Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:03 am

The monies that companies spend on paying their and their employees' taxes is the real hidden tax the fool keeps yammering about.

The employer's share of Payroll taxes is 7.75% of their TOTAL PAYROLL and that alone in a TON that is added to the price of goods and services. MOST people won't see the same 7.75% WAGE HIKE that accounts for the EMPLOYEE share of payroll taxes they would no longer be paying under a National Sales Tax.

And their argument falls TOTALLY APART when you look at States like Florida where folks go to RETIRE and they have NO State income tax and ONLY are funded by SALES TAXES. Funny how we don't hear about how "old folks" are struggling to pay these such "unfair" taxes. The reality is, it's the MOST FAIR OF ALL TAXES since no one is exempt and EVERYONE benefits from the services government provides. You get benefits from the government services, you should ALSO PAY FOR THEM!!

Funny how folks are MOVING FROM States like California and New York where INCOME TAXES AND SALES TAXES are the highest in the nation where they take nearly 30-40% of folks WAGES just to keep their STATE AFLOAT from the BLOAT OF SPENDING from soup to nuts. AND they are seeing the HIGHEST volume of MOVE OUTS in the nation as well.

interesting idea. The accounting and logistics would be a mess at first.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 11:01 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:01 am

Cutting spending would have the same effect, tard. Try to learn to reason.

Yes, you could cut spending to match existing revenue.

No politician ever has actually tried that, instead they bloviate the pedophile groomer cum breath Demorats need to cut out welfare, food stamps, and foreign aid!

The only place to cut, is discretionary spending 

—-Discretionary spending accounts for less than one third of all federal spending, that’s $1.7 trillion in 2023 or 6.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

• Discretionary spending will reach $2.4 trillion or 6 percent of GDP by 2033 according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
• Discretionary spending will consume one quarter of the U.S. government’s projected $9.8 trillion total budget in 2033.
• Discretionary spending is declining as a share of the overall budget, primarily due to the growth of major mandatory entitlement spending like Social Security and Medicare.
• Between 1973 and 2023, discretionary spending’s budgetary share fell from 53 percent to 28 percent of total federal spending.
  
  ——

But what about those needy Kansas wheat farmers?

What about that corporation over there, that pitifully cries out, for subsidies?

Why our income taxes are so low, compared to Europe, is our politicians loose elections each time they raise them.
 

Beekeeper » 12 Jul 2023, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:30 am

The employer's share of Payroll taxes is 7.75% of their TOTAL PAYROLL and that alone in a TON that is added to the price of goods and services. MOST people won't see the same 7.75% WAGE HIKE that accounts for the EMPLOYEE share of payroll taxes they would no longer be paying under a National Sales Tax.

And their argument falls TOTALLY APART when you look at States like Florida where folks go to RETIRE and they have NO State income tax and ONLY are funded by SALES TAXES. Funny how we don't hear about how "old folks" are struggling to pay these such "unfair" taxes. The reality is, it's the MOST FAIR OF ALL TAXES since no one is exempt and EVERYONE benefits from the services government provides. You get benefits from the government services, you should ALSO PAY FOR THEM!!

Funny how folks are MOVING FROM States like California and New York where INCOME TAXES AND SALES TAXES are the highest in the nation where they take nearly 30-40% of folks WAGES just to keep their STATE AFLOAT from the BLOAT OF SPENDING from soup to nuts. AND they are seeing the HIGHEST volume of MOVE OUTS in the nation as well.

All of the growing states are those with no income tax. All of the shrinking states are those with income tax. 

The answer to whether the income tax is regressive is rather strongly suggested by that statistic alone. 
 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am

Yes, you could cut spending to match existing revenue.

No politician ever has actually tried that,

You should do cursory googles before making fact statements based only on assumption. Whether you want to talk inflation adjusted dollars or just dollars, your fact claim is incorrect. Bush outspent Clinton. Chart

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am

The only place to cut, is discretionary spending

We could spend less on the military.
We could spend less on foreign aid (giving away free guns).

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am

• Between 1973 and 2023, discretionary spending’s budgetary share fell from 53 percent to 28 percent of total federal spending.

I thought no one ever cut spending.

That means we must have RAISED "non-discretionary" spending like mad. Perhaps we need to reassess terms.

