On October 17 2011 07:35 Kiarip wrote: Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree that we should be moving more towards a consumption based tax, but I don't believe your statement is what is known as a a technical definition. Seems more like a false assumption to prove your points.
Does your "unspent" money also involve things like cash in interest bearing accounts or invesments?
Ok, but even if you have interest on your CASH... it's still worthless to you until you spend it, and if you get mroe of it via investing, and then spend more than you originally had you're gonna pay more taxes, because you're spending more.
And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.
peter schiff discusses what 9 9 9 plan actually does
I thought this guy was pretty cool after the whole "Peter Schiff was right" video but this is just so dumb. He basically starts by saying "liberals think this is a regressive tax but their is a flaw in that thinking." What's the flaw that he goes on to describe? That the rich are the job creators and they need more money to create more jobs. That's not a flaw in the logic, that's just saying "yes it is a regressive tax but regressive taxes are awesome!"
The truth is there is no flaw in the logic. Poor people spend 100% of their income and rich people don't. Their tax rate will be higher, period. Too bad he couldn't just come out and tell the truth instead of trying to spin it like any other piece of crap politician.
... yeah there IS a flaw in logic.
Because if a rich person is spending as much as a poor person, he's only getting as much benefit out of his "rich-ness" as much as a poor person is getting out of his....
Money in itself isn't wealth, it's what you spend the money ON that's wealth. If a rich person wants to over-indulge and spend his income, then he will pay more taxes than a person who's poorer, but if he's not spending his money... he's not actually BENEFITTING from his wealth, so why should he be taxed?
Bill Gates could spend 1% of his income and I am sure he will get more benefit out of his richness than a poor person that spends 100%.
But again, that is not an argument that it's not a regressive tax. I'm not even sure what that is an argument for. Like I said, there is no flaw in thinking that this is a regressive tax because IT IS a regressive tax.
Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
The numbers are flat for everyone but what people actually pay in taxes won't be flat for everyone.
With respect to what they spend it's flat. With respect to they earn it can be but probably won't... nothing wrong with encouraging people to save anyways.
The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes
On October 17 2011 08:55 jjbothman wrote: The 9% sales tax is what is considered to be regressive as poorer individuals spend a greater percentage of their income thus causing them to pay a greater effective percentage of their income on sales taxes
Well you can call it whatever you want I guess. It's still more economically sound.
He put his foot completely in his mouth with the muslim comment and I'm sure plenty more gems will be dug up now that hes thrown himself into the spotlight.
His policies also seem retarded. It's easy to make grand promises but I don't think they will stand up to the reality test.
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote: And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...
You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).
Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.
On October 17 2011 08:11 Kiarip wrote: Well a regressive tax is just what people in favor of the "progressive tax" call the flat tax.
It's in fact a flat tax. i do think that maybe it's reasonable given the shitpile we're currently in to temporarily institute a "progressive tax," as long as it's also spending and not income based.
Progressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a higher % Flat tax = no matter what your income, you pay the same % Regressive tax = as your income increases, you pay a lower %
Wanting to tax the rich more is as morally bankrupt as wanting to tax the poor, or the middle income earners more. The goal is not to tax anyone, especially not to raise taxes on anyone. What it boils down to is your philosophy on what the role of Government ought to be. We could get rid of the Federal Income Tax and go back to the year 2000 spending and have a surplus. There should never be any reason ever, to either increase taxes on anyone, or to institute a new tax. In politics today there is usually a false dichotomy portrayed by people who are unable to see through the forest.
It is either increase taxes on the rich, or on the non-rich (rich is subjective and is different for each person, thereby giving rise to societal conflict when people look to the Gun (the Government is the Gun)). The actual solution is to confine Government, especially the Federal Government to limited precise purposes (such as to ensure Free-Trade amongst the states, or in their times, to regulate interstate commerce (regulate = to make regular in 1789!), maintain a limited Navy, and establish commerce and peaceful relations to other Nations). In doing so we return power to the individual and to communities, and thus, can eliminate the vast majority of Federal taxation. The problem is an expenditure problem which is a symptom of the appetite of the average American for an out of control Government whether it is Warfare or Welfare. Ideally, a return to Confederated States would be optimal (An improved Articles of Confederation that does not centralize Government like the Constitution -- more akin to Swiss Confederation and Independent Cantons (States/Communities)).
