week.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sounds good. Let me know.
I still have no regrets about voting for Trump though. I'll say that overall I'm not impressed by his first year in office, but it would take a hell of a lot more for me to ever say I'd rather have Hillary in office.
Let's just say that I happily voted against GWB for his second term. The Democratic Party was a lot different back then. They've got 3 years to fix themselves, or I'm going to be voting for Trump again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Can I toss in a few ideaz?
Mite az well. 6 seemz to hav backed out.
Quote:
Maybe there shouldn't be an income tax.
I like this idea up to a point. Alredy added it to the paje.
http://www.7532020.com/TaKS.htm
Quote:
Maybe the government should run its own banks and utilities, and tariff imports, and make THAT its revenue base.
I think tarrifs wuz the main sours up until around 1900. Not sure. Its a bad idea kuz its very regressiv. It installz the nationz goverment revenue into the prise uv the products we all buy.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't back out. I just have nothing more to add, and you haven't given me any specific questions about anything. Did you want me to rewrite the entire American tax code? lol
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Did you want me to rewrite the entire American tax code?
Yes.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I appreciate your misplaced faith in my abilities, J0, but I do have to admit that this is one case where my lack of education and experience is going to leave me unfit for the job, not to mention that it just isn't how my "process" works.
Thousands of incompetent and corrupt goons have been purposefully convoluting the American tax code from the bottom up for over 200 years now. I don't imagine that even if you had the right guy for the job that a single person with all the right education and experience and completely benevolent intent could come up with a plan to fix everything.
My mind doesn't work that way anyhow. Ideas come to me and often I don't even know where they originated. If they have any weight, then over time I build on them. If they don't, I just abandon them. I rarely go searching for them.
How about this? Send me a PM with a link to another forum or two that you're discussing this with other people, and assuming that they are throwing ideas out there, I might find some that I like and could work with.
I will say that what Second said about me and my ideas about tax reform in another thread today is half right. I AM most certainly am looking at things that benefit me. But that's not a Texas Republican trait, or a Republican trait in general though. That's just a human trait. Looking out for Number 1 is in our genetic code.
The part Second was wrong about is saying that I don't look at the bigger picture with my ideas and how it will effect other things. Once I have an idea in place, part of my process is kind of like playing chess and thinking several moves down the way and what negative things could possibly happen, and then going back and revising something and then re-running the scenario again.
It's kind of like my work on computer related stuff. I tried to be a programmer back in the day. I find that work and learning how to program to be a miserable task. I'm a great beta tester though, and I know enough to fix some things on my own along the way as not to bother the "talent" with menial tasks, and then suggest to those who can do more than I can what fixes need to be implemented and why they would be beneficial for the end users who know or care nothing about what is under the hood and just want a streamlined experience. I like to surround myself with smart and capable people that I can communicate well with, and I feel that I do a great job streamlining processes because I have a great ability to put myself in other peoples shoes and discover flaws that might have otherwise been unseen until after a product was released. That is a skill that I notice most computer programmers do not possess. I'm generalizing, of course, but it's been my experience that the coders themselves are extremely narrow minded or at least their focus is so singular that they often miss many potential future issues because they can't defocus enough to look at the bigger picture.
That's where I come in. That's what I am good at. I work very well in tandem with somebody else when we can compliment each other's skills.
Enough rambling though...
Give me something to build on. I'll kick the tires a bit and come back to you with something.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You can see wut I'v dun with Sigz idea so far.
Now I'm putting sumthing together for biz taxez. BIG differensez in how much it takes to jenerate inkum, so there haz to be different tax rates.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eliminate Income Tax. It applies to workers, earners only. Replace it with Consumption Tax, which is the most progressive Tax.
Many great benefits.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have really convoluted a new definition of regressive for that statement to make any sense. Likely also redefined progressive by default.
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maybe there shouldn't be an income tax.
I like this idea up to a point. Alredy added it to the paje.
http://www.7532020.com/TaKS.htm
I think tarrifs wuz the main sours up until around 1900. Not sure. Its a bad idea kuz its very regressiv. It installz the nationz goverment revenue into the prise uv the products we all buy.
m
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What MVS forums?
Originally posted by JO753:
I may stir in sum stuff from The Skeptics Society and Marilyn Vos Savant forumz that I like, then you and everybody else who wants can offer comments, ideaz, complaints.
m
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://marilynvossavant.com/forum/index.php
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Eliminate Income Tax. It applies to workers, earners only. Replace it with Consumption Tax, which is the most progressive Tax.
Many great benefits.
Progressive meanz that the rate uv taxation increasez with welth.
Read the paje. I eliminated the income tax without increasing the burden on employerz and eliminated the April 15th brain fossilizer for employeez.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, its ready to look at for the jeneral public.
http://www.7532020.com/TaKS.htm
I didnt rite your social security plan exactly like you rote, 6ix, but I think its better. Redusez the burden for most employeez and their employerz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I took a cursory look over it but I don't really have a lot of time to look at it over the next couple of days. I will have a few days off then and will give it a lot more attention.
One issue that sticks out for me now is in Section 1, the Employee Tax. Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound because of how convoluted everything already is today. Allow me to explain.
Let's say you were working full time in 2018 at $12/hr. That comes to $24,960. However, at the end of the year, you would not be paying 10% taxes on $24,960, which would come out to $2,496. You will be getting the standard deduction of $12,000, so you would only be paying 10% on $12,960, or $1,296.... which is 5.19%. In this instance, your tax plan would save them 0.19% taxes.
Now let's say that you, like more than 50% of Americans today, were working part time, using the same wage as the last example. Under ACA an employer cannot give you more than 30 hours per week on average without making you full time with all of the health insurance and other benefits that come with that. Now your absolute maximum pay for the year at $12 per hour goes down from $24,960 to only $18,720.
With the $12,000 deduction, your federal taxes would only be 10% of $6,720, or $672... only 3.5% of your actual pay.
Under your new plan, this would be an increase of 1.5% in federal taxes somebody making those exact wages if they worked 30 hours per week, which would never happen, so it would likely be more around 25-28 hours per week average for the year. And since most part-time employees in the country don't even make $12/hr, they would be hit even harder by your new tax than this example.
What this essentially means is that you now just accidentally proposed increasing federal taxes on tens of millions of the lowest earning Americans. Whoops!
Don't feel bad buddy. I know that is not your intention at all. I'll take a look over everything and give you more feedback later this week. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Upon re-reading the same part there is another huge problem with it.
What happens to the guy or gal who just got that promotion that put their income from $49,000 per year to $52,000 per year?
Last year their taxes were $2,450 and their take home pay (not including state and local taxes) was $46,550.
This year their taxes are $5,200 and their take home pay is $46,800.
