Ask Me Help Desk - Tax Justice

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I did not call him a liar. I said he was lying because...he was lying. WG doesn't get to tell me not to be honest with people.

There is so much to respond to, I'll try and make it simple.

1. Don't know what a "spirious" response is. I suppose you meant "spurious". To force a wealthy person to contribute to a retirement program he would otherwise not choose to contribute to is hardly spurious.

It is spirious because as I said you cannot know whether you will need it or not. Why do I need to repeat myself

Quote:

2. Tell me why I shouldn't think that you find the Aussie system to be great because it does not require you to contribute so much as a penny. Am I wrong in thinking that?

yes our system is somewhat more evolved than yours and much simpler. It recognises that people who save for retirement shouldn't be taxed twice. It also recognises that people with little income should be allowed to keep that income

Quote:

3. When you say that I believe we should ignore the poor, you are lying. That is a fact. You would be much better served to own up to your mistake. If you had done that, then perhaps you were just over-exuberant in expressing your "opinion". That you won't do that raises eyebrows.

4. Some poor people make good decisions and become better off and even wealthy such as Dr. Carson. Some poor people make bad decisions and stay poor. We should encourage everyone to make good decisions. I would think that would be the most startlingly obvious truth imaginable.

Yes encourage people to make good decisions so don't use the blunt instrument of taxation to keep them down and politicians making millions

Quote:

My comment on Social Security was entirely accurate. You sometimes confuse inaccuracy with you disliking the truth.

another spirious comment, your idea of Social security is aponzie scheme

6.

Quote:

My comment about what Jesus said was 100% accurate. He never commanded the government to operate a welfare system. As to what the Bible says, if you know how to refute what I said, then do it. Otherwise, it certainly appears to be the complaining of a man who knows he has no answers.

Obviously you don't understand old testament Israel, their welfare system was imbedded. Why would he give instructions about what already existed

Quote:

7. Clete, if you can refute an argument, then have at it. I haven't seen that you can. The rich are taxed more than the poor. It is a fact. I have not complained about that. I have presented that as clear, objective evidence that our income tax system does not favor the rich as others have suggested.

all you have presented are statistics. You haven't addressed what proportion of national assets these rich own and how they got to own it, obvious taxation didn't stop them

8.

Quote:

A flat rate consumption tax is something I would consider. Most of the flat rate income tax plans I have seen have provisions built in to protect the poor. They have the enormous benefit of not allowing the wealthy to pay no taxes at all as all of you constantly complain about, as well you should. That was, by the way, the "tax policy" of the Old Testament. However it's done, my major concerns are to have a balanced budget and not destroy the economy in the process.

we implemented it without destroying the economy, in fact the economy grew and income tax has reduced, of course, a few sacred cows had to be slaughtered in the process

9.

Quote:

The most disgusting comment a person can make is this. "His arguments are too foolish to refute." I have found that people who have no answers love to say that to cover up their lack of knowledge. I think your real problem is that you simply don't like the truth, but if you have good answers, then bring them forward. I would suggest you abandon the "too foolish to refute" approach. You are fooling no one other than, perhaps, yourselves.

what is truth, sadly it is too often in the eye of the beholder

The issue of Social Sec was not spurious for the simple reason it should be his choice and not yours. Freedom.

My idea of SS is the way the program is actually set up. It is absolutely a pay as you go system. Anyone familiar with it knows that.

Give me scripture about that "imbedded" welfare system. You will find it did not involve taking from the rich and just handing money to the poor. You are mistaken.

All I have presented are statistics? You mean data, otherwise known as facts? And you complain about that?

I'm not sure what you meant in your comment about your tax system. Do you mean you have a flat rate consumption tax AND income taxes?

Quote:

what is truth, sadly it is too often in the eye of the beholder

That is absolutely, positively NOT true. In fact, it is the definition of "opinion" and not of truth. Truth is constant. It does not rest at all on the "eye of the beholder". It rests on objectivity, not subjectivity.

Quote:

Going to get worse . They plan on means testing distributions

That does seem to be the case. It will become more and more of a welfare program as time goes along if we are not careful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not sure what you meant in your comment about your tax system. Do you mean you have a flat rate consumption tax AND income taxes?