This requires a profound enlightenment among the people. Put down the TV folks, and start picking up books on philosophy, economics, morality, the State, etc. In order to improve the country, your community, or even just your next-door neighbor, you have to improve yourself as an individual. Without individual desire and change, nothing will get accomplished.
Every American should be reading Voltaire, De Tocqueville, Locke, Etienne De la Boetie, William Graham Sumner, the Anti-Federalist Papers, Richard Overton and the Levellers, Frederic Bastiat, Leonard Read, Carl Menger, etc.
On October 17 2011 08:09 Kiarip wrote: And lets not forget that while the money is being saved in the bank or w.e for the interest, it's put to use by having people loan it and try to start/expand their businesses.
Yeah I agree that the financial system exists to facilitate transactions that don't want to spend money now and those that do (for houses/small businesses, whatever). I don't disagree with you there. Although its an oversimplification to suggest that deposits necessarily go towards starting/expanding businesses and giving out loans. The current system isn't perfect. It allows much of these deposits to go toward proprietary trading, but I think I'm going on a tangent...
You are basically arguing that by incentivizing increased deposits we are in fact increasing loans to business to improve the economy, but I think this is logically fallacious. By incentivizing increased deposits you are actually .... incentivizing increased deposits! People would rather park that money at the bank than start new businesses themselves. What you really want to do is make parking money at the bank no better than keeping it under your mattress: you gain no interest so why not put your money in places where you CAN get returns like a small business. This is actually along the lines of what Bernanke is trying to do (disincentivize holding cash because it gains so little interest so people consume/invest and companies can cheaply take out loans to better infrastructure).
Again, I'm not really against a tax that is more consumption based (depending on what you consider to be "consumption"). I just don't understand how you can argue that money is "worthless" until you "spend" it when it seems to serves a purpose as a vehicle for investing in other products or as a vehicle for liquidity.
Oh yes I agree. But if everyone puts money in bank and no one wants to take loans, then the banks will be forced to lower rates, and then people will consider to take out loans to actually invest, because lower interest rates means that there's less incentive to save money. But this will only happen once there's in fact a large supply of money.
Notice that right now the rates are low, when they should be high, the debt is huge so logically the supply of moeny should be really low, and so banks should charge more for loans, but they don't becasue the FED suppresses the rates.
The rates will first need to rise dramatically, and then when there's finally a larger supply of money (which corresponds to a supply of unused resources in the marketplace) the rates will drop and peopel will take out money to buy up these resources and try to do something with them (which can result in job creation.)
Note that right now the rates are low which does in fact signify a large supply of money (the FED printing it,) but the large supply of money does NOT correspond to a large supply of resources or products, in facts the productivity is down, but the savings aren't up so if anything there's a lack of resources in the marketplace, but the easy money supply has resulted in the enormous debts and mal-investments which resulted in bubbles.
So yeah, you're right a sales tax will encourage savings for everyone, so the money won't be immediately borrowed, but if people stop wanting to borrow money then the savings will accumulate and the banks will decrease the interest rates, which will result in real growth, so eventually the money IS going to be lent out.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
But this chart shows it's not an actual tax break and that 80% of people will actually pay more of their income in taxes. If all of the numbers went down, you might have a point. But they don't.
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
I can tell you about what I see... I'll have to pay around 4k more a year in taxes if Cain's plan goes through
On October 20 2011 02:50 CurLy[] wrote: \/ Open me \/ + Show Spoiler +
This looks like a good plan....
if you an aspiring millionaire.
Do you know anything about how stats and numbers are manipulated so they look cool in a chart for people like you to parade around on the internet?
Those amounts are in actual dollars, not % or share or anything like that. A flat decrease across the board would generate a similar chart simply because the top 1% pay more because they make more. Understand? If everybody got a 5% tax break, but you put it in actual dollar amounts on the chart, it would look like it's extremely skewed in the rich's favor, even though everybody got the same tax break.
Not to mention he's conservative, of course he wants the rich to pay less than they currently are.
Seems to me that no matter how you put it, most people will be paying more in taxes out of this. The only break is for people that already have more money than is needed to live comfortably.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/Average-tax-change-from-9-9-9-plan-10-18-2011-OPT.jpg)