Now they've accepted a lot more work responsibility for what amounts to about a 1/2 percent pay increase. They would have likely been much better off not accepting the promotion and just taking their yearly pay increase which would have meant both more money in the bank and no new job responsibilities.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You misred the plan. Or maybe I rote it non-unpoorly. There iz no inkum tax for employeez.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't misread it. You didn't write it poorly. (I wrote my explanation poorly, and will revise it within the next few days... in the mean time, maybe this further explanation will make you see what I'm trying to get at).
The company doesn't care who is actually paying the taxes, but only what they're going to pay. Just because you say there is no employee tax doesn't mean it's not true. You said yourself that any employee making under $50,000 will be a 5% tax burden for the employee on that employee's income. That's 5% more than it was paying before your tax plan went into effect. That money has to come from somewhere.
Right now, the employee pays it after they get paid. I laid out how low those taxes actually are currently for the lowest earners, so I won't do it again. But for 10's of millions of Americans now this means that there will be more Federal taxes collected on their labor, regardless of who actually pays it or when it gets paid (before or after the paycheck).
Right now it's on you to explain to me how this isn't a large increase in taxes on the lowest earners because that's exactly how you wrote it.
It is a larger tax on the lowest earners. It actually does make a difference when the employer is paying those higher taxes up front as well because the company will just hire people in at a lesser wage to offset those taxes.
EDIT:
As for my second note, it wouldn't be the employee who would be wise in that situation to pass up the promotion to avoid additional taxes, but it would be the employer who would be looking out for their best interests to keep their employees under specific blocks of pay by any means necessary. Maybe even termination, especially in right to work states.
Somebody dangerously close to $50,000 per year risks suddenly being only a $2,400 tax burden and jumping up to a $5,100 tax burden with no reason other than they're making a few thousand dollars more.
This type of thing could easily lead to companies instituting practices such as wage freezes, passing people up for promotions, termination and the like to avoid or postpone paying much higher taxes. There are a lot of potential problems with this model.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see your points.
A solution to the motivation to avoid crossing into the next tax braket woud be to hav a bunch uv tiny brakets or a continuously increasing tax.
Another woud be a single rate for everybody.
I dont like either. The 1st addz complexity and confusion. The 2nd screwz the poor and middle class and duz nothing to help level the playing field.
Keep in mind that no matter wut the system iz, crooks and clever idiots will find a way to game it. Complexity iz their frend.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I see your points.
Glad we're on the same page now. It was my fault you didn't see what I was talking about before. I got my wires crossed because I was trying to do it too quickly. I've always been a bit of a schemer myself, so I might know better how the minds of these people work. I think a lot of the stuff like that is going to seem completely obvious after I say it, but if you're not wired that way you might not have thought about it beforehand.
This is good though. Don't change anything on your page just yet. I still haven't even had time to really go through it much at all. This is how my process works, like I was saying before. You've got it laid out and now we've got something to build on.
I realize that while you were writing that up you were probably not thinking about each thing entirely separately either, and then I just focused on one single thing. This is also good. It's good to come back at this thing from different angles, that way we can see flaws in it that we didn't see from a different perspective. This thing isn't going to work itself out overnight, but now we can kick the tires around and see how we can improve it.
Quote:
A solution to the motivation to avoid crossing into the next tax braket woud be to hav a bunch uv tiny brakets or a continuously increasing tax.
Another woud be a single rate for everybody.
I dont like either. The 1st addz complexity and confusion. The 2nd screwz the poor and middle class and duz nothing to help level the playing field.
Either of them could be a possibility if certain other changes were made that truly balance everything out. We haven't even broached the issue of EIC and other stuff, let alone figured out how all of your other points and things we haven't even thought of would fit into this. The tax code is insanely complex. Which begs the issue, would you propose throwing out everything that wasn't encompassed in your plan when it's finished, or would a lot of that complexity still surround this? I'm not asking you to answer that now... just saying it's something we need to think about while doing all of this.
Quote:
Keep in mind that no matter wut the system iz, crooks and clever idiots will find a way to game it. Complexity iz their frend.
Ain't that the truth, buddy?
I used to live in Illionis. I think I had told you all about my process "fighting" my property taxes in Indiana. But "fighting" isn't the right word for it though. It was a hassle, for sure, but nobody ever fought me on anything. Actually, when it was finally said and done the guy that heads the Assessor's office was praising me for all the due diligence and even I was surprised when he came back about 20 minutes later and told me my taxes had been cut in half. He said I made his job easy. He was right. That was about 200 phone calls back and forth to various institutions, even including getting some documentation on a flood almost 10 years ago from FEMA. 20 minutes of work for him, about 2 months of work for me. As difficult as all of that was, it would never have been possible without paying a lawyer big bucks in Illinois. Purposefully convoluting everything is their specialty.
We'll figure out something good. Don't sweat the tax page until I come back with some more ideas. You've got plenty of other things to do and we've still got over 2 years to do it :)
I'm really looking forward to it. I actually love learning stuff about taxes, but I only ever do it when I'm learning for myself or a few of my family members. This gives me a reason to branch out.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Glad your back on board.
All the polisy related pajez on my site are intended to be just a jeneral outline. Obviously any spesific lejislation woud be much more detailed. Dont want to obfuscate the messaj with too much detail.
Yes, the tax plan iz a replasement for the existing mess. But if therez sumthing worthwile in the old system I'm not agenst salvajing it.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Can I toss in a few ideaz?
Maybe there shouldn't be an income tax.
Inkum tax gon for most employeez!
But sum form uv it still haz to be there for self employed peepl and biznessez.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Glad your back on board.
All the polisy related pajez on my site are intended to be just a jeneral outline. Obviously any spesific lejislation woud be much more detailed. Dont want to obfuscate the messaj with too much detail.
Yes, the tax plan iz a replasement for the existing mess. But if therez sumthing worthwile in the old system I'm not agenst salvajing it.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
I never officially left. If you haven't noticed by now, putting obligations on myself is something I typically avoid. This happens to be something I'm really interested in though, and I enjoy collaborations with people who are like minded on whatever the subject.
No point in putting all the details on a page that nobody is going to read. Short and sweet is best, but the plan still needs to be there underneath. There's no way around it though, it's going to be more complex than you're comfortable with. There are just too many people and too many situations. The simpler you make it, the more unfair it will be to somebody. Sure, it sounds nice to just say "well, screw the rich", but if you go full bore that way you'll never stand a chance of getting elected, unfortunately.
Regarding your message to Signy, did you change the page? I hadn't had a chance to read it all. I asked you didn't make any changes yet until I could do so. Do you have a revisions page, or just an ideas page where you could put them back up behind the scenes?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:minor point of Math. After 12,000 deduction, 10% Tax Rate is on the next $9,525, then 12% . So the Tax on 24,960 would be $1,375.50
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I took a cursory look over it but I don't really have a lot of time to look at it over the next couple of days. I will have a few days off then and will give it a lot more attention.
One issue that sticks out for me now is in Section 1, the Employee Tax. Unfortunately, it's not as cut and dry as you make it sound because of how convoluted everything already is today. Allow me to explain.