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am

But what about those needy Kansas wheat farmers?

What about that corporation over there, that pitifully cries out, for subsidies?

Why our income taxes are so low, compared to Europe, is our politicians loose elections each time they raise them.

It is low because the uniparty keeps it low. Obama had the entire government in his first two years. It stayed low. Biden had the entire government for his first two years. It stayed low.

When your party is in charge, and you are still bitching, your party does not represent your positions. You must be voting "lesser evil." Which means you are willingly voting for evil. If you are going to vote for evil, man up and vote for the greater evil. It's more dignified.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:05 am

For the record, every version of a national sales tax ever devised includes a prebate to those who qualify. THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY THEIR TAX ON PURCHASES (except those basic food items rightly exempted, as you point out). But they get a quarterly prebate which will be highly stimulative to the economy.

And that rebate, requires a huge bureaucracy with millions of people begging money from Uncle Sam like a dog for a bone.

Representative Blowhard would promise more and bigger rebates, except for, and except for, etc.

Yes, rebates could be done.

And you’d have millions upon millions dependent on rebates to pay their bills.

 

 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm

And that rebate, requires a huge bureaucracy with millions of people begging money from Uncle Sam like a dog for a bone.

So what?

Now you have your answer - we don't have to murder IRS bureaucrats. Thanks for solving the problem you invented.

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm

Representative Blowhard would promise more and bigger rebates, except for, and except for, etc.

Yes, rebates could be done.

PREbates. Highly economically stimulative PREbates.

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 12:38 pm

And you’d have millions upon millions dependent on rebates to pay their bills.

You mean prebates. And this is a bad thing why?

Helping people pay their bills through the tax code is the status quo, is it not?

You cannot defend the status quo and still have any standing to attack alternatives for not correcting EVERY deficiency.

The mere fact that the economy would be stimulated quarterly instead of annually is an enormous improvement over the status quo - as is the fact that the enormous underground economy would finally be taxed and the rich would FINALLY be taxed. BUT YOUR PARTY IS IN THE POCKET OF WALL STREET, SO YOU ARE GIVEN SPEWING POINTS AGAINST ANY SCHEME THAT WOULD TAX THE RICH.

And then, you spew.
 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 12:26 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 12:26 pm

You should do cursory googles before making fact statements based only on assumption. Whether you want to talk inflation adjusted dollars or just dollars, your fact claim is incorrect. Bush outspent Clinton. Chart
 

Refuted, does he acknowledge error? No - be breezes along with his next unvetted, untrustworthy can of ****. 

If a man admits error, it puts him in the habit of avoiding that unpleasantness by vetting his **** claims. But if a man merely breezes past his error, that undignified, boyish behavior leaves him relaxed to continue **** from his mouth. 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 1:20 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:20 pm

So what?

Now you have your answer - we don't have to murder IRS bureaucrats. Thanks for solving the problem you invented.

PREbates. Highly economically stimulative PREbates.

You mean prebates. And this is a bad thing why?

Helping people pay their bills through the tax code is the status quo, is it not?

You cannot defend the status quo and still have any standing to attack alternatives for not correcting EVERY deficiency.

The mere fact that the economy would be stimulated quarterly instead of annually is an enormous improvement over the status quo - as is the fact that the enormous underground economy would finally be taxed and the rich would FINALLY be taxed. BUT YOUR PARTY IS IN THE POCKET OF WALL STREET, SO YOU ARE GIVEN SPEWING POINTS AGAINST ANY SCHEME THAT WOULD TAX THE RICH.

And then, you spew.

I never imagined Wall Street would support Democrats, but it’s true.

Can you imagine the reaction of changing how we have financed the federal government for over a hundred years?

For any theoretical benefit of a national sales tax woth rebates, the unknown down sides loom larger.

The real beauty of the way the system is, we can sell our neighbor something for so many dollars, and a dollar buys a dollar’s worth.

A national sales tax would create massive avoidance of the sales tax between individuals.

What if there was even a 5% decline in retail spending?

Disaster.  Not since the thirties.  

Wall Street fears it’s former champions.

 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 12:08 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 12:08 pm

All of the growing states are those with no income tax. All of the shrinking states are those with income tax. 

The answer to whether the income tax is regressive is rather strongly suggested by that statistic alone.

