6 String Tax Plan by JO753

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?

And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing.

A hedge fund manajer payz 15% now. Remember during the 2012 election it came out that Romney wuz paying around 12% ? Remember Ryan theorizing that peepl who earn their money on capital gainz from investments shoud be paying nothing?

In the new plan, they will pay 50%.

Wutever tricks they mite try to avoid paying for income jenerated in the United States need to be blocked by detailz in the new tax plan.

The current code iz chock full uv loop holez made spesificly for the rich to avoid paying. The new plan will be chock full uv shieldz to keep them frum weazeling out uv paying the full 50%.

Quote:
Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?

I dont no yet. The discretionary spending iznt a anywhere near az big az set costs. Going after squanderaj and fraud iz alwayz popular, but never seemz to happen for long.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your new rate of 0% goes up to $10,000 of annual pay. I was under the impression that the poverty level was something near $20,000.
I didnt incorporate the poverty level into the plan. I just figured the tax revenue below 10,000$ iz very small, so not worth the effort to collect.

If you make it too hi, cheapskate employerz woud be able to hire their entire workfors in the 0% level.

This means you did not overlook what I mentioned, not an error, ommission, or miscalculation.
Quote:
There will definitly need to be lawz to prevent abuse uv the 0% level anyway. Employerz coud possibly hire minimum waje part timerz and then everybody haz 3 or 4 jobz working 10 owrz each.
Quote:
Your example 2: Walmart pays 31,200. Bowling pays $26,000. EBay earns $5,200. Math in the Real World sums this to $62,300. But you state differently.
! I dont no! Like I sed, its reely difficult for me to bend my brain to tax cojitating! I coud wake up from a solid 10 owrz uv sleep, guzzle a 1,000 calorie banana Ovaltine shake, have Metal Church blasting on the stereo, snort a teenth uv Hiezenberg'z Finest then open the instructionz for the 1040 form and instantly fall back to sleep.

Looks like I failed to add the Ebay earningz wen I rote 56,400$, but I dont know where the extra 200$ came from. The bowling alley wuz clozed for the Christmas & New Yir holiday weeks.

By the way - Your number appearz to be short by 100. Wuzzup widdat?
You are correct, typo. I corrected my original post to $62,400 to reduce confusion. I hate making typos with numbers and figures, but at least enough of it was clear so you could conjure the error.
Bowling Alley closed the 2 most profitable weeks of the year? They trying to go out of business?

Quote:
Quote:
Your revised example 1:
You state 13,233. Which the Tax Table shows is the Tax due for a Single Earner with up to $80,400 in 2017.
You indicated the Earner got $70,000. Which, in 2017 the Tax Table shows a Single Earner would have $10,633 Tax due.
The table I'm looking at showz 13,233$. Are you subtracting the standard deduction or wutevr? Maybe I shoud do that.

The table you link to is for Taxable Income, which is after deductions. In 2017 Single Standard with no dependants is $10,400.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 8:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Maybe I'v left a hyooj hole in the plan?
And you are replacing Income Tax on $1,000,000 and above with practically nothing.
A hedge fund manajer payz 15% now. Remember during the 2012 election it came out that Romney wuz paying around 12% ? Remember Ryan theorizing that peepl who earn their money on capital gainz from investments shoud be paying nothing?

In the new plan, they will pay 50%.

Wutever tricks they mite try to avoid paying for income jenerated in the United States need to be blocked by detailz in the new tax plan.

The current code iz chock full uv loop holez made spesificly for the rich to avoid paying. The new plan will be chock full uv shieldz to keep them frum weazeling out uv paying the full 50%.
Quote:
Or are you planning to reduce Federal Expenditures by 60%, when nobody else has been able to?
I dont no yet. The discretionary spending iznt a anywhere near az big az set costs. Going after squanderaj and fraud iz alwayz popular, but never seemz to happen for long.

Currently Income Tax, Corporate Tax, Capital Gains, Dividends are different things. I have not seen where you address each.
So if they don't get paid, don't get any dividends, don't get any Capital Gains, don't have any Corporate profit, then they will contribute nothing toward your Revenue column on the balance sheet. So you have replaced billions of dollars in Revenue with ZERO. When you are out of office, they will reap their rewards.
"Set costs" are merely the result of poor Budget planning from previous years, which you are trying to make even worse than ever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.