Let's say you were working full time in 2018 at $12/hr. That comes to $24,960. However, at the end of the year, you would not be paying 10% taxes on $24,960, which would come out to $2,496. You will be getting the standard deduction of $12,000, so you would only be paying 10% on $12,960, or $1,296...
Quote:So you guys are increasing the Tax Rate on the lowest earners? Definitely Democrats, you 2. And as I already pointed out, JO does not understand the concept of progressive Taxation.
which is 5.19%. In this instance, your tax plan would save them 0.19% taxes.
Now let's say that you, like more than 50% of Americans today, were working part time, using the same wage as the last example. Under ACA an employer cannot give you more than 30 hours per week on average without making you full time with all of the health insurance and other benefits that come with that. Now your absolute maximum pay for the year at $12 per hour goes down from $24,960 to only $18,720.
With the $12,000 deduction, your federal taxes would only be 10% of $6,720, or $672... only 3.5% of your actual pay.
Under your new plan, this would be an increase of 1.5% in federal taxes somebody making those exact wages if they worked 30 hours per week, which would never happen, so it would likely be more around 25-28 hours per week average for the year. And since most part-time employees in the country don't even make $12/hr, they would be hit even harder by your new tax than this example.
What this essentially means is that you now just accidentally proposed increasing federal taxes on tens of millions of the lowest earning Americans. Whoops!
Don't feel bad buddy. I know that is not your intention at all. I'll take a look over everything and give you more feedback later this week. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Math. In 2017 Tax for 49K was 5,393. Take home of $43,607. If 52K was in 2017, Tax was 6,143 - a 3,000 raise with 750 Tax hike, or 25%. Not sure if that's what you meant.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Upon re-reading the same part there is another huge problem with it.
What happens to the guy or gal who just got that promotion that put their income from $49,000 per year to $52,000 per year?
Last year their taxes were $2,450 and their take home pay (not including state and local taxes) was $46,550.
Quote:math. 52K in 2018 would be $4,789 Tax. First 12K exempt, 12,001 - 21,525 @ 10% (952.5), plus 21,526 - 50,200 @ 12% (3,441), plus 50,201 - 52K @ 22% (396). Less Tax than at the lower pay level in 2017. Take home of 47,211. Still not sure if that's what you meant.
This year their taxes are $5,200 and their take home pay is $46,800.
Quote:
Now they've accepted a lot more work responsibility for what amounts to about a 1/2 percent pay increase. They would have likely been much better off not accepting the promotion and just taking their yearly pay increase which would have meant both more money in the bank and no new job responsibilities.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, the employee pays it as "Federal Income Tax" but also the employer pays a matching amount of "payroll taxes" before the employee even sees it.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I didn't misread it. You didn't write it poorly. (I wrote my explanation poorly, and will revise it within the next few days... in the mean time, maybe this further explanation will make you see what I'm trying to get at).
The company doesn't care who is actually paying the taxes, but only what they're going to pay. Just because you say there is no employee tax doesn't mean it's not true. You said yourself that any employee making under $50,000 will be a 5% tax burden for the employee on that employee's income. That's 5% more than it was paying before your tax plan went into effect. That money has to come from somewhere.
Right now, the employee pays it after they get paid.
Quote:
I laid out how low those taxes actually are currently for the lowest earners, so I won't do it again. But for 10's of millions of Americans now this means that there will be more Federal taxes collected on their labor, regardless of who actually pays it or when it gets paid (before or after the paycheck).
Right now it's on you to explain to me how this isn't a large increase in taxes on the lowest earners because that's exactly how you wrote it.
It is a larger tax on the lowest earners. It actually does make a difference when the employer is paying those higher taxes up front as well because the company will just hire people in at a lesser wage to offset those taxes.
EDIT:
As for my second note, it wouldn't be the employee who would be wise in that situation to pass up the promotion to avoid additional taxes, but it would be the employer who would be looking out for their best interests to keep their employees under specific blocks of pay by any means necessary. Maybe even termination, especially in right to work states.
Somebody dangerously close to $50,000 per year risks suddenly being only a $2,400 tax burden and jumping up to a $5,100 tax burden with no reason other than they're making a few thousand dollars more.
This type of thing could easily lead to companies instituting practices such as wage freezes, passing people up for promotions, termination and the like to avoid or postpone paying much higher taxes. There are a lot of potential problems with this model.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I took a look at this.
Originally posted by JO753:
OK, its ready to look at for the jeneral public.
http://www.7532020.com/TaKS.htm
I didnt rite your social security plan exactly like you rote, 6ix, but I think its better. Redusez the burden for most employeez and their employerz.
Everything before "taxes" was BS. Whole paragraphs of nonsense.
You claim to have 4 groups of Tax rates. This will be confusing to most people because you did not explain the major overhaul that your examples reveal.
For the 62K that your example 1 has, you Tax 10% of every single dollar, instead of 10% of only the dollars between 50K and 62K - as the current system of brackets does.
So $50,000 would have $2,500 Tax, and $50,001 would have $5,000 Tax.
And $150,000 would have $15,000 Tax, and $150,001 would have $45,000 Tax.
Then $1,000,000 would have $300,000 Tax, and $1,000,001 would have $500,000 tax.
What are the benefits of any of that? Other than reduce inflation By eliminating pay raises.
Your example 2 seems to be contradictory, you should mention to look in the next section, Self Employed.
Your section 3 example with Chrysler indicates that instead of paying $200,000 Tax on $1,000,000 (net $800,000), they will now pay $160,000 on $800,000 (net $640,000). No need ever again for the Government to obtain a new vehicle - what company would ever want to get screwed by the Government even more than usual?
The entirety of your section 3 is reverting to prior law. But that Taxation practice was changed to the current practice for a reason, seems dumb of you to want to change it back.
And your whole premise seems incomplete so far. Currently about 40% of an employee's stated "earnings" can be evaporated before the paycheck is even issued. But before that, another 40% is already paid by the employer before the "earnings" are even proclaimed on the payroll stub. This means that, of the full amount the employer must expend upon the employee, 6 parts of 14 are what the employee takes home, but 4 parts are hidden, and the employee has no ability to affect them. Your indicated solution is to hide even more of his costs from the employee. The reverse would be more beneficial to revealing to the employee just how much Tax burden they are laden with, instead of hiding it.
The current Taxation allows employees to reduce their tax burden by contributing to a tax-deferred retirement account, which is the benefit of everybody. This only works when the Tax is visible to the employee, and not hidden behind the curtain of "payroll" Fake Wage rates.
For your section 4, what are your examples of tangible products compared to your car manufacturers?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Payroll tax iz just a different name for income tax, even tho it soundz like it woud be just a tax on employerz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
The jeneral idea for me iz that peepl doing real work shoud pay the lowest tax rates. Currently the oppozit iz true.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, Income Tax is only one part of the taxes itemized AFTER the false "earnings" are declared, the "wage" that emoloyees are deluded into thinking are what they cost the emoloyer.
