Racism - It's a real thing.

Moiraine said:
That is exactly what the goal is. Your goal is for what you consider a fair tax rate. That means everyone pays the same rate. Everyong paying the same rate lowers the burden on the wealthy and increases it for the poor.

It puts it in the individual’s hands how much tax they pay in? When you’re talking about poor people they would just be trying to survive. There’s not really a choice there.

I calculated that if we wanted to generate as much revenue with a consumption tax as we do with individual income tax, the consumption tax would need to be ~22%. 

I then looked up what % of income someone making $40k spends on sales tax and it’s 11.3%. I then calculated what that percentage would be if sales tax was increased from the current average of 8.25%.

By my findings, the % of income people making $40,000 would pay is 30.0%. The % for people making $160,000 (whose % of sales tax is 10% of their income) would be 26.6%. I need to make sure of the above #s at home to make sure they were all individual incomes and not household, but the person making $40,000 is left with $28,000. The person making $160,000 is left with $117,440.

People making less than $40,000 would be paying an even higher % of their incomes in sales tax. This would be absolutely disasterous for them unless incomes increased drastically at the same time or prices dropped by a lot.
Click to expand...




Yep. The 22% number is where I've always read that it would have to be. So where are you getting 30%? 

Yeah, it would be bad for those that are currently not paying anything in income tax, but they'd have tax credits there to save them at the end of the year like they depend on now.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Yep. The 22% number is where I've always read that it would have to be. So where are you getting 30%? 

Yeah, it would be bad for those that are currently not paying anything in income tax, but they'd have tax credits there to save them at the end of the year like they depend on now.
Click to expand...






30% is what I calculated as the percentage of income they would be spending on sales tax if sales tax increased from 8.25% to 22%.

Currently, people in the 50th percentile pay sales taxes of 11.3% of their income. Pushing sales tax to 22% would increase it from 11.3% to 30% for someone making $40k.

People in the bottom 20% spend 12.3% of their income on sales tax, so it would increase to more than 30%. Without calculating I would guess someone getting paid $10/hr, $20,800 per year would be spending around $6,700 on sales tax.

It’s possible these are post tax % (12.3% might be the percentage of income after taxes spent on sales taxes) since the $ amounts for expenditures seem high compared to the income amounts, but the same trends would occur.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Yep. The 22% number is where I've always read that it would have to be. So where are you getting 30%? 

Yeah, it would be bad for those that are currently not paying anything in income tax, but they'd have tax credits there to save them at the end of the year like they depend on now.
Click to expand...
If they are going to have tax credits still then what's the point?

 
NM11046 said:
Did I miss something?  Tax returns are because someone paid TOO MUCH income tax, not because they didn't pay.
Click to expand...
To the eye roller's and laughers ... forgive me for reading the title of the thread (Racism) and then having missed a day of being on the board.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
But you've essentially created the same tax system but reduce the revenue generated by the government by reducing the burden on those who can afford it... What the hell is the point of making it "fair" if it doesn't work?
Click to expand...




The consumption tax would not, from what I have read on it, reduce the revenue collected by the government, and would provide a boon to the economy. Even if it did, government spending is a much greater problem than how much the rich are paying in taxes.

Edit: It doesn't really matter, nothing is going to change anyhow.... So back to racism! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Again, it's still 47% of the population that isn't paying them.The details involved don't lessen the burden.

Who are the elderly that aren't paying taxes? Assuming they have a social security check coming in, and/or they're making 401K withdrawals, they are paying taxes.
Click to expand...
So, it doesn’t matter if someone can actually earn an income....pay your f***ing taxes. 

 






No one should be watching Prager U, and that was such a bulls#!t argument with a misleading title. The main way the Black vote is supressed is through gerrymandering and it’s irrefutable. But if we just focus on the smaller issue of voter IDs, the issue is they’re not free, so poor people are less likely to have them. And a larger % of the Black population is poor. Blacks and the poor are also more likely to be underbanked than Whites, just to address that small part of one area of voter suppression.

None of it has anything to do with being “too stupid” we she repeated over and over on top of him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Who we talking about? The elderly?  If you can't make a living once retired off of your 401K/Pension and Social Security, well that's on you.
Click to expand...




You’re wrong in this. 

75-80% of the U.S. population lives paycheck to paycheck. A lot of people don’t have a 401k through their employer. If it’s on them, what is wrong with them? Are they stupid? Lazy? I think that’s a bunch of bulls#!t but I don’t know what else your explanation is for why it’s completely their fault.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
You’re wrong in this. 

75-80% of the U.S. population lives paycheck to paycheck. A lot of people don’t have a 401k through their employer. If it’s on them, what is wrong with them? Are they stupid? Lazy? I think that’s a bunch of bulls#!t but I don’t know what else your explanation is for why it’s completely their fault.
Click to expand...


There are endless, low-skilled job opportunities available to everyone, that provide 401Ks. So yeah, if you don't have a 401K/pension at retirement age than it's on you. If not, you'll have to keep working or live off your social security. If you don't have that? You may be stupid or lazy (unless you're disabled and can't actually work).

Also, it's the least surprising thing ever that you don't think people should watch PragerU. Just because you disagree with what they're saying doesn't mean it's unwatchable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
There are endless, low-skilled job opportunities available to everyone, that provide 401Ks. So yeah, if you don't have a 401K/pension at retirement age than it's on you. If not, you'll have to keep working or live off your social security. If you don't have that? You may be stupid or lazy.
Click to expand...




There aren’t “endless” unfilled jobs out there period, let alone with 401k’s - that’s ridiculous and mathematically completely wrong.

Only 40% of small businesses offer a retirement plan and small businesses employ by far the most people. There aren’t millions of hidden jobs out there that offer it that are just waiting to be taken. That’s ludicrous.

https://www.limra.com/Posts/PR/Industry_Trends_Blog/LIMRA_Research_Finds_4_in_10_Small_Businesses_Currently_Offer_Retirement_Benefits.aspx

I mean this in the least a$$h@!e way possible, but I don’t know how you can get that idea in your head without being sheltered as far as what jobs you’ve had and your willingness to look at the actual data and not just come up with it on the fly. It sounds to me like an anecdote you’re just running with. Like maybe you know of multiple open jobs with 401k’s, so it must be the case they are “endless.”

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Also, it's the least surprising thing ever that you don't think people should watch PragerU. Just because you disagree with what they're saying doesn't mean it's unwatchable.
Click to expand...




Most of what I’ve seen from them is not fact based or data driven. Kind of like Breitbart. If you fall for their utter bulls#!t, that’s on you.

I will never understand why anyone rational would waste their time watching political opinion shows. What about these people makes you respect their opinions?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top