Let me explain it we have what we call a goods and services tax 10% which applies to all processed goods and services, and is paid by the end user. to implement this sales tax was removed as was a duty on financial transactions, this funds the states so there are no state income or sales taxes. There are no death duties. What you call social security was originally a seperate tax that was rolled into the general rate of tax, there is a Medicare levy which allegedly funds health care, but is not paid by those with health insurance and there is income tax. Dividends are not taxed. Contributions to superannuation are taxed at 15% and are deductable. Capital profits are only taxed on realisation and at reduced rates. All of this is achieved without large budget deficits

Quote:

All of this is achieved without large budget deficits

I commend you for having budget deficits less significant than ours, but I hope you realize that it is still very decidedly not a good thing.

Quote:

goods and services tax 10% which applies to all processed goods and services, and is paid by the end user.

Four questions.
1. In what way is that different from a sales tax?
2. So this is paid only by the last person in the string of purchasers? In other words, it is assessed only once?
3. Why wouldn't that be considered to be a very much regressive tax which consumes a far greater percentage of a poor person's income in the same way that a sales tax does?
4. Is it assessed on all purchases including such things as new homes, med care, automobiles, gasoline, or dental care?

I still hope you will reply to this. "Give me scripture about that "imbedded" welfare system. You will find it did not involve taking from the rich and just handing money to the poor."

value added taxes would work if you replace other taxes ie income taxes.

Quote:

In other words, it is assessed only once?

no it multiplies along the trail from producer to consumer . Now we already pay some Federal consumption taxes .But the bulk of our consumption taxes go to State and local . But like the God Father ,the libs in the Federal government want to dip their beaks in too. And of course as I frequently point out ,businesses don't pay taxes . Taxes get passed on to "the last person in the string of purchasers".

He was referring to how it was practiced in Australia. He said, "and is paid by the end user." That sounds like it is assessed only once by the final purchaser. If it accumulates along the way, then it has the potential to become really large.

yeah I looked it up before my comment . It is a 10% VAT that replaces their old sales tax .

That being the case, I would think it would result in significantly higher prices. Correct?

theoretically . What also happened is that it depressed purchasing at least temporarily . There was also a spike in purchasing in the days before it was passed. This was done by the Howard Government . The reason it was not catastrophic was because income taxes were reduced . The system is convoluted IMO
Businesses have to collect the GST and have to pay when they make a purchase . THEN they have to file to get a credit . Sounds like bureaucratic job security to me .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

theoretically . What also happened is that it depressed purchasing at least temporarily . There was also a spike in purchasing in the days before it was passed. This was done by the Howard Government . The reason it was not catastrophic was because income taxes were reduced . The system is convoluted IMO
Businesses have to collect the GST and have to pay when they make a purchase . THEN they have to file to get a credit . Sounds like bureaucratic job security to me .

It works so businesses collect the tax and deduct the tax paid and they can file once a year, there are some services it doesn't apply to, medical for example and small business and small charities are exempt. What it does is tax the black economy and receipts were much larger than anticipated. I know businesses that closed up overnight on implementation, they were obviously tax cheats but we had years of no recession and economic growth and income tax reductions

And we have had years of extraction and redistribution to the wealthy amid policy that excludes half the population. Legalized stealing is my term.

Quote:

And we have had years of extraction and redistribution to the wealthy amid policy that excludes half the population. Legalized stealing is my term.

The welfare system works exactly the other way. We take from the "wealthy" and give to the poor. Not sure what you're talking about in the way of "legalized stealing".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The welfare system works exactly the other way. We take from the "wealthy" and give to the poor. Not sure what you're talking about in the way of "legalized stealing".

Nothing is taken from the wealthy. That's capitalist propaganda thousands of years old. Always aided and abetted through corruption their wealth has facilitated. Law makers have always been a cheap easy commodity.

For the five hundred and first time, the top 20% of income earners pay 85% of the fed income tax. They pay most of the inheritance tax as well. So in what way is "Nothing taken from the wealthy"? I'm pretty sure they don't feel that way. I'm absolutely certain your statement is wildly wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Nothing is taken from the wealthy. That's capitalist propaganda thousands of years old. Always aided and abetted through corruption their wealth has facilitated. Law makers have always been a cheap easy commodity.

The fruits of labor have always been redistributed from the poor to the rich. The income tax argument of the rich has been answered but to no avail. That's not surprising since the rich determine (brainwash) how economics are perceived.