Originally posted by JO753:
Payroll tax iz just a different name for income tax, even tho it soundz like it woud be just a tax on employerz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
The jeneral idea for me iz that peepl doing real work shoud pay the lowest tax rates. Currently the oppozit iz true.
m
The last time I glimpsed the "actual cost" table, the cost to the company was $35/hr for an employee at the $25/hr pay rate, and $52.5/hr at the $37.5/hr overtime rate. That employee likely got $15/hr in straight time take-home pay, or maybe $17.5/hr with finagling. So of the amount the company paid to have that employee work for an hour, the employee took home 43% - 50% of it - but they were deluded into thinking it was less because of the Federally mandated masquerade of Wage Rate being used on the paystub. The overtime rate got them another $6.67/hr in take-home in 2017, so $21.70hr of the $52.5/hr cost would be 41% take home pay for each OT hour.
Yes, all income taxes are the most regressive methods of Taxation.
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You claim to have 4 groups of Tax rates. This will be confusing to most people because you did not explain the major overhaul that your examples reveal.
Mite be a good idea to mention the tax tablez uv the current system.
Quote:
For the 62K that your example 1 has, you Tax 10% of every single dollar, instead of 10% of only the dollars between 50K and 62K.
Thats a good idea. It'll make it a little more complicated to explain, but it sertainly makes more sens.
Quote:
Your example 2 seems to be contradictory, you should mention to look in the next section, Self Employed.
OK.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
Keep in mind that I can barely stay awake wile reading and thinking about taxez, so its thru sheer brute forse that I am able to work on this at all.
But, I think you hav it backwardz. Consumption tax iz salez tax, rite?
Quote:
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?
I prezume you mean they can pack up and move to Ireland or Belize or Russia if they think they are being taxed too heavily.
That makes a good case for Siggy'z tarrifs.
Tarrifs dezined to giv an advantaj to American companyz coud keep wealthy freeloaderz from moving their assez and assets overseaz to avoid taxez.
Their accounting team will need to consider how much they want to make in the U.S. market. If they want to try to avoid paying any tax by moving all their operationz and assets overseaz, they will quickly be replased by otherz who dont hav such feelingz uv entitlement.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Effectively, yes. Local and Statewide politicians are more responsive to voters, so the taxable items could be designated by regional or state laws. Groceries, housing, education, mass transit, retirement funds, medical costs could be non-taxable. A poor persons regular expenses are dominated by these, so they could be effectively tax-free, except for whatever luxuries THEY CHOOSE TO PAY TAXES ON. The wealthy will spend the greatest percentage on luxuries. The middle class could choose to pay taxes by spending on restaurants instead of groceries, etc. The wealthy who don't work would still need to buy stuff, most likely luxury items. How much could they possibly spend on groceries, medical, education, etc AS A PERCENTAGE OF THEIR CASH FLOW, OR SPENDING BUDGET? The wealthy pay a far higher percentage of Tax than the poor this way, the most progressive Taxation method.
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:Keep in mind that I can barely stay awake wile reading and thinking about taxez, so its thru sheer brute forse that I am able to work on this at all.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
But, I think you hav it backwardz. Consumption tax iz salez tax, rite?
Regarding housing, a threshold could be made for taxable rates, which could effectively help with "rent price control" rates.
And the IRS would be defunct. How many BILLIONS of the Federal Budget saved right there, every year.
Quote:Why should they move? They won't be paying any income tax at all. Why would you think they need to work at all for 4 years? No work, no "earnings", no tax.Quote:I prezume you mean they can pack up and move to Ireland or Belize or Russia if they think they are being taxed too heavily.
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?
These are the people who should pay the most taxes, but Income Tax won't touch them. Consumption Tax would.
Would you rather generate your Revenue via the Yacht purchase of the 1%, or forcing the bottom 50% to starve their kids?
Quote:And maybe all of their employees won't need to have jobs for 4 years, either. Those newly unemployed could find a poor person to ask for a job.
That makes a good case for Siggy'z tarrifs.
Their accounting team will need to consider how much they want to make in the U.S. market.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
It seemz to me all super rich peepl reseev their income from their own corporationz and most hi earnerz (like selebrityz, newz ankorz, ball playerz) get their pay az employeez.
The billionaire'z corporationz will be paying 20, 30 or 50% depending on their catagory and the amount they take az salary or wutever will be mostly at 50%.
I havent gotten to thingz like capital gainz, inheritance, etc, but I'm thinking thingz like that shoud be covered by the financial biz tax catagory.
I'v updated the employee tax section and made a few other chanjez.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.
I'd wonder how you'd go about changing that though? As much as I'm not a fan of the DOW and investing in general, it's ingrained in the structure of our society now. If you just raised capital gains taxes to 40%, nobody would invest anything and the whole damn country would probably crash and burn overnight when everybody rushed to sell off before the taxes would hit them.
I do like JSF's Consumption Tax idea. A lot, actually. If all the right things were able to be purchased tax free and there was a higher rate for other things considered luxuries, that might work. (I would also add things like electricity, heat, water/trash and even internet to that.... but not Cable/Dish TV or cell phones).
As another example, in Indiana, one of the reasons Property Tax is so low compared to other neighboring states is because of the "Personal Property Tax/Excise Tax".
Quote:
Personal property taxes are levied against equipment used in the production of income or held as an investment; billboards; foundations for the equipment; and all other tangible property other than real property. Computer application software is considered an intangible asset and is not assessable.
Licensed motor vehicles, trailers, motorized boats, most airplanes, campers, recreational vehicles and other registered vehicles that are subject to excise tax collected at the time of licensure by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles are not subject to personal property tax.
A huge part of this is the taxes on vehicles. My piece of shit car would cost $112 per year to license in Illinois... The same as somebody with a shiny new Bentley would pay, but in Indiana it's only $32. At the same time, somebody who buys a new $50,000 ride will be paying just under $600 to license it their first year, and that amount drops lower for the first 10 years of the car's life.
This is actually the "Perfect Tax" in my eyes. Not only does the large amount of vehicles on the road in the state heavily subsidize property taxes, but if you don't mind riding around in a 10+ year old car like me than you pay almost nothing for that as well. It's only the people who choose to have a brand new car that have to pay it (whether or not they even own a home or they rent).
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow... I like our vehicle excise tax even more. I think they must have changed it somewhat recently because I am almost 100% positive it used to cap out at $582 for the first year on a new car. Here's the newest tables though:
https://www.in.gov/bmv/2624.htm
The highest is "Class 17", which is $200,000 or over. Somebody would pay $2,375 the first year they owned it just to license it. At 10 years old it would be $123.
