[paraclete]

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

[jlisenbe]

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?

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.

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.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

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."

[tomder55]

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

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".

[jlisenbe]

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.

[tomder55]

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

[jlisenbe]

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

[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 .

[paraclete]

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

[talaniman]

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

[jlisenbe]

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".

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[Athos]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

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".

[Athos]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[talaniman]

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.