Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

Again, someone who is smart enough to not answer those direct questions that would make him look foolish, and who avoids discussing facts and truths because they are stacked against him, simply is NOT this f'n stupid. You are not nearly dumb enough to believe most of what you post. You must simply be someone who loves to argue and spread hatred while begging for the attention you crave. Mike's absence must really be killing you, since he would indulge your psychotic needs.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rsp777 on 11/16/2018 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 11/16/2018 9:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 11/15/2018 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Sales tax on what?? Food?? A Haircut??? A massage?? A Blow...... oh wait..........

Go back and read it all bob; the "usage" tax would only be on "unnecessary" things. Determining what is deemed "necessary" would be the big challenge. I think you'd have a tough time getting that "Blow....." item exempted. As an aside, legalizing and legislating prostitution would be a HUGE tax influx. There would be sales (and/or usage) tax, yearly licensing fees, mandated periodic health checks, etc.

I would be completely satisfied if the federal tax code was eliminated and we went to a system of a straight "usage" federal tax. EVERYTHING comes with a determined federal tax "necessary" or not. If you buy it the tax is built in. Whether you're a corporation, an individual, a church or a farmer you pay the federal tax on what you buy at whatever predetermined rate is arrived at. That's it. State sales tax could stay the same and still be added as such. Radical, but I would think it would be effective if implemented.

"EVERYTHING"

for the dumbest person on earth, all3-braincells.

Did you ever reply to this, 3cells?

Posted by DougOut on 11/16/2018 3:21:00 PM (view original):
HEY BL....The Dems picked up 6 more contested congressional seats (out of 10) and are still going in Georgia and Florida.

Any idea when this election comes to an end? I thought it was the first Tuesday in November.

Didn't realize doug is so anti-military that he doesn't even want their votes counted.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

% wise not $ wise. 9% of $1mil is more than 9% of $50k.

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

% wise not $ wise. 9% of $1mil is more than 9% of $50k.

34% of $1 million is a hell of a lot more than 9%. And that revenue is going to get made up somewhere, likely on the backs of people who make a lot less.

It's a bad plan.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

% wise not $ wise. 9% of $1mil is more than 9% of $50k.

34% of $1 million is a hell of a lot more than 9%. And that revenue is going to get made up somewhere, likely on the backs of people who make a lot less.

It's a bad plan.

Few pay 34% as you pointed out

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

% wise not $ wise. 9% of $1mil is more than 9% of $50k.

34% of $1 million is a hell of a lot more than 9%. And that revenue is going to get made up somewhere, likely on the backs of people who make a lot less.

It's a bad plan.

Few pay 34% as you pointed out

A single person with no kids making $1 million a year has an effective tax rate of 34%.

A married couple with two kids making $1 million has an effective tax rate of 31%.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 5:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 5:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 4:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 3:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why do we want to discourage economic activity with a consumption tax?

I don't think it would discourage it but just alter it. You have more cash because you are paying less so you can use those monies to pay down debt or save for college. But people still need clothes, appliances, cars, etc. You would have to budget accordingly. The state sales tax doesn't really impact sales so once the people got used to it, to me it would be just a part of doing business. With lower corp tax rates maybe the companies would lower the price of some items too but Gov't tax collection to me would be more "fair".

I'm not buying it. This is a burden transfer. The only "problem" it solves is the problem people with higher incomes have with paying high income taxes.

% wise not $ wise. 9% of $1mil is more than 9% of $50k.

34% of $1 million is a hell of a lot more than 9%. And that revenue is going to get made up somewhere, likely on the backs of people who make a lot less.

It's a bad plan.

Few pay 34% as you pointed out

A single person with no kids making $1 million a year has an effective tax rate of 34%.

A married couple with two kids making $1 million has an effective tax rate of 31%.

But what do they really pay with their loopholes and such?

Loopholes reduce taxable income. In this case, we’re talking about people with taxable incomes of $1 million.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 6:19:00 PM (view original):
Loopholes reduce taxable income. In this case, we’re talking about people with taxable incomes of $1 million.

I talk to my taxable loophole neighbors all the time. We're slingers.

Posted by cccp1014 on 11/16/2018 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/16/2018 1:39:00 PM (view original):
The 999 plan eliminates deductions. There wouldn't be a standard deduction anymore. They would pay 9% on their full salary.

Well we would redo it so there still is one. I am saying the 9/9/9 would be a good starting point. I agree that those that pay less now would not have to pay more. But they would have to still pay the consumption tax.

Why, redo it so that there is still deductions? Why not just lower the percentage that people pay and quit using our tax code for social engineering purposes?

Well we finally found some evidence of voter fraud in an election! Nicely done GOP!

How many congressional seats did the DemoNazis steal? I count at least 10. That makes their slim gains in a mid-term even more PATHETIC.

Posted by DougOut on 12/1/2018 12:30:00 PM (view original):
How many congressional seats did the DemoNazis steal? I count at least 10. That makes their slim gains in a mid-term even more PATHETIC.

the number is 40ish

it was a slow wave

it took weeks to count

but there it is