All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...
11/16/2012 9:08 AM
11/16/2012 9:11 AM
If you can't be honest enough about your position to admit that it might be at least marginally flawed in some way, there's really no point trying to have a discussion about it.

I'm simply confident in my position. If that presents too much of a challenge for you, perhaps you should avoid participating in a discussion about it.
SALES TAX!!!!!!

I'd like to eliminate sales tax altogether and roll it into income tax, where the more you earn the more you pay. As it stands, it unfairly benefits the wealthy because everyone pays the same percentage.
You again will not define a "fair share", won't tell us how much more you would have them pay, won't back up your assertions with facts, and make all sorts of assumptions about "rich people" without evidence. 
I already defined "fair share" and explained why it can't be pinned to a specific number. Go read it.

I do back up assertions with facts. Again, read it.

I draw conclusions based upon facts and observations regarding many things, including "rich people". That doesn't mean I'm making assumptions or not using evidence. Once again, I think you need to read things a little better.
Y'know, I TRIED to give biz and badluck a graceful way out by explaining the THINKING vs. FEELING paradigms and the divergent concept of "fair"...
NO.

You tried to tell us we weren't thinking, which isn't true. You tried to insult us while praising your own opinion and provided nothing in the way of factual information or a real argument.
I wish the government would define wealthy as $50000 in hh income so that these guys would grasp the concept that 'it's only 3.6 percent so who cares, you're well off' when it pertains to them.... I guarantee you every one of them would throw a fit.
I would be fine with taxes going up 3.6 percent on those making $50,000 or more, PROVIDED they go up even more on those making a great deal more than $50,000 (perhaps $250,000 or more).
I can't make it any clearer.... sorry man. Currently the wealthy simply have to pay more for the SAME EXACT American Citizenship than someone who has less $.
Someone who earns more has to pay more, yes. They also get to spend the majority of their money on things they don't need if they so desire, while remaining ignorant of the rest of the world including those who struggle to find food to eat or money for heat, electric, etc, who also have to pay taxes which burden them FAR more than the wealthy are burdened by their taxes.
what additional freedoms or rights as a citizen does he get from uncle Sam that you aren't getting?
I could go all day on this one, but let's just list a few for starters: He gets more respect just about everywhere he goes as long as people somehow know he has his wealth. He can purchase many things, including healthcare, housing, vehicles, food, and other things which may not be affordable to those with less, making his life more comfortable. He doesn't have to feel the stress of unemployment or worrying about how to pay his bills. He has the freedom to not have to work for someone as a modern day endentured servant. Those are just a few things he gets.
Yeah, it the same basic citizenship, and the same rights, but absolutely the government pays more attention to what the wealthy think and say than the poor OR the middle class.
Of course the government pays more attention to the wealthy. Who do you think largely finances the campaigns of those who are elected and make the decisions? It's not rocket science.
strangely the poor and middle class seem to be paying a lot of attention to the wealthy as well...Probably should be paying a bit more attention to themselves;)
They do pay attention to themselves. It just p***es them off when the wealthy are catered to by foolish politicians such as the republicans who are trying to send everyone to higher taxes by refusing to accept the rich should pay a bit more.
Unlike income tax, the way FICA is implemented is completely screwed up.  It's primarily funded by the poor and the middle class.
I agree about FICA, but think income tax needs reformed as well. FICA should have no cap. There is no reason someone shouldn't pay into it for income above a certain level. None.
fair tax would eliminate all of that .... tax brackets, loopholes, deductions, capital gains....
Absolutely agree with this. You pay your rate and that's it - it's the only fair way to do things. I'm sick of people like Mitt Romney paying a lower percentage than people who make far less because of all that crap.
SOAK EVERYBODY MAKING 750,000+ UP  IF YE CANT LIVE COMFORTABLY ON MILLIONS, TOUGH ****
I agree with this completely.





11/16/2012 9:21 AM
SALES TAX!!!!!!

I'd like to eliminate sales tax altogether and roll it into income tax, where the more you earn the more you pay. As it stands, it unfairly benefits the wealthy because everyone pays the same percentage.

Let's assume the sales tax rate was 6% for the purpose of this example.

If a wealthy person spends $500k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $30k on sales tax.
If a less wealthy person spends $20k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $1.2k on sales tax.

How are the wealthy "benefitting" from that?

If everybody pays the same rate, then the impact is proportional.  That's basic math.
11/16/2012 9:23 AM
fair tax would eliminate all of that .... tax brackets, loopholes, deductions, capital gains....
Absolutely agree with this. You pay your rate and that's it - it's the only fair way to do things. I'm sick of people like Mitt Romney paying a lower percentage than people who make far less because of all that crap.

Capital gains. 

What do you think the impact to the economy would be if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income?  Would that encourage or discourage investing?
11/16/2012 9:29 AM
tec responding to bis is always good. 

This is retarded:   "As it stands, it unfairly benefits the wealthy because everyone pays the same percentage."