How did I lie? He pays a lower tax rate on his salary on income tax, so he paid less income tax. Obviously he paid a lot more actual taxes in other formats.

Quote:
Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.

Yup. That's what I was saying, and why I liked it.

Quote:
Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"

I'd guess that most states tax groceries. Granted, I've only lived in 3 of them in my life, but WI was the only state that didn't. If the other two were IL and CA, then I'd say you were probably right, but IN charges a grocery tax at the same rate of sales tax as everything else. However, in Indiana an airplane for business purposes is still taxed.

I agree that the bottom tier internet only should be free. Nobody really needs any more than that anyhow. I pay 50 bucks for mine right now and it's much more than I'd ever need and I get more use from that 50 bucks than almost anything else I purchase.

Quote:
Consumption Tax is barely a dent in the spending Budgets of the wealthy, but is critical for everybody surrounding them. When a "new car" is a true status symbol, no reason it shouldn't be taxed more.
This also reminds me of the criminal trades. How many drug dealers pay a dime of Income Tax? But they all live that life to spend money, right? So Consumption Tax would not even register to them, they'd pay it gladly for their status symbols, and Revenue coffers would finally reap their ill-gotten gains.
Criminals would, for once, pay more Tax than hard working Citizens they mingle among.

An old apartment complex a few miles from me that used to be classy as hell when I lived there in around 2000 is now all section 8 housing. It's a real dump. It his home to some of the most luxurious cars in the city now though. A lot of that government subsidized rent goes back into the system in vehicle taxes.

Quote:
Also, one example of local laws applying: some States choose to charge Tolls on Federal Interstates. Since the voters of these states have decided this is a desirable incursion of their State's Government, these should also be fully taxed at the maximum rate. If the voters change their minds and the toll booths are dismantled, then there would be no Taxation.

I dunno. How do you fix Illinois? Overpriced tolls are just one of the ways IL citizens are being taxed to death. Nobody in the state gives a shit what their voters want because the state is beyond bankrupt.

Quote:
So, consider the size and cash flow of Criminal enterprises nationwide. And any other "undeclared" or "undocumented" or "unrecorded" GDP. Consider the Federal Expense savings of no IRS. The elimination of The Tax Industry: preparers, planners, lawyers,etc. The wealthiest finally paying more in taxes than the hardest workers. The inherent fairness of the whole Consumption Tax. And YOU get to CHOOSE how much Tax YOU PAY, every day, based upon your purchase. And if you dislike the rate of Taxation, you know it is resultant from those spendaholics in Washington. How do you think the Federal Revenue coffers would fill, different from today?

Like I said, overall I do like it. It's would just be a matter of figuring out how much taxes get applied to what.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 10:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
How did I lie? He pays a lower tax rate on his salary on income tax, so he paid less income tax. Obviously he paid a lot more actual taxes in other formats.

It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.
When called out on your falsehood, why did you deny the fact? I don't know.
Why did you prop up your doubling down with further, new lies? I don't know.
A fundamental inability to understand how taxes work leaves you floundering when trying to stabilize a foundation to build a new system upon.
Quote:
Quote:
Eliminate Income Tax, which the truly wealthy will never pay, but their employees will. Switch to Consumption Tax, and I'm about certain Buffet couldn't pay less of than his secretary, unless she is a spendaholic. I've heard he lives modestly, but he still must spend more than she does, unless his expenses are covered under business expenses, where Consumption Tax would still capture the transaction, no muss no fuss.
Yup. That's what I was saying, and why I liked it.
Quote:
Yes, essential utilities was another category I forgot to mention. A basic internet, basement level, could be considered essential and tax-free, but the most extravagant and high-tier internet would be a luxury for individuals.
Did you know that some States actually Tax groceries? But, like I said, the Federal Consumption Tax could just conform to the local or Statewide Tax laws (except Income Taxes). The reporting and collection mechanisms are already in place, the Fed would just piggyback. If one State's voters decide that groceries should no longer be taxed, like the neighboring States, that can be legislated at the local or Statewide level - much more responsive to the serious voter than Congress will ever be. Even, forbid, more "democratic" for most. It could be possible to have or develop 3 tiers of Consumption Tax Rates: Tax Free, Standard Consumption Tax, Luxury Tax Rate. Could apply to housing, education, and debatably "essential" services. Some examples of detailed Consumption Tax plans, although NOT all the same, have been proposed by Presidential candidates, Herman Cain may have had one.
All golf and tennis would be taxable. All yachts. All Ferraris. All airplanes, but business related would not be Luxury. None of that stuff is "essential to life, Liberty, freedom"
I'd guess that most states tax groceries. Granted, I've only lived in 3 of them in my life, but WI was the only state that didn't. If the other two were IL and CA, then I'd say you were probably right, but IN charges a grocery tax at the same rate of sales tax as everything else.
From the info of 2017, the States that Tax groceries at the full rate are AL, SD, MS, ID, KS, OK, HI. Taxing groceries at reduced rate are AR, IL, MO, TN, UT, VA. Reportedly the other 37 States do not Tax groceries for home use. CBPP has a map showing that IN is the same as most other states. I don't think I've been to AL, SD, MS, HI, AR, and don't really recall each of the others regarding Taxation.
Quote:
However, in Indiana an airplane for business purposes is still taxed.