There must be some other fees associated with it as well. My car would have only been in Class 6 or 7 when it was new, meaning my tax should only be $12 per year now. I'll have to check it out in April when I have to pay it again and see what the fees are. I can't be bothered to find out what that $20 goes to right now.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Corporate Tax only applies if they make a profit, right? If the billionaire's company is making too much, they merely need to buy some new equipment to show they spent more than received for the year, creating a Corporate Loss.
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
It seemz to me all super rich peepl reseev their income from their own corporationz and most hi earnerz (like selebrityz, newz ankorz, ball playerz) get their pay az employeez.
The billionaire'z corporationz will be paying 20, 30 or 50% depending on their catagory and the amount they take az salary or wutever will be mostly at 50%.
I havent gotten to thingz like capital gainz, inheritance, etc, but I'm thinking thingz like that shoud be covered by the financial biz tax catagory.
I'v updated the employee tax section and made a few other chanjez.
Capital Gains only applies if they sell an investment instrument, right? Floating value of Instruments they bought years ago would not count.
Why would the 4th wealthiest person in America go to work during the 4 years of your adminstration? Do you consider golfing to be "work" even though it is Tax deductible as business expenses? Is yachting "work"? Is vacationing in The Med "work"?
So, no business income, no income as employee, no Capital Gains, no tax on any gains or income. But they can spend gazillions during that 4 years without contributing to your Federal Revenue. Only States will get funding, through sales taxes in places like Florida, which billionaires are sure to visit.
Because you don't have a Consumption Tax, because you only want to confiscate from the hardest working, the poorest, those with the least to contribute to your Revenues.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.
Quote:Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.
I'd wonder how you'd go about changing that though? As much as I'm not a fan of the DOW and investing in general, it's ingrained in the structure of our society now. If you just raised capital gains taxes to 40%, nobody would invest anything and the whole damn country would probably crash and burn overnight when everybody rushed to sell off before the taxes would hit them.
Quote:Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
I do like JSF's Consumption Tax idea. A lot, actually. If all the right things were able to be purchased tax free and there was a higher rate for other things considered luxuries, that might work. (I would also add things like electricity, heat, water/trash and even internet to that.... but not Cable/Dish TV or cell phones).
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"
Quote:
As another example, in Indiana, one of the reasons Property Tax is so low compared to other neighboring states is because of the "Personal Property Tax/Excise Tax".Quote:A huge part of this is the taxes on vehicles. My piece of shit car would cost $112 per year to license in Illinois... The same as somebody with a shiny new Bentley would pay, but in Indiana it'
Personal property taxes are levied against equipment used in the production of income or held as an investment; billboards; foundations for the equipment; and all other tangible property other than real property. Computer application software is considered an intangible asset and is not assessable.
Licensed motor vehicles, trailers, motorized boats, most airplanes, campers, recreational vehicles and other registered vehicles that are subject to excise tax collected at the time of licensure by the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles are not subject to personal property tax.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Your new rate of 0% goes up to $10,000 of annual pay. I was under the impression that the poverty level was something near $20,000. Is there some reason you want to Tax incomes below $20K? Hard to imagine that is a major contribution to Revenue coffers, or are you just trying to punish the poorest, like Obama and the Democrats do?
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
I'v updated the employee tax section and made a few other chanjez.
Your example 2: Walmart pays 31,200. Bowling pays $26,000. EBay earns $5,200. Math in the Real World sums this to $62,400. But you state differently.
Your revised example 1:
You state 13,233. Which the Tax Table shows is the Tax due for a Single Earner with up to $80,400 in 2017.
You indicated the Earner got $70,000. Which, in 2017 the Tax Table shows a Single Earner would have $10,633 Tax due.
So, for those earning around average for Americans, you are replacing $10,633 with $4,000 into Revenue coffers - for each and every worker at average or below income, which must be 60% - 70% of Earners.
And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing. 2 largest portions of the Revenue pie you are reducing by 60% or more. Where are you planning to recoup these lost Revenues? Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought I was in Reply mode, but was Editing. So reposting now:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:No, Income Tax is only one part of the taxes itemized AFTER the false "earnings" are declared, the "wage" that emoloyees are deluded into thinking are what they cost the emoloyer.
Originally posted by JO753:
Payroll tax iz just a different name for income tax, even tho it soundz like it woud be just a tax on employerz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax
The jeneral idea for me iz that peepl doing real work shoud pay the lowest tax rates. Currently the oppozit iz true.
m
The last time I glimpsed the "actual cost" table, the cost to the company was $35/hr for an employee at the $25/hr pay rate, and $52.5/hr at the $37.5/hr overtime rate. That employee likely got $15/hr in straight time take-home pay, or maybe $17.5/hr with finagling. So of the amount the company paid to have that employee work for an hour, the employee took home 43% - 50% of it - but they were deluded into thinking it was less because of the Federally mandated masquerade of Wage Rate being used on the paystub. The overtime rate got them another $6.67/hr in take-home in 2017, so $21.70hr of the $52.5/hr cost would be 41% take home pay for each OT hour. Or 46% with finagling.
Your solution is not to unmask how much of the employer's cost is confiscated before the employee gets a dime, but to hide even more of it behind the curtain of the Fake Wage Rate hypocrisy. Pretending that the employee gets more like 100% of what the employer pays, instead of 40%. I don't envision your smoke and mirrors ploy to have any real benefit, but it will provide real problems.
Yes, all income taxes are the most regressive methods of Taxation.
Consumption Tax is the only real progressive Tax method.
Of your 4 wealthiest Americans, how much do you expect they will choose to pay in Income Tax during the 4 years of your Presidency?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your new rate of 0% goes up to $10,000 of annual pay. I was under the impression that the poverty level was something near $20,000.
I didnt incorporate the poverty level into the plan. I just figured the tax revenue below 10,000$ iz very small, so not worth the effort to collect.
If you make it too hi, cheapskate employerz woud be able to hire their entire workfors in the 0% level.
There will definitly need to be lawz to prevent abuse uv the 0% level anyway. Employerz coud possibly hire minimum waje part timerz and then everybody haz 3 or 4 jobz working 10 owrz each.
Quote:
Your example 2: Walmart pays 31,200. Bowling pays $26,000. EBay earns $5,200. Math in the Real World sums this to $62,300. But you state differently.
! I dont no! Like I sed, its reely difficult for me to bend my brain to tax cojitating! I coud wake up from a solid 10 owrz uv sleep, guzzle a 1,000 calorie banana Ovaltine shake, have Metal Church blasting on the stereo, snort a teenth uv Hiezenberg'z Finest then open the instructionz for the 1040 form and instantly fall back to sleep.
Looks like I failed to add the Ebay earningz wen I rote 56,400$, but I dont know where the extra 200$ came from. The bowling alley wuz clozed for the Christmas & New Yir holiday weeks.
By the way - Your number appearz to be short by 100. Wuzzup widdat?
Quote:
Your revised example 1:
You state 13,233. Which the Tax Table shows is the Tax due for a Single Earner with up to $80,400 in 2017.