11/16/2012 9:32 AM
FWIW, I don't think bisz is for real.   He's just throwing out dumb **** to get a response.   You guys are feeding his need for attention. 
11/16/2012 9:49 AM
POT.........MEET KETTLE
11/16/2012 9:50 AM
I think he's for real.  He just lives in a different dimension than everybody else with his socialist economy ****.

We may be feeding his need for attention, but he's feeding our need for entertainment.  It's mutually beneficial. 
11/16/2012 10:37 AM
I don't think so.   If he spouted his "I don't care about soldiers" in public, he'd be beaten senseless.   That's the sort of "Let's see if I can stir it up a bit" comment that you'll find only on the internet. 
11/16/2012 10:43 AM
If a wealthy person spends $500k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $30k on sales tax. If a less wealthy person spends $20k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $1.2k on sales tax.

The percentage is the same for both of them. While that's closer to being fair than a flat sales tax (which would never work anyway for other reasons), it's not fair because the wealthy should pay a higher percentage on their taxes.
What do you think the impact to the economy would be if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income?  Would that encourage or discourage investing?

It would discourage investing. If you couple that with a strong incentive to encourage spending which either is or leads to consumer spending, that would stimulate the economy as it functions based upon consumer spending.

In a nutshell I believe the wealthy should be spending a lot of the money they are investing, and this would help the economy. Hence I support anything that convinces them to spend rather than invest.
tec responding to bis is always good. 

Indeed. It's amusing to wonder why he (and you, MikeT23, for that matter) believes what he does, as he doesn't really defend his own position but rather attacks mine.
FWIW, I don't think bisz is for real.   He's just throwing out dumb **** to get a response.   You guys are feeding his need for attention.
Not surprisingly, you're wrong again.  I believe every word of what I'm saying, 100 percent, and I defend it quite well (much to the chagrin of you and others who may disagree with me).
We may be feeding his need for attention, but he's feeding our need for entertainment.  It's mutually beneficial.
You're entertaining me. If you're entertained, then it is mutual.

I hope I'm educating you vis a vis your myopic viewpoint isn't the only valid one, but as they say "you can lead a horse to water but  you can't make it drink".



11/16/2012 10:52 AM
If a wealthy person spends $500k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $30k on sales tax. If a less wealthy person spends $20k on "stuff" during a year, he's going to spend an additional $1.2k on sales tax.

The percentage is the same for both of them. While that's closer to being fair than a flat sales tax (which would never work anyway for other reasons), it's not fair because the wealthy should pay a higher percentage on their taxes.

Because you said so?  Insisting that something should be done over and over again is not justification for why it should be done.  You keep saying that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they can afford it.  That's not a valid reason.  You need a valid reason to justify your assertion.  You have yet to provide one.

What do you think the impact to the economy would be if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income?  Would that encourage or discourage investing?

It would discourage investing. If you couple that with a strong incentive to encourage spending which either is or leads to consumer spending, that would stimulate the economy as it functions based upon consumer spending.

Oh, that's right.  Investing is "hoarding money", and is bad for the economy.

What would happen to businesses if people stopped investing in them?  Where would their capital for growth and expansion come from?
11/16/2012 11:08 AM
nsisting that something should be done over and over again is not justification for why it should be done.  You keep saying that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they can afford it.  That's not a valid reason.  You need a valid reason to justify your assertion.  You have yet to provide one.

I already stated how every tax dollar paid by a wealthy person, if done properly, can be one less tax dollar paid by a poor person. That's the reason for my saying they should pay more because they can afford it.

The point is this: It gives a break to the people who need that break while maintaining tax levels, because the people who don't need the break are paying for it.

You can disagree with me all you want, but this IS a valid reason for saying the wealthy should pay more. Whether you agree with that concept is up to you, but saying it isn't valid is foolish. Maybe you should actually argue your point and stop trying to tell me mine isn't valid.
What would happen to businesses if people stopped investing in them?  Where would their capital for growth and expansion come from?

Once you have so much money, you don't need to be growing and expanding very much. A small amount of investing is all you need - far less than most wealthy individuals currently use.

Businesses can (and largely should) function based on their own ability to generate income.
11/16/2012 11:26 AM (edited)
I already stated how every tax dollar paid by a wealthy person, if done properly, can be one less tax dollar paid by a poor person.

46.4% of American households pay no income tax. 

Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm

The people who you are trying to "help" by providing relief for their income tax burden have no income tax burden to be relieved.
11/16/2012 12:00 PM
46.4% of American households pay no income tax. 

Great. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people who work and earn lower level incomes and DO pay taxes. When you compare what those people pay percentage wise with what the wealthy pay percentage wise, there isn't enough difference. The wealthy need to be paying more so those who do pay taxes but don't earn much can keep more of what they earn.
The people who you are trying to "help" by providing relief for their income tax burden have no income tax burden to be relieved.

As I just explained, they most certainly do have an income tax burden. You assumed I was talking about people that I'm not and jumped to a conclusion based upon that, and you were wrong, again as I just explained.
11/16/2012 2:44 PM
At this point bis, I don't even know what you're arguing for. Maybe reset with concise point that you're trying to make?
of 34
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > What really eats me up...

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.