I agree that the bottom tier internet only should be free. Nobody really needs any more than that anyhow. I pay 50 bucks for mine right now and it's much more than I'd ever need and I get more use from that 50 bucks than almost anything else I purchase.
Quote:
Consumption Tax is barely a dent in the spending Budgets of the wealthy, but is critical for everybody surrounding them. When a "new car" is a true status symbol, no reason it shouldn't be taxed more.
This also reminds me of the criminal trades. How many drug dealers pay a dime of Income Tax? But they all live that life to spend money, right? So Consumption Tax would not even register to them, they'd pay it gladly for their status symbols, and Revenue coffers would finally reap their ill-gotten gains.
Criminals would, for once, pay more Tax than hard working Citizens they mingle among.
An old apartment complex a few miles from me that used to be classy as hell when I lived there in around 2000 is now all section 8 housing. It's a real dump. It his home to some of the most luxurious cars in the city now though. A lot of that government subsidized rent goes back into the system in vehicle taxes.
I doubt those vehicles are owned by the tenants. The vehicles are likely owned by the criminal boyfriends of the actual tenants.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, one example of local laws applying: some States choose to charge Tolls on Federal Interstates. Since the voters of these states have decided this is a desirable incursion of their State's Government, these should also be fully taxed at the maximum rate. If the voters change their minds and the toll booths are dismantled, then there would be no Taxation.
I dunno. How do you fix Illinois? Overpriced tolls are just one of the ways IL citizens are being taxed to death. Nobody in the state gives a shit what their voters want because the state is beyond bankrupt.
Perhaps IL is as beyond recovery as CA and NY. But what if South/Central/West IL chose to secede from the cancer? The District of ChicagoLand would be it's own useless State then.

Quote:
Quote:
So, consider the size and cash flow of Criminal enterprises nationwide. And any other "undeclared" or "undocumented" or "unrecorded" GDP. Consider the Federal Expense savings of no IRS. The elimination of The Tax Industry: preparers, planners, lawyers,etc. The wealthiest finally paying more in taxes than the hardest workers. The inherent fairness of the whole Consumption Tax. And YOU get to CHOOSE how much Tax YOU PAY, every day, based upon your purchase. And if you dislike the rate of Taxation, you know it is resultant from those spendaholics in Washington. How do you think the Federal Revenue coffers would fill, different from today?
Like I said, overall I do like it. It's would just be a matter of figuring out how much taxes get applied to what.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 11:10 PM

rezident owtsidr

Its been 16 yirz sins I got a regular paycheck. I forgot that the standard deduction wuz subtracted befor the tax iz calculated.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 11:48 PM

rezident owtsidr

OK, I corrected the arithmatic in example 1 agen.

I missed sumthing else - in comparing the income & taxez, it wuz 27.30$ per hour vs 30$ per hour. So I had to divide the 70,000 earned by 27.3 to get the number uv owrz worked (2564.1) and then multiply that by 30 to get the income payed for the yir in the current system (76,923$) then I subtracted the 2018 Trump standard deduction. (12,000$)

Still just an approximation, but good enuf for the example.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 12, 2018 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
OK, I corrected the arithmatic in example 1 agen.