You indicated the Earner got $70,000. Which, in 2017 the Tax Table shows a Single Earner would have $10,633 Tax due.
The table I'm looking at showz 13,233$. Are you subtracting the standard deduction or wutevr? Maybe I shoud do that.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing.
A hedge fund manajer payz 15% now. Remember during the 2012 election it came out that Romney wuz paying around 12% ? Remember Ryan theorizing that peepl who earn their money on capital gainz from investments shoud be paying nothing?
In the new plan, they will pay 50%.
Wutever tricks they mite try to avoid paying for income jenerated in the United States need to be blocked by detailz in the new tax plan.
The current code iz chock full uv loop holez made spesificly for the rich to avoid paying. The new plan will be chock full uv shieldz to keep them frum weazeling out uv paying the full 50%.
Quote:
Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?
I dont no yet. The discretionary spending iznt a anywhere near az big az set costs. Going after squanderaj and fraud iz alwayz popular, but never seemz to happen for long.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This means you did not overlook what I mentioned, not an error, ommission, or miscalculation.
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:I didnt incorporate the poverty level into the plan. I just figured the tax revenue below 10,000$ iz very small, so not worth the effort to collect.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your new rate of 0% goes up to $10,000 of annual pay. I was under the impression that the poverty level was something near $20,000.
If you make it too hi, cheapskate employerz woud be able to hire their entire workfors in the 0% level.
Quote:You are correct, typo. I corrected my original post to $62,400 to reduce confusion. I hate making typos with numbers and figures, but at least enough of it was clear so you could conjure the error.
There will definitly need to be lawz to prevent abuse uv the 0% level anyway. Employerz coud possibly hire minimum waje part timerz and then everybody haz 3 or 4 jobz working 10 owrz each.Quote:! I dont no! Like I sed, its reely difficult for me to bend my brain to tax cojitating! I coud wake up from a solid 10 owrz uv sleep, guzzle a 1,000 calorie banana Ovaltine shake, have Metal Church blasting on the stereo, snort a teenth uv Hiezenberg'z Finest then open the instructionz for the 1040 form and instantly fall back to sleep.
Your example 2: Walmart pays 31,200. Bowling pays $26,000. EBay earns $5,200. Math in the Real World sums this to $62,300. But you state differently.
Looks like I failed to add the Ebay earningz wen I rote 56,400$, but I dont know where the extra 200$ came from. The bowling alley wuz clozed for the Christmas & New Yir holiday weeks.
By the way - Your number appearz to be short by 100. Wuzzup widdat?
Bowling Alley closed the 2 most profitable weeks of the year? They trying to go out of business?
Quote:The table you link to is for Taxable Income, which is after deductions. In 2017 Single Standard with no dependants is $10,400.Quote:The table I'm looking at showz 13,233$. Are you subtracting the standard deduction or wutevr? Maybe I shoud do that.
Your revised example 1:
You state 13,233. Which the Tax Table shows is the Tax due for a Single Earner with up to $80,400 in 2017.
You indicated the Earner got $70,000. Which, in 2017 the Tax Table shows a Single Earner would have $10,633 Tax due.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A hedge fund manajer payz 15% now. Remember during the 2012 election it came out that Romney wuz paying around 12% ? Remember Ryan theorizing that peepl who earn their money on capital gainz from investments shoud be paying nothing?
Originally posted by JO753:Quote:And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
In the new plan, they will pay 50%.
Wutever tricks they mite try to avoid paying for income jenerated in the United States need to be blocked by detailz in the new tax plan.
The current code iz chock full uv loop holez made spesificly for the rich to avoid paying. The new plan will be chock full uv shieldz to keep them frum weazeling out uv paying the full 50%.
Quote:I dont no yet. The discretionary spending iznt a anywhere near az big az set costs. Going after squanderaj and fraud iz alwayz popular, but never seemz to happen for long.
Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?
Currently Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Capital Gains, Dividends are different things. I have not seen where you address each.
So if they don't get paid, don't get any dividends, don't get any Capital Gains, don't have any Corporate profit, then they will contribute nothing toward your Revenue column on the balance sheet. So you have replaced billions of dollars in Revenue with ZERO. When you are out of office, they will reap their rewards.
"Set costs" are merely the result of poor Budget planning from previous years, which you are trying to make even worse than ever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
How did I lie? He pays a lower tax rate on his salary on income tax, so he paid less income tax. Obviously he paid a lot more actual taxes in other formats.
Quote:
Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.
Yup. That's what I was saying, and why I liked it.
Quote:
Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"
I'd guess that most states tax groceries. Granted, I've only lived in 3 of them in my life, but WI was the only state that didn't. If the other two were IL and CA, then I'd say you were probably right, but IN charges a grocery tax at the same rate of sales tax as everything else. However, in Indiana an airplane for business purposes is still taxed.
I agree that the bottom tier internet only should be free. Nobody really needs any more than that anyhow. I pay 50 bucks for mine right now and it's much more than I'd ever need and I get more use from that 50 bucks than almost anything else I purchase.
Quote:
Consumption Tax is barely a dent in the spending Budgets of the wealthy, but is critical for everybody surrounding them. When a "new car" is a true status symbol, no reason it shouldn't be taxed more.
This also reminds me of the criminal trades. How many drug dealers pay a dime of Income Tax? But they all live that life to spend money, right? So Consumption Tax would not even register to them, they'd pay it gladly for their status symbols, and Revenue coffers would finally reap their ill-gotten gains.
Criminals would, for once, pay more Tax than hard working Citizens they mingle among.
An old apartment complex a few miles from me that used to be classy as hell when I lived there in around 2000 is now all section 8 housing. It's a real dump. It his home to some of the most luxurious cars in the city now though. A lot of that government subsidized rent goes back into the system in vehicle taxes.
Quote:
Also, one example of locNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:How did I lie? He pays a lower tax rate on his salary on income tax, so he paid less income tax. Obviously he paid a lot more actual taxes in other formats.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.
When called out on your falsehood, why did you deny the fact? I don't know.
Why did you prop up your doubling down with further, new lies? I don't know.
A fundamental inability to understand how taxes work leaves you floundering when trying to stabilize a foundation to build a new system upon.
Quote:From the info of 2017, the States that Tax groceQuote:Yup. That's what I was saying, and why I liked it.
Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.Quote:I'd guess that most states tax groceries. Granted, I've only lived in 3 of them in my life, but WI was the only state that didn't. If the other two were IL and CA, then I'd say you were probably right, but IN charges a grocery tax at the same rate of sales tax as everything else.
Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Its been 16 yirz sins I got a regular paycheck. I forgot that the standard deduction wuz subtracted befor the tax iz calculated.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, I corrected the arithmatic in example 1 agen.