That's not true.  Man, you say some stupid **** without investigating! 

There are only 9 states with no state income tax.  However, there are states other than these 9 that have seen growth over the past few years.
 

Skans » 12 Jul 2023, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:48 pm

That's not true.  Man, you say some stupid **** without investigating! 

There are only 9 states with no state income tax.  However, there are states other than these 9 that have seen growth over the past few years.

Utah and Idaho are the best examples out west. Both have seen major population growth all the while having state income tax. However, their tax rates are lower than those of CA or OR. 
 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jul 2023, 1:33 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:33 pm

Refuted, does he acknowledge error? No - be breezes along with his next unvetted, untrustworthy can of ****. 

If a man admits error, it puts him in the habit of avoiding that unpleasantness by vetting his **** claims. But if a man merely breezes past his error, that undignified, boyish behavior leaves him relaxed to continue **** from his mouth.

My pencils all have well used erasers.

Many years ago I was a Republican.

Back then Republicans understood conservatism to mean not risking all we know, on the unknown.

If a national sales tax worked to balance the budget and create a surplus like we had from 1997-2001 I’d love it, we’d all love it.

But who will save us, if it doesn’t?

impartialobserver » 12 Jul 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:51 pm

Utah and Idaho are the best examples out west. Both have seen major population growth all the while having state income tax. However, their tax rates are lower than those of CA or OR.

South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia are the best examples in the South. All have state income taxes, and all have seen tremendous growth.   So, between the two of us, we've quickly come up with 5 examples, haven't we.
 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm

My pencils all have well used erasers.

Many years ago I was a Republican.

Back then Republicans understood conservatism to mean not risking all we know, on the unknown.

If a national sales tax worked to balance the budget and create a surplus like we had from 1997-2001 I’d love it, we’d all love it.

But who will save us, if it doesn’t?

First, Bruce, I do not want Government to have any "surplus".  If they have surplus, then they are wasting money and taxing us too much.

Second, Bruce, if a national sales tax does not balance the budget, there is a simple solution - - reduce the budget.  There are so many wasteful and ridiculous programs in the federal government and tremendous waste within each agency or branch, that I would bet we could cut the budget across all agencies, departments, military branches, etc. by 50%, and the average American non-government worker wouldn't notice a difference at all.

See, Bruce, the federal government has become a place to warehouse blacks and other minorities who might find it difficult to find jobs in a competitive job market. 
 
 

impartialobserver » 12 Jul 2023, 1:51 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:51 pm

Utah and Idaho are the best examples out west. Both have seen major population growth all the while having state income tax. However, their tax rates are lower than those of CA or OR.

Utah and Idaho combined can’t equal the GDP of a major liberal controlled high tax mega city.
—-
This graph shows the GDP of the Los Angeles metro area in 2021, by industry. In 2021, its GDP amounted to about 950.16 billion U.S. dollars. About 105.46 billion U.S. dollars were generated by the manufacturing industry. 
—-

All of Utah has a 108 billion GDP and all Idaho 86 billion.  They can afford low taxes, there.


I believed in Reaganomics.  It made sense to me.  It should have worked, on paper.

But back in 1983 we Republicans were forced, to watch actual news broadcasts and believe in actual economic numbers.  Fox News was far in the future.

I can remember seeing record deficits on the television screen and saying, so much for that ****, it’s not working.

 We did have a good economy, but based on massive borrowing.



 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:34 pm

I never imagined Wall Street would support Democrats, but it’s true.

Can you imagine the reaction of changing how we have financed the federal government for over a hundred years?

For any theoretical benefit of a national sales tax woth rebates, the unknown down sides loom larger.

The real beauty of the way the system is, we can sell our neighbor something for so many dollars, and a dollar buys a dollar’s worth.

A national sales tax would create massive avoidance of the sales tax between individuals.

What if there was even a 5% decline in retail spending?

Disaster.  Not since the thirties.  

Wall Street fears it’s former champions.

You fail to consider that people would receive their entire gross pay. All of it. No taxes. No feeco, fighco, foughco - no soc sec, no NOTHING extracted. SHOW ME the fellow who would not be saving 20%. You also fail to account for the highly stimulative quarterly prebates. 

As to people avoiding taxes, the ENTIRE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY is doing that now. under no theoretical circumstance can the cheating - and there will be cheating - be a fraction of that. Indeed, making the rich pay and making the criminal class pay is what makes the damned thing work. The middle class and the working class will both be paying much, much less in taxes, because the distribution will be made far more equitable. And the poor will be affected not at all - the prebates see to that.
 

Beekeeper » 12 Jul 2023, 6:55 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 6:55 am

The TWO THINGS you failed to bring into the equation is....

1. INCOMES of people will INCREASE since there is NO LONGER any payroll taxes being deducted. That INCREASES  what people have to spend.
2. There is NO LONGER any "hidden taxes" in the prices of goods and services since the INCOME TAXES on business also disappears and prices COME DOWN as those taxes are ELIMINATED. Simple competition will reduce prices as once ONE does it, everyone follows suit to stay competitive.

Bruce is a moron. He got in over his head, the moment he left kindergarten this morning. 

I'm for a sales tax or a flat tax. People like Bruce don't understand how the progressive tax system is exploited by corporations and politicians so they can help each other get out of paying taxes. It is pure corruption and morons like Bruce do not understand they are actually supporting corporatism or crony capitalism. 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 11:39 am

But what about those needy Kansas wheat farmers?

What about that corporation over there, that pitifully cries out, for subsidies?

Why our income taxes are so low, compared to Europe, is our politicians loose elections each time they raise them.
 

What about ALL THOSE REGULATIONS that are FORCING those pitiful wheat farmers to have to BEG FOR SUBSIDIES??

Try making it a FREE MARKET with the bare minimum of regulations and watch how the WHEAT PRODUCTION TRIPLES, cost of grains fall, and farmers can GROW TO THEIR HEARTS CONTENT instead of having some LWNJ BUREAUCRAT tell them they can't plant but 20% of their fields!!

And DICKBREATH, we are NOT EUROPE and with any effort on CONSERVATIVES PART, we will NEVER BE THAT IN ANY MANNER!!!

Funny how EUROPEANS are doing all they can to COME HERE, rather than stay there, where you are trying to tell us is "so good" compared to here.

Again, GO **** YOURSELF!!

Skans » 12 Jul 2023, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:48 pm

That's not true.  Man, you say some stupid **** without investigating! 

There are only 9 states with no state income tax.  However, there are states other than these 9 that have seen growth over the past few years.

I hear you barking. I see no numbers to back the bark, bug ****.

Let us grant that my utterance was a TAD hyperbolic, in that it was only GENERALLY true. There may be small exceptions. Maybe Indiana didn't shrink or something, and grew by some dismal amount, and has an income tax. Does that negate the fact that states with income taxes are being fled, and those without are being fled to?

If you want to refute ME, you lazy piece of ****, get busy. Get your google-fu on, you **** faced four flushing finger fapper.  
 

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm

My pencils all have well used erasers.

Many years ago I was a Republican.

Back then Republicans understood conservatism to mean not risking all we know, on the unknown.

I, too, lament the progressive knee jerk reactionaries that neocons have turned into.

Bruce » 12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jul 2023, 1:55 pm

If a national sales tax worked to balance the budget and create a surplus like we had from 1997-2001 I’d love it, we’d all love it.

But who will save us, if it doesn’t?

You argument here ^ (not previously) is a conservative argument. My counter is this: We are thirty trillions plus in debt. The current system is by definition failing. Dithering won't fix it, so we're left with the sort of options that conservatives despise: quick and radical change.

We don't have the balls to throw off the bankers - to take the fed into receivership and cancel any debts we owe it. We don't have the balls to cut spending. So we are left with something a tad less revolutionary: change the FAILING tax code.

I don't like standing with rinos on anything, and I am somewhat surprised to see rinos backing this. But then, both parties are just full of surprises these days. I used to guard our nations wonderful roadside restrooms against predatory republicans looking for some side sausage. Now, my work load is doubled keeping democrat men from invading the ladies' room.

Then there is your party's sudden favor with and servitude toward wall street - your overnight repudiation of "my body my choice" when it comes to criminally foisting medical experiments on your neighbors. You suck harder than you have ever sucked. I was raised and remain an FDR Democrat. What you freaks have become I cannot even describe, much less comprehend how you got there from here.