I missed sumthing else - in comparing the income & taxez, it wuz 27.30$ per hour vs 30$ per hour. So I had to divide the 70,000 earned by 27.3 to get the number uv owrz worked (2564.1) and then multiply that by 30 to get the income payed for the yir in the current system (76,923$) then I subtracted the 2018 Trump standard deduction. (12,000$)

Still just an approximation, but good enuf for the example.
m

It might be confusing to link to a Tax Table for 2017 but use Standard Deduction from 2018.
I wasn't settled in on your example enough to iron out what your errors were.
If you include that $76,923 figure in the site explanation of "current Tax system" it could be less confusing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:03 AM

rezident owtsidr

Definitly.

Its kind uv a hassle to update the online paje, so I'll save up a few correctionz and additionz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:21 AM

Hey JSF. Quit trolling this thread.

Don't look too far down his rabbit hole, J0. He is no friend of the working class, and is looking to fill your head up with untruths to get you off track.

For instance... if you eliminate income tax entirely, what will you do with EIC? For somebody like me it's just a few hundred bucks. For a mother of 3 kids making part time minimum wage it virtually doubles her disposable income for the year. She doesn't get it if she doesn't file for income taxes.

Food for thought, since any plan you lay out to try to redistribute that money some other way is going to shine a spotlight on it and you're not likely to get it through.

Even I don't agree with those payments I'm pointing this out to you because it's not my tax plan we're talking about.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.

You've called me a liar twice now, and offered no quotes, so I will:

Quote:
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."

I said that he pays less income tax. This is true. He doesn't actually "work" anymore and the money works for him.

What he was referring to in the quote was the fact that though he will be paying a LOT more taxes than they will with the Capital Gains taxes, his employees will all be paying a larger percentage of the money they made because income taxes are a higher percentage than capital gains taxes are.

Still not seeing your lie claim. You see lies everywhere though, so I'll just chalk that up to a personality flaw like T's.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:15 AM

rezident owtsidr

I need oppozing viewz just az much az new ideaz. JSF iz being very helpful.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:38 AM

rezident owtsidr

I am thinking that the social security system will be overflowing with money after removing the cap, even at a lower %.

5% uv the GDP iz about a trillion dollarz.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 7:30 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I need oppozing viewz just az much az new ideaz. JSF iz being very helpful.

Ok: my taxable 2 cents: burn all existing tax ideas down to the ground, then run all the accountants and lawyers out of the room and start from scratch. Ask such questions as: "What is the purpose of TAX?" "What is a fair share?" "What is a living wage?" "What are the financial needs and requirements individuals place on local/state and federal gov?" Same for Business. Be a fiddler on a roof: "If I were a rich man..." how would I be "ok" paying "more" taxes and not try and dodge them? (hint: they are a vain lot, appeal to that). "You hear about the new bridge they're building? You mean the JO753 bridge? It's pretty cool!"

Be bold, unemotional, imaginative, fair, and a killer with the maths. You may never get another chance like this!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 1:15 PM

rezident owtsidr

I like the way you think!

Wuts your take on wuts there now?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 13, 2018 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
It is not clear if you are now lying by ommission to pretend you didn't lie to start with.
Your statement which I accurately pointed out was a lie was "Warren Buffet says he pays Less Income Tax than his secretary" and I quoted your statement. You were careful to not state TAX RATE in order to propagate your lie. Now you admit that Buffet did not pay LESS INCOME TAX but was only LOWER when comparing RATES OF TAXATION. Now you are claiming a new lie, than he paid a LOWER TAX RATE on his SALARY compared to his Secretary's Tax Rate on earnings. He paid no Income Tax on Salary or wages because he had neither. His ONLY Income was Investment Earnings. So he was plainly and obviously saying that the RATE OF TAXATION on Investment Income is lower than on Salary or Wage earnings - which any moron who can read a Tax Booklet already clearly knows.
So, why did you lie to start with? I don't know.
You've called me a liar twice now, and offered no quotes, so I will:
Quote:
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying taxpayer in the office."
I said that he pays less income tax. This is true.

This is not true. He pays more income tax than his employees do, even though his Tax is derived from Income from Capital Gains and not Wages or Salary, which you have claimed. His income Tax paid is not less, it is more. You claiming that he pays less income tax is an untruth. He states his TAX RATE is lower, and you pretend he says he paid LESS TAX, which is a blatant falsehood, both in fact and in translation, (known as a Kutlerism after the despicable Stanley Kutler).
Quote:
He doesn't actually "work" anymore and the money works for him.

What he was referring to in the quote was the fact that though he will be paying a LOT more taxes than they will with the Capital Gains taxes, his employees will all be paying a larger percentage of the money they made because income taxes are a higher percentage than capital gains taxes are.

Still not seeing your lie claim. You see lies everywhere though, so I'll just chalk that up to a personality flaw like T's.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Quote:
"I'll be a fair amount higher, 8 or 9 points higher," Buffett said of his own tax rate in an appearance on CNBC Monday. "But the differential between me and the rest of the office, not just my secretary but the rest of the office, was greater than that. It'll be closer, but I'll probably be the lowest paying ...."

You have said I provided no quotes, but I already said I quoted your false statements which you subsequently walked back.
Here is where I made that quote of you:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Well yeah, I said there were a lot of things we hadn't even touched on yet. Warren Buffet himself said that he paid less income tax than his secretary did.
Quit lying. Fake News does not bolster your argument. Buffet said he pays a lower Tax Rate than his secretary. That's because he doesn't have "Wage or Salary Earnings" but his secretary does. This further proves my point of the wealthiest Americans not contributing to Federal Revenues if they choose not to. No Consumption Tax, no need to contribute.
Just to be clear, if he paid $1,000,000 in Income Taxes, I do not consider that to be LESS INCOME TAX than perhaps $10,000 - $100,000 that the Secretary paid.
I do consider a 15% RATE to be LESS than a 25% RATE.

Does anybody here besides 6string believe that $1,000,000 Income Tax Payment is LESS than a $100,000 Income Tax Payment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 14, 2018 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Hey JSF. Quit trolling this thread.

For instance... if you eliminate income tax entirely, what will you do with EIC? For somebody like me it's just a few hundred bucks. For a mother of 3 kids making part time minimum wage it virtually doubles her disposable income for the year. She doesn't get it if she doesn't file for income taxes.

That is yet another bandaid workaround from a failed Social Safety Net system, piggybacked onto s failed and inherently unfair and regressive Taxation architecture.
JO seems interested in making significant changes to things. So why tinker with an Edsel instead of developing a solid foundation and sound architecture for the Taxation, resulting in fairness and room for growth and improvement for each individual instead of only the powerful or connected?
A mother supporting kids will practically be outside the Taxation game, most of her purchases will be for untaxed items, unless she shovels McDonald's down their holes instead of cooking groceries.

Quote:

Even I don't agree with those payments I'm pointing this out to you because it's not my tax plan we're talking about.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

JO has said he doesn't clearly follow the taxes and maths, they put him to sleep or give him headaches. So why bother trying to distract him in a thread he already considers a gauntlet to navigate?

I have advocated Consumption Tax because it is the fairest, most progressive and most self-controlled. Otherwise I have been pointing out Math errors, potential logic errors - some of which were intended, some apparently not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2018 7:20 AM

rezident owtsidr

I think you are failing to see the big problemz with consumption tax, JSF.

1. Rich peeple dont buy enuf uv their rich peepl stuff to support their fair share uv the goverment. Even if you are propozing that salez tax on a new classification uv 'super luxury' itemz will be in multiplez above 100%, they still cant possibly spend enuf.

For example, Steve Bezos may buy a new house in yir 1 uv your salez tax system for 100,000,000$ and pay 10x that much in salez tax, but he iznt going to by another for many yirz, if ever.

He iz also not going to buy a new super yot every yir or a new fleet uv Farrariz every yir.

2. Classifying everything but food and other life nessesityz az 'luxuryz' and taxing it all at 20% or more will reduse salez. That will reduse demand, wich will reduse manufacturing and all commers. Bigger tikit itemz will get hit the hardest. Carz in particular.

3. It diez a quick deth from avoidans.

Peepl will trade food and drugz for the so-called luxury itemz. They will buy used stuff from private sellerz insted uv storez. Alot uv black market new stuff also. So much stuff will fall off the truck that the storez wont hav anything to sell!

4. The IRS woud be spending all its time going after Craigz List, Ebay, flea market sellerz.

Everybody woud need to be salez tax snitchez with the new tax formz. And we'd haf to keep track uv everything we bot and sold. You think audits are painful now - it woud be like getting worked on by a dentist and a proctocolojist at the same time!

Can you imajin having to do inventory in your house?! "Sorry Mr. Stait, but that VCR iznt listed until last yir. Where did you buy it?" "A gift from your brother, eh? Well, we are going to haf to ask him about that - and a bunch uv other irregularityz also, so we shoud just do a complete audit on him."

I'v red the theoryz about how its suppozed to be the most efficient system, but the armchair expert academicianz are failing to consider reality.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I think you are failing to see the big problemz with consumption tax, JSF.

1. Rich peeple dont buy enuf uv their rich peepl stuff to support their fair share uv the goverment. Even if you are propozing that salez tax on a new classification uv 'super luxury' itemz will be in multiplez above 100%, they still cant possibly spend enuf.

For example, Steve Bezos may buy a new house in yir 1 uv your salez tax system for 100,000,000$ and pay 10x that much in salez tax, but he iznt going to by another for many yirz, if ever.

He iz also not going to buy a new super yot every yir or a new fleet uv Farrariz every yir.

You are trying rto view it from guessing what they spend their money on.
Try instead to imagine what untaxable spending they will have - proportionally far less than poor or middle class. What do we care what they spend their income on? We wouldn't care, because the Consumption Tax would capture it all, outside of whatever is tax-free. It's none of our business.
How much can they possibly spend on groceries? Even if they only buy steaks, lobsters, caviar and cook it at home? How much, all year long? (Prepared and packaged caviar, ready-to-eat, is taxable, and would still be - along with any prepared food. Meat cut, milk, eggs, canned fruit or vegetable = untaxed grocery. Prepared sandwich from Deli, potato salad = taxed food.
Quote:

2. Classifying everything but food and other life nessesityz az 'luxuryz' and taxing it all at 20% or more will reduse salez. That will reduse demand, wich will reduse manufacturing and all commers. Bigger tikit itemz will get hit the hardest. Carz in particular.
I have not seen sales tax create a reduction in sales. People still need to buy stuff. McDonald's, iPhones, video games, Starbucks, big screens are like crack - it doesn't matter what they cost. Maybe a realignment towards essential items could occur, but it wouldn't last.
And they will have that "bonus" in their paychecks to pay for it all - from No Income Tax.
Quote:

3. It diez a quick deth from avoidans.

Peepl will trade food and drugz for the so-called luxury itemz. They will buy used stuff from private sellerz insted uv storez. Alot uv black market new stuff also. So much stuff will fall off the truck that the storez wont hav anything to sell!
bartering is normally considered to strengthen the community, the neighborhood, the commune. We can assume bartering happens every day, right now. But the lost Taxation on Criminal trade far outweighs whatever escapes capture via bartering. Bartering should not be illegal, and could even be encouraged. Trading bags of groceries for a big screen TV? Have at it. Drugs will really only be useful tender among other drug users. Eventually all the vehicles on the block of drug dealers will be a whole year old - they won't be able to put up with that. And vehicles still require title transfers and registration, otherwise the dealers give the cops ample excuse to arrest and search, confiscate the ride. I have not heard of flea market sales being recorded. How much do you really think will escape Taxation that way? How many of the rich that you really want to target and Tax are hanging at the flea markets, with the unwashed masses? I would think flea markets are chock full of those that you don't want to Tax!
Fun Fact: as of 2013, the estimated Black Market economy for illegal drugs in America was up to $750 Billion. Wouldn't you like to capture 20% of that? That $150 Billion could erase the annual Deficit.
Black Market, theft would still be crimes. Maybe they aren't in your world. The bigger ticket items would have the higher penalties for theft, just like now. The lower priced items - why bother?
Quote:

4. The IRS woud be spending all its time going after Craigz List, Ebay, flea market sellerz.
only sellers making over 50K, right? Unincorporated sellers shipping TVs other big ticket items? I'm not sure that's a big deal - and will it involve the people you most want to Tax? There are likely ways to address this among the other proposed Consumption Tax plans, I'm more trending toward ignoring it.
Quote:

Everybody woud need to be salez tax snitchez with the new tax formz. And we'd haf to keep track uv everything we bot and sold. You think audits are painful now - it woud be like getting worked on by a dentist and a proctocolojist at the same time!
Tax forms? What Tax forms? Businesses already have their sales tax mechanisms in place, been doing it for decades - just piggyback on it. Your idea of New Tax Forms sounds overly burdensome. Why bother?
And for transfer of used items, no need to care, outside of existing Taxing procedures, like vehicle title transfers. Reselling by business, Tax it. Between neighbors, who cares. Only focus on capturing the Tax on the First Purchase Sale. Those are the individuals with disposable income that you want to target, right?
Quote:

Can you imajin having to do inventory in your house?! "Sorry Mr. Stait, but that VCR iznt listed until last yir. Where did you buy it?" "A gift from your brother, eh? Well, we are going to haf to ask him about that - and a bunch uv other irregularityz also, so we shoud just do a complete audit on him."
Inventory? Are you grasping now? Your Police State sounds so large and cumbersome that only Nazis would vote for you. Why have house inventory? Why have audits? Your IRS has way too much time on their hands. You should have shuttered all of the Personal Income Tax sections, and not transferred them into the Consumption Tax section, which could be handled by a small portion of the Business section.

Quote:

I'v red the theoryz about how its suppozed to be the most efficient system, but the armchair expert academicianz are failing to consider reality.

I don't see that. Only your new huge police state that you seem to be imagining.
There should be no tax forms other than the existing Sales Tax.

Businesses exchanging products or material would not be bartering, those would all be taxable.

To be clear, you have not mentioned any objections that have not been carefully considered and evaluated before.
I'm not sure if you are giving serious evaluation, or just dreaming of some new massive police state.

Think easy, simple, fair. Not complicated. You seem stuck in some really complicated fantasy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:29 AM

rezident owtsidr

Consider the existing situation. How did the super rich get all the money?

The establish a revenue stream that takes money out uv the system at a very fast rate.

Youd need a consumption tax that balansez that out.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2018 9:33 AM

rezident owtsidr

I'v updated the paje agen. Added stuf to the SS section. Also redid the home paje. Found out my donate button wuz asking for 75$ at the lowest!!!! I dont no how it got set that hi. rest it to 10$ but havent updated it on all the pajez yet.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 17, 2018 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Consider the existing situation. How did the super rich get all the money?

The establish a revenue stream that takes money out uv the system at a very fast rate.

Youd need a consumption tax that balansez that out.

One of the methods for the rich becoming super rich is by Not Paying Income Tax on Wage or Salary, which is the most penalized and regressive, only Taxing workers.
Obama made this disparity worse.
You look to be perpetuating this by keeping the yoke on workers, no matter how you masquerade the collection process.

I don't understand what your meaning is "takes money out" of "the system"

Consumption Tax collects as fast as people spend, and people spend fast. The only folk who really care if they are paying tax or not are the truly poor, who we don't really want to target for Taxation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 18, 2018 12:36 AM

rezident owtsidr

Taking money out uv the system.

Its wut most uv the billionairez do to bekum billionairez. They dont provide products or servisez that you woud agree to pay for, given a choise.

The revenue streemz they establish are based on moving money around. They are purely parasitic. Lots uv it haz a connection to real estate, wich iz the biggest cattle milking operation in the world.

Then there are thoze that latch on to wun uv the goverment supported industriez, such az healthcare. The governor uv Illinois made hiz billionz off uv Medicare/Medicaid with nursing homez.

Bill Gates can kind uv be seen az an exeption sins Microsoft haz an actual product. But thats ignoring the history - he really got rich thru criminal bizness practisez. Hiz product haz been a severe detriment to sosiety all along.

Its all about getting hold uv money befor us prolez ever see it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 18, 2018 1:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Taking money out uv the system.

Its wut most uv the billionairez do to bekum billionairez. They dont provide products or servisez that you woud agree to pay for, given a choise.

The revenue streemz they establish are based on moving money around. They are purely parasitic. Lots uv it haz a connection to real estate, wich iz the biggest cattle milking operation in the world.

Real Estate transactions are fully taxable - you would capture all of these transactions with Consumption Tax. You keep making points that support Consumption Tax.

Quote:

Then there are thoze that latch on to wun uv the goverment supported industriez, such az healthcare. The governor uv Illinois made hiz billionz off uv Medicare/Medicaid with nursing homez.

Bill Gates can kind uv be seen az an exeption sins Microsoft haz an actual product. But thats ignoring the history - he really got rich thru criminal bizness practisez. Hiz product haz been a severe detriment to sosiety all along.

Well, you finally hammered a nail dead center on the head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2022 12:30 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

U.S. House passes $1.7 trillion bill the media and political class tell you Ukraine Needs 1 Trillion of your Taxdollars, Apparently

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2022 12:35 AM