I missed sumthing else - in comparing the income & taxez, it wuz 27.30$ per hour vs 30$ per hour. So I had to divide the 70,000 earned by 27.3 to get the number uv owrz worked (2564.1) and then multiply that by 30 to get the income payed for the yir in the current system (76,923$) then I subtracted the 2018 Trump standard deduction. (12,000$)
Still just an approximation, but good enuf for the example.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It might be confusing to link to a Tax Table for 2017 but use Standard Deduction from 2018.
Originally posted by JO753:
OK, I corrected the arithmatic in example 1 agen.
I missed sumthing else - in comparing the income & taxez, it wuz 27.30$ per hour vs 30$ per hour. So I had to divide the 70,000 earned by 27.3 to get the number uv owrz worked (2564.1) and then multiply that by 30 to get the income payed for the yir in the current system (76,923$) then I subtracted the 2018 Trump standard deduction. (12,000$)
Still just an approximation, but good enuf for the example.
m
I wasn't settled in on your example enough to iron out what your errors were.
If you include that $76,923 figure in the site explanation of "current Tax system" it could be less confusing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Definitly.
Its kind uv a hassle to update the online paje, so I'll save up a few correctionz and additionz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey JSF. Quit trolling this thread.
Don't look too far down his rabbit hole, J0. He is no friend of the working class, and is looking to fill your head up with untruths to get you off track.
For instance... if you eliminate income tax entirely, what will you do with EIC? For somebody like me it's just a few hundred bucks. For a mother of 3 kids making part time minimum wage it virtually doubles her disposable income for the year. She doesn't get it if she doesn't file for income taxes.
Food for thought, since any plan you lay out to try to redistribute that money some other way is going to shine a spotlight on it and you're not likely to get it through.
Even I don't agree with those payments I'm pointing this out to you because it's not my tax plan we're talking about.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.
You've called me a liar twice now, and offered no quotes, so I will:
Quote:
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."
I said that he pays less income tax. This is true. He doesn't actually "work" anymore and the money works for him.
What he was referring to in the quote was the fact that though he will be paying a LOT more taxes than they will with the Capital Gains taxes, his employees will all be paying a larger percentage of the money they made because income taxes are a higher percentage than capital gains taxes are.
Still not seeing your lie claim. You see lies everywhere though, so I'll just chalk that up to a personality flaw like T's.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I need oppozing viewz just az much az new ideaz. JSF iz being very helpful.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am thinking that the social security system will be overflowing with money after removing the cap, even at a lower %.
5% uv the GDP iz about a trillion dollarz.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I need oppozing viewz just az much az new ideaz. JSF iz being very helpful.
Ok: my taxable 2 cents: burn all existing tax ideas down to the ground, then run all the accountants and lawyers out of the room and start from scratch. Ask such questions as: "What is the purpose of TAX?" "What is a fair share?" "What is a living wage?" "What are the financial needs and requirements individuals place on local/state and federal gov?" Same for Business. Be a fiddler on a roof: "If I were a rich man..." how would I be "ok" paying "more" taxes and not try and dodge them? (hint: they are a vain lot, appeal to that). "You hear about the new bridge they're building? You mean the JO753 bridge? It's pretty cool!"
Be bold, unemotional, imaginative, fair, and a killer with the maths. You may never get another chance like this!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like the way you think!
Wuts your take on wuts there now?
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is not true. He pays more income tax than his employees do, even though his Tax is derived from Income from Capital Gains and not Wages or Salary, which you have claimed. His income Tax paid is not less, it is more. You claiming that he pays less income tax is an untruth. He states his TAX RATE is lower, and you pretend he says he paid LESS TAX, which is a blatant falsehood, both in fact and in translation, (known as a Kutlerism after the despicable Stanley Kutler).
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:You've called me a liar twice now, and offered no quotes, so I will:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.Quote:I said that he pays less income tax. This is true.
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."
Quote:
He doesn't actually "work" anymore and the money works for him.
What he was referring to in the quote was the fact that though he will be paying a LOT more taxes than they will with the Capital Gains taxes, his employees will all be paying a larger percentage of the money they made because income taxes are a higher percentage than capital gains taxes are.
Still not seeing your lie claim. You see lies everywhere though, so I'll just chalk that up to a personality flaw like T's.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Quote:
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying ...."
You have said I provided no quotes, but I already said I quoted your false statements which you subsequently walked back.
Here is where I made that quote of you:
Quote:Just to be clear, if he paid $1,000,000 in Income Taxes, I do not consider that t
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is yet another bandaid workaround from a failed Social Safety Net system, piggybacked onto s failed and inherently unfair and regressive Taxation architecture.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Hey JSF. Quit trolling this thread.
For instance... if you eliminate income tax entirely, what will you do with EIC? For somebody like me it's just a few hundred bucks. For a mother of 3 kids making part time minimum wage it virtually doubles her disposable income for the year. She doesn't get it if she doesn't file for income taxes.
JO seems interested in making significant changes to things. So why tinker with an Edsel instead of developing a solid foundation and sound architecture for the Taxation, resulting in fairness and room for growth and improvement for each individual instead of only the powerful or connected?
A mother supporting kids will practically be outside the Taxation game, most of her purchases will be for untaxed items, unless she shovels McDonald's down their holes instead of cooking groceries.
Quote:JO has said he doesn't clearly follow the taxes and maths, they put him to sleep or give him headaches. So why bother trying to distract him in a thread he already considers a gauntlet to navigate?
Even I don't agree with those payments I'm pointing this out to you because it's not my tax plan we're talking about.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
I have advocated Consumption Tax because it is the fairest, most progressive and most self-controlled. Otherwise I have been pointing out Math errors, potential logic errors - some of which were intended, some apparently not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you are failing to see the big problemz with consumption tax, JSF.
1. Rich peeple dont buy enuf uv their rich peepl stuff to support their fair share uv the goverment. Even if you are propozing that salez tax on a new classification uv 'super luxury' itemz will be in multiplez above 100%, they still cant possibly spend enuf.
For example, Steve Bezos may buy a new house in yir 1 uv your salez tax system for 100,000,000$ and pay 10x that much in salez tax, but he iznt going to by another for many yirz, if ever.
He iz also not going to buy a new super yot every yir or a new fleet uv Farrariz every yir.
2. Classifying everything but food and other life nessesityz az 'luxuryz' and taxing it all at 20% or more will reduse salez. That will reduse demand, wich will reduse manufacturing and all commers. Bigger tikit itemz will get hit the hardest. Carz in particular.
3. It diez a quick deth from avoidans.
Peepl will trade food and drugz for the so-called luxury itemz. They will buy used stuff from private sellerz insted uv storez. Alot uv black market new stuff also. So much stuff will fall off the truck that the storez wont hav anything to sell!
4. The IRS woud be spending all its time going after Craigz List, Ebay, flea market sellerz.
Everybody woud need to be salez tax snitchez with the new tax formz. And we'd haf to keep track uv everything we bot and sold. You think audits are painful now - it woud be like getting worked on by a dentist and a proctocolojist at the same time!