That is truer than ever as the rich are gaining during the pandemic as the poor sink deeper and deeper.

Quote:

The fruits of labor have always been redistributed from the poor to the rich.

Not by the government, and not in a compulsory fashion. But at least you have come down somewhat on the side of truth as opposed to Tal asserting that money is not taken from the wealthy to give to the poor.

Quote:

The income tax argument of the rich has been answered but to no avail. That's not surprising since the rich determine (brainwash) how economics are perceived.

It has been to no avail because no amount of fussing and complaining can hide the fact that the wealthy pay nearly all of the fed income tax and certainly most of the inheritance tax. That absolute truth was used to counter Tal's statement that, "Nothing is taken from the wealthy." It is plainly untrue.

What you pointed to were sales taxes and prop taxes. I pointed out that those were state issues. That's why your statement was, "to no avail".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

What you pointed to were sales taxes and prop taxes. I pointed out that those were state issues. That's why your statement was, "to no avail".

No, I pointed to all taxes from every source - federal, state and local. That was made very clear including charts proving the point.

I didn't suggest otherwise. However, the taxes which you said put an unfair burden on the poor were sales and prop taxes. Those are largely the responsibility of state and local governments. As to income, inheritance, and payroll taxes, (though the payroll tax is not really a tax in the same manner as the other two), I pointed out that those are much more of a burden on the wealthy than on the poor.

No they ain't. Consider all them taxes that burden the wealthy they still have bookoo bucks left and can write all kinds of checks to politicians that are trying to get elected.

Quote:

No they ain't. Consider all them taxes that burden the wealthy they still have bookoo bucks left

Tal, until you can show me data that demonstrates otherwise, I'm going to stick with the most obvious, plain truth on the planet and it's this. The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

You still don't get it.

A rich man earns $1,000,000 and pays $200,000 in taxes. Another man earns $50,000 and pays $10,000 in taxes. The rich man is left with $800,000 and the other man is left with $40,000. You can live quite a bit more comfortably on $800,000 than you can on $40,000. that's Tal's "bookoo bucks left".

they both pay 20% that doesn't seem fair. Your point is well made the rich man has little to complain of, he has been dealt with fairly, the other is left in difficulty. What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an example

To suggest they both pay 20% is ridiculous. It's not true and he knows it. There is no scenario where the person with 50K will be able to live a lifestyle similar to a millionaire. It's the very reason people so frequently want to become rich.

Quote:

What Jl fails to realise is there are many rich people who make up his statistic but he complains as if there are only a few billionaires contributing when the opposite is true, take Trump as an example

It would be so nice if you would stop assuming you know what I think and just go on what I have said. I have said no part of your silly conjecture above. The top 20% of income earners start at something like a quarter million in income.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Tal, until you can show me data that demonstrates otherwise, I'm going to stick with the most obvious, plain truth on the planet and it's this. The wealthy pay FAR, FAR more into fed taxes than any other group.

Can't argue with that logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

To suggest they both pay 20% is ridiculous. It's not true and he knows it. There is no scenario where the person with 50K will be able to live a lifestyle similar to a millionaire. It's the very reason people so frequently want to become rich.

It would be so nice if you would stop assuming you know what I think and just go on what I have said. I have said no part of your silly conjecture above. The top 20% of income earners start at something like a quarter million in income.

No just pointing out the example is flawed and I don't have time to assess the income of both. Again with the spirious argument no one with a $50K income expects to live like a millionaire.

I can only take your arguments at face value as a reflection of your thoughts but you seem to get upset whenever you are called on your attitudes. I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires. So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

No just pointing out the example is flawed

I don't agree the example is flawed. I could have used a lower tax rate for the poorer man which would have made the disparity even greater. But I used a flat tax to show the disparity. Either method makes the point.

examples, are used for argument this is true, equally true is the disparity without the tax. I agree with you that continually pointing out that the rich pay more tax is flogging a dead horse, if you lower the tax rate it will still be true since it is a perfect example of the pareto principle but perhaps JL has not been introduced to this principle

Quote:

I can only take your arguments at face value

I wish you would. Making it up as you go along is not working well.

Quote:

I'm glad you recognise that the top 20% have exceptional incomes whereas the bottom 80% can't expect to live like millionaires.

You don't say?

Quote:

why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?

I am engaged in doing that very thing every week and did so for most of my adult life. How about you?

Quote:

So Jl, why do you defend the top earners so vigourously, why don't you focus on lifting the 80% so they can contribute more?

For the listening/understanding impaired here, I will say again that I am defending no one. The argument was put forward many posts ago that tax laws are designed for the benefit of the wealthy. I have shown that when the top 20% of income earners pay 85% of fed income tax, then saying the wealthy created the tax laws becomes an exercise in silliness. Perhaps you have now grasped that very, very, very simple truth. It is in no way a defense of the wealthy.

Athos, using a flat tax in your scenario seems a strange thing to do when we plainly don't have a flat tax. It is more likely the man making 50K would pay very little in taxes. If the man making 50K pays in only 4K in income tax, thus making the wealthy man pay in 50X more, then that would make your argument seem far less compelling. Is that why you did it?

another spirious argument

Your contention is about as sound as your spelling and predictably lacking in anything specific.

I can understand your position concerning rich guys, since your tax free church is mostly dependent on those donors giving you tax deductible charitable contributions.

First of all, I don't have a church. Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals. Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it. Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth. Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible. Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax. And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

First of all, I don't have a church.

My bad I thought you did. I stand corrected.

Quote:

Secondly, the Christ-based, addiction recovery center I work at is funded by a number of churches, and certainly not a little gang of wealthy individuals.

I've volunteered in many such programs, as well as private/public recovery programs. Very familiar with the network.

Quote:

Thirdly, I receive no salary, so I have no personal interest in it.

The experience was enriching enough without a salary but you still have to pay the light bills.

Quote:

Fourthly, you might try and develop a little higher regard for the truth.

Of which you do not have an exclusive domain.

Quote:

Your entire statement is incorrect other than the fact, known to everyone who is awake, that charitable donations, such as to PP or PBS, are indeed tax deductible.

Rich guys create huge foundations for such philanthropy.

Quote:

Personally, I would like to see all of that stopped and let's just institute a flat tax.

No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).

Quote:

And fifthly, I have presented no position concerning rich guys. I have presented evidence. It is something I wish you would try, and no that is not intended to be mean spirited. I really do wish you would stick to the truth unlike your statement above which is largely false.

You have selectively taken one fact and made it a total truth when it's not the whole truth. Just a small window into tax policy. Citing it repeatedly doesn't make it any more true.

Quote:

No comment on such exclusionary and unequal monetary policy that would blow the budget completely out of the water. Can't pay bills, provide services with less money, or fight a economy destroying pandemic (Or forest fire for that matter).

You mean the budget is in the water now? The budget has been in a place of insanity for nearly all of the 21st century.

I would institute a tax policy that would be completely dependent on the fed budget. They want to spend 4 tril, then they have to raise 4 tril in taxes. You know, like honest, competent people would do. That would do away with the current crop of deceitful, lying dems and repubs who have found that we have become so stupid as a nation that we are blindly accepting this wildly accumulating federal debt like little mute sheep. If we had to do the responsible, grown-up thing and actually start paying for what we want, you would see fed spending go down in a hurry as it well should. The only exception would be cases of genuine national emergency, and even that needs to have strict limits.

You do mean after you get this economy destroying budget busting virus under control don't you? I mean it qualifies as a huge emergency doesn't it?

Yeah, but not to the tune of just spending money on anything and everything, such as sending checks to people who absolutely do not need it like you and me.

Besides, the national debt has been riding an avalanche for the past twenty years. Bush...Obama...Trump, they have all contributed as well as dem and repub congresses. 2020 by itself has not been the problem. All this will continue as long as we are dumb enough to allow it to continue.

What's JL's solution to the virus besides assuming who doesn't need any money?

I think what we are doing now is about right. Get the vaccine asap. Be a little tough. The sky is not falling. Our obese pres, at 74 years old, weathered the storm in a few days and is doing well now. We just have to ride this out in an intelligent way.

There is no "assuming" to the money. You got about the same income now you had before the virus. You don't need it. I don't need it. My wife doesn't need it, and yet we all got a check, and now they want to send another one. We are a stupid people to let our government get away with this. There are signs up all over our town of businesses looking for people to work. It's ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Our obese pres, at 74 years old, weathered the storm in a few days

Did he?

Quote:

and is doing well now.

Is he?

If showing no symptoms and checking out of the hospital can be characterized as having weathered the storm and doing well, then I'd say yes and yes.