Can you imajin having to do inventory in your house?! "Sorry Mr. Stait, but that VCR iznt listed until last yir. Where did you buy it?" "A gift from your brother, eh? Well, we are going to haf to ask him about that - and a bunch uv other irregularityz also, so we shoud just do a complete audit on him."
I'v red the theoryz about how its suppozed to be the most efficient system, but the armchair expert academicianz are failing to consider reality.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are trying rto view it from guessing what they spend their money on.
Originally posted by JO753:
I think you are failing to see the big problemz with consumption tax, JSF.
1. Rich peeple dont buy enuf uv their rich peepl stuff to support their fair share uv the goverment. Even if you are propozing that salez tax on a new classification uv 'super luxury' itemz will be in multiplez above 100%, they still cant possibly spend enuf.
For example, Steve Bezos may buy a new house in yir 1 uv your salez tax system for 100,000,000$ and pay 10x that much in salez tax, but he iznt going to by another for many yirz, if ever.
He iz also not going to buy a new super yot every yir or a new fleet uv Farrariz every yir.
Try instead to imagine what untaxable spending they will have - proportionally far less than poor or middle class. What do we care what they spend their income on? We wouldn't care, because the Consumption Tax would capture it all, outside of whatever is tax-free. It's none of our business.
How much can they possibly spend on groceries? Even if they only buy steaks, lobsters, caviar and cook it at home? How much, all year long? (Prepared and packaged caviar, ready-to-eat, is taxable, and would still be - along with any prepared food. Meat cut, milk, eggs, canned fruit or vegetable = untaxed grocery. Prepared sandwich from Deli, potato salad = taxed food.
Quote:I have not seen sales tax create a reduction in sales. People still need to buy stuff. McDonald's, iPhones, video games, Starbucks, big screens are like crack - it doesn't matter what they cost. Maybe a realignment towards essential items could occur, but it wouldn't last.
2. Classifying everything but food and other life nessesityz az 'luxuryz' and taxing it all at 20% or more will reduse salez. That will reduse demand, wich will reduse manufacturing and all commers. Bigger tikit itemz will get hit the hardest. Carz in particular.
And they will have that "bonus" in their paychecks to pay for it all - from No Income Tax.
Quote:bartering is normally considered to strengthen the community, the neighborhood, the commune. We can assume bartering happens every day, right now. But the lost Taxation on Criminal trade far outweighs whatever escapes capture via bartering. Bartering should not be illegal, and could even be encouraged. Trading bags of groceries for a big screen TV? Have at it. Drugs will really only be useful tender among other drug users. Eventually all the vehicles on the block of drug dealers will be a whole year old - they won't be able to put up with that. And vehicles still require title transfers and registration, otherwise the dealers give the cops ample excuse to arrest and search, confiscate the ride. I have not heard of flea market sales being recorded. How much do you really think will escape Taxation that way? How many of the rich that you really want to target and Tax are hanging at the flea markets, with the unwashed masses? I would think flea markets are chock full of those that you don't want to Tax!
3. It diez a quick deth from avoidans.
Peepl will trade food and drugz for the so-called luxury itemz. They will buy used stuff from private sellerz insted uv storez. Alot uv black market new stuff also. So much stuff will fall off the truck that the storez wont hav anything to sell!
Fun Fact: as of 2013, the estimated Black Market economy for illegal drugs in America was up to $750 Billion. Wouldn't you like to capture 20% of that? That $150 Billion could erase the annual Deficit.
Black Market, theft would still be crimes. Maybe they aren't in your world. The bigger ticket items would have the higher penalties for theft, just like now. The lower priced items - why bother?
Quote:only sellers making over 50K, right? Unincorporated sellers shipping TVs other big ticket items? I'm not sure that's a big deal - a
4. The IRS woud be spending all its time going after Craigz List, Ebay, flea market sellerz.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Consider the existing situation. How did the super rich get all the money?
The establish a revenue stream that takes money out uv the system at a very fast rate.
Youd need a consumption tax that balansez that out.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'v updated the paje agen. Added stuf to the SS section. Also redid the home paje. Found out my donate button wuz asking for 75$ at the lowest!!!! I dont no how it got set that hi. rest it to 10$ but havent updated it on all the pajez yet.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One of the methods for the rich becoming super rich is by Not Paying Income Tax on Wage or Salary, which is the most penalized and regressive, only Taxing workers.
Originally posted by JO753:
Consider the existing situation. How did the super rich get all the money?
The establish a revenue stream that takes money out uv the system at a very fast rate.
Youd need a consumption tax that balansez that out.
Obama made this disparity worse.
You look to be perpetuating this by keeping the yoke on workers, no matter how you masquerade the collection process.
I don't understand what your meaning is "takes money out" of "the system"
Consumption Tax collects as fast as people spend, and people spend fast. The only folk who really care if they are paying tax or not are the truly poor, who we don't really want to target for Taxation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Taking money out uv the system.
Its wut most uv the billionairez do to bekum billionairez. They dont provide products or servisez that you woud agree to pay for, given a choise.
The revenue streemz they establish are based on moving money around. They are purely parasitic. Lots uv it haz a connection to real estate, wich iz the biggest cattle milking operation in the world.
Then there are thoze that latch on to wun uv the goverment supported industriez, such az healthcare. The governor uv Illinois made hiz billionz off uv Medicare/Medicaid with nursing homez.
Bill Gates can kind uv be seen az an exeption sins Microsoft haz an actual product. But thats ignoring the history - he really got rich thru criminal bizness practisez. Hiz product haz been a severe detriment to sosiety all along.
Its all about getting hold uv money befor us prolez ever see it.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Real Estate transactions are fully taxable - you would capture all of these transactions with Consumption Tax. You keep making points that support Consumption Tax.
Originally posted by JO753:
Taking money out uv the system.
Its wut most uv the billionairez do to bekum billionairez. They dont provide products or servisez that you woud agree to pay for, given a choise.
The revenue streemz they establish are based on moving money around. They are purely parasitic. Lots uv it haz a connection to real estate, wich iz the biggest cattle milking operation in the world.
Quote:Well, you finally hammered a nail dead center on the head.
Then there are thoze that latch on to wun uv the goverment supported industriez, such az healthcare. The governor uv Illinois made hiz billionz off uv Medicare/Medicaid with nursing homez.
Bill Gates can kind uv be seen az an exeption sins Microsoft haz an actual product. But thats ignoring the history - he really got rich thru criminal bizness practisez. Hiz product haz been a severe detriment to sosiety all along.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
U.S. House passes $1.7 trillion bill the media and political class tell you Ukraine Needs 1 Trillion of your Taxdollars, Apparently
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fuck Ukraine. Fuck Democrats. Fuck NeoCons. Fuck Joe Biden*.
--------------------------------------------------
Growing up in a Republic was nice... Shame we couldn't keep it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME