TEA party compared to 47% pay no fed income taxes
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And how would you reform that? If I buy a few thousand shares of stock, why should I pay sales tax?
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The rich people still aren't paying.
You don't get it. Nobody should have to pay taxes on money not spent.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Right, so the poor won't see a huge difference, but the rich will be paying substantially less.
This is not a bad thing. The more money so called rich people have, the better off the economy. "Rich" people tend to invest their money, which is excellent for the economy, good for the "poor" because jobs are created from investments.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Some of those actually make sense. Extra taxes on cars are, I presume, to help offset the cost of federal regulations and safety standards. Extra taxes on cigarettes are SUPPOSED to help pay for lung cancer research and treatment (As in, if you want to damage yourself, you help pay for the extra health care you'll need). Sure, they're abused to some degree by politicians, but just like the idea of switching to just sales tax, they're better in theory than in practice.
I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "Keep it simple stupid".
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
In the case of a VAT tax, you would only pay tax if you sold your stocks at a higher price than what you paid for them, and the amount in tax would be a percentage of the difference.
That is a capital gains tax, not VAT. Others have linked you to the required reading to overcome your ignorance. You do understand, I hope, that any system of taxation will be totally screwed to favour those who pay your legislators the most. Do you reckon that will be the bottom 40% or the top 1%?
Bob Emmett "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" -Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher
-
You said yourself that Wikipedia is not a recognized source of authority. What Wikipedia have stated is very minute of what VAT actually is. Now, the references I gave was from the UK Government's Customs and Revenue whose job it is to apply the law on VAT, and other UK taxation. So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject. As suggested, there is sufficient "real" information to keep you busy (as in learning and comprehending) for some years.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject
I don't care about your tax system. It sure isn't like the simple one I proposed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So what I gave you is a small introduction to the subject
I don't care about your tax system. It sure isn't like the simple one I proposed.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
If the United States chooses to go down the route of adopting into law the system of VAT, it will become an almost certain universal system of complex regulation. Simplicity it won't be, that you can guarantee. And VAT is not a substitution for income taxation and never has or will ever become so. And as the EU member nations use this VAT system, you can almost guarantee that if the United States adopts VAT then it will take existing systems as its benchmark. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke then don't mend it" and that is what the United States will most likely do if they adopt a VAT system such as presently used in Europe.
-
If the United States chooses to go down the route of adopting into law the system of VAT, it will become an almost certain universal system of complex regulation. Simplicity it won't be, that you can guarantee. And VAT is not a substitution for income taxation and never has or will ever become so. And as the EU member nations use this VAT system, you can almost guarantee that if the United States adopts VAT then it will take existing systems as its benchmark. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke then don't mend it" and that is what the United States will most likely do if they adopt a VAT system such as presently used in Europe.
Our tax code is insanely complex also, and we don't have VAT. The problem isn't necessarly the type of tax, but the endless regulations. I'm for 1 simple VAT for each level of government, and no other taxes. The tax would be part of the end price displayed on the price tag of goods and services, and the amount of tax paid would be on the receipt.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
puromtec1 wrote:
Your attempt to cast the movement as a bunch of paranoid bean counters who are bad at math is accompanied by a strong fecal aroma.
Ad Hominem attack -Fail
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money and are sick of the arrogance of those who make policy and believe themselves to be above it all (ex: Charles Rengal), and believe in a smaller set of responsibilities for the Federal government than is currently held. The reasons for this are covered by CSS rather well on a daily basis.
There is corruption, but not to the extent portrayed by the movement. The movement is hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs they say they want. Polling has shown this.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money. The power to tax is the power to destroy--in so many different ways. This makes statements of the Tea Party movement consistent with the philosophy of our founders.
This has nothing to do with the point being made and neither does your last paragraph. Complaining about being taxed too much and then wanting to not cut back on anything is a logical fallacy of completeness. You can't have it both ways. That's the point in the thread, nothing else. Talking about printing money, the fed, or anything else has nothing to do with it.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs
The rough and corrupt passage of the incoherent intrusive costly health care reform bill and the (two?) non-stimulus stimulus bills pretty much put people over the top and got people traveling the country to hold signs. Enough said. What will happen as result? Think about how Chris Christie got elected. The people of liberal new jersey had enough of bad government and chose him to clean house. The state had no revenue problem, btw.
wolfbinary wrote:
movement is hypocritical by the tax laws and spending levels for programs
If given the choice between Charlie Christ and Obama, I believe the Tea Party supporters would choose Christ. That is all that matters. Pressing folks with survey questions can yield whatever results a poll-taker wants. This happens all the time. Nevertheless, it does not matter, because we will be electing a leader that follows in the footsteps in the New Jersey governor in the end. That is what a leader is for. I could probably entice with nice language a self-described conservative follower to accept a policy that goes against their core beliefs. It does not make them any less principled, just not a leader.
wolfbinary wrote:
Ad Hominem attack
This is The Back Room, right? Gotta start out with something like that. It is a requirement.
-
puromtec1 wrote:
The people do not like what is being done with tax money
Does anyone?
puromtec1 wrote:
(ex: Charles Rengal)
Finally, something we all agree on! For the record, Rangel's district starts several miles NORTH of me, so I can't be held responsible for his... well... anything.
puromtec1 wrote:
The government has been found to do stupid things when given the chance which is enabled by our tax dollars and our tacit approval of borrowing or printing money.
So do people... And corporations... And other countries... No matter where the power (and money) rests, whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it. If that group is "the people" (Which has a fecal odor of its own, since power will inevitably be concentrated somewhere), then not only do we have stupid things being done, but we have no easy way to stop it. At least now, we can theoretically vote in people with brains (Blame "the people" for our inability to do that).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
whoever has it is going to do stupid things with it.
The problem here is that the government has track record of setting up programs to increase faster than inflation even many times. When a policy-maker suggests slowing down the GROWTH of an out-of-control program, they are rail-roaded politically by a populist lying piece-of-shit who makes outlandish claims that they are going to make old people choose between dog food and medicine, for example. This use to be a sticky matter. Only until recently, with the blossoming of the internet, we can see through this smoke-screen by passing information easily about this trash coming out of washington to each other. Corporations screw people right and left, but they have been at the mercy of a generally more informed public than when it comes to US politics, IMO.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
we have no easy way to stop [corporations]
Don't like them? Don't buy from them. And, you may not share my view that making obscene profits is a sign that a company is providing a great service or product to its customers. You can always compete against them, and people can vote the winner with their dollars.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
vote in people with brains
It is common to hear this approach where we should just elect "thought kings" to run our country. The same crowd is always mis-characterizing domestic disasters as the result of a lack of government controls and the result of profiteers run amok. When in fact, it is a frank lack of trust in a free market that leads policy makers to make artificial bridges in the market which induce bad or irresponsible behavior on the part of the citizens. Be it a poor inner-city kid to impregnate an equally inept teen mother, or a mega-corporation to play games with a goverment sponsored enterprise, they all have one thing in common; the government gave them the go-ahead. Even with the BP oil spill IMO (which isn't that bad), government forced them to drill in super depths because of environmental reasons, but then capped their damages to 75 million dollars.
-
Our tax code is insanely complex also, and we don't have VAT. The problem isn't necessarly the type of tax, but the endless regulations. I'm for 1 simple VAT for each level of government, and no other taxes. The tax would be part of the end price displayed on the price tag of goods and services, and the amount of tax paid would be on the receipt.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
end price
Within the VAT system, there are many "end prices".
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
amount of tax paid would be on the receipt
Including those where VAT is either exempt or zero rated? And there is a real difference between exempt and zero rated - not necessarily to the final consumer but within the accounting systems.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
end price
Within the VAT system, there are many "end prices".
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
amount of tax paid would be on the receipt
Including those where VAT is either exempt or zero rated? And there is a real difference between exempt and zero rated - not necessarily to the final consumer but within the accounting systems.
There is a huge difference between Exempt and Zero rated. Exempt is where VAT CANNOT be added, Zero is where is can but, primarily for political reasons, it is not. Example...Books, Childrens Clothes and Medicines are Exempt. Food and Newspapers are Zero Rated. This means that a future government has the option of increasing it's 'take' by upping the rate on food, currently 0% to, say, 5%. (And commit electoral suicide in the process).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
-
There is a huge difference between Exempt and Zero rated. Exempt is where VAT CANNOT be added, Zero is where is can but, primarily for political reasons, it is not. Example...Books, Childrens Clothes and Medicines are Exempt. Food and Newspapers are Zero Rated. This means that a future government has the option of increasing it's 'take' by upping the rate on food, currently 0% to, say, 5%. (And commit electoral suicide in the process).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
Again, I fully agree except*, and am fully aware the these little niceties, including the required nominal accounting processes. The problem that Henize has is that he can't see the wider picture, he has no comprehension of that outside of his perceived viewpoint, which, in itself, is not always the full story. Thus he becomes confused all to easily, and Uncle Alex, who he apparently adores, just muddies the water that bit more. * Children's clothing is NOT exempt. It is zero rated with exceptions.
modified on Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:18 AM
-
Our tax code is insanely complex also, and we don't have VAT. The problem isn't necessarly the type of tax, but the endless regulations. I'm for 1 simple VAT for each level of government, and no other taxes. The tax would be part of the end price displayed on the price tag of goods and services, and the amount of tax paid would be on the receipt.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
end price
Within the VAT system, there are many "end prices".
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
amount of tax paid would be on the receipt
Including those where VAT is either exempt or zero rated? And there is a real difference between exempt and zero rated - not necessarily to the final consumer but within the accounting systems.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Within the VAT system, there are many "end prices".
I don't know what kind of VAT you are referring to, probably your complex euro system, but the one I am referring to is simply a percentage of the value added (the markup). For instance, the VAT is 10% and I pull some carrots out of the ground and sell them for a dollar. The tax I pay is 10 cents so I only get 90 cent profit. The receipt says price $1.00, tax paid 10 cents to federal government. Now that person sells the carrots he bought at a markup for $1.20, he only has to pay tax on the markup. On the tax form the first box is 10% of 1.20 so thats 12 cents, he uses his the receipt of the carrots he bought, looks at the amount me paid in tax, 10 cents, and subtracts that from the first box so the final tax owed box is 2 cents. He only paid tax on the value he added, which was only 20 cents, so the tax owed is 2 cents. However, a total of 10% of 1.20 or 12 cents was paid to the government from the sale of the carrots.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
So you're against state's rights to impose their own taxes? I can't argue that a uniform tax code would be far easier to deal with, but it's actually as much a state's rights issue as anything else.
Distind wrote:
So you're against state's rights to impose their own taxes?
I'm against special taxes on certain items. Each level of government should have one single tax, a VAT tax. No other taxes are necessary. That would be 4 levels of taxation, 1 for each level of government, and every state, country, and city would be responsible for its own collection and enforcment.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Within the VAT system, there are many "end prices".
I don't know what kind of VAT you are referring to, probably your complex euro system, but the one I am referring to is simply a percentage of the value added (the markup). For instance, the VAT is 10% and I pull some carrots out of the ground and sell them for a dollar. The tax I pay is 10 cents so I only get 90 cent profit. The receipt says price $1.00, tax paid 10 cents to federal government. Now that person sells the carrots he bought at a markup for $1.20, he only has to pay tax on the markup. On the tax form the first box is 10% of 1.20 so thats 12 cents, he uses his the receipt of the carrots he bought, looks at the amount me paid in tax, 10 cents, and subtracts that from the first box so the final tax owed box is 2 cents. He only paid tax on the value he added, which was only 20 cents, so the tax owed is 2 cents. However, a total of 10% of 1.20 or 12 cents was paid to the government from the sale of the carrots.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Your calculations are somewhat out. Using your calculations, the consumer and everybody else in the process would be making over payments of VAT. Looks like you need a refresher course in arithmetic.
Whats 10% of 1.20? 12 cents, if you look at my calculations, that is all that is paid to the government throughout the entire process. It is no wonder I can't get anything through to you people, you don't even understand basic math. :doh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Whats 10% of 1.20? 12 cents, if you look at my calculations, that is all that is paid to the government throughout the entire process. It is no wonder I can't get anything through to you people, you don't even understand basic math. :doh:
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
$1.20 is the sale price that includes 10% VAT. In other words, $1.20 == 110% The VAT on that $1.20 is not $0.12 but in fact it is $0.1090909090909091 this means the goods before VAT are valued at $1.090909090909091 Therefore, $1.090909090909091 plus $0.1090909090909091 giving $1.20 You pay the VAT taxman $0.12 but everybody else will pay what they should pay - namely just fractionally under $0.11 and on a $1M contract, that is an awfully large over-payment in VAT you would pay! It looks to me as if it is Henize can't do basic arithmetic!!! UNLESS you are suggesting that the sale prices EXCLUDES VAT, which wasn't your first premise.
-
$1.20 is the sale price that includes 10% VAT. In other words, $1.20 == 110% The VAT on that $1.20 is not $0.12 but in fact it is $0.1090909090909091 this means the goods before VAT are valued at $1.090909090909091 Therefore, $1.090909090909091 plus $0.1090909090909091 giving $1.20 You pay the VAT taxman $0.12 but everybody else will pay what they should pay - namely just fractionally under $0.11 and on a $1M contract, that is an awfully large over-payment in VAT you would pay! It looks to me as if it is Henize can't do basic arithmetic!!! UNLESS you are suggesting that the sale prices EXCLUDES VAT, which wasn't your first premise.
I was simply trying to explain it in a way you would understand. What I am trying to convey to your puny eurobrain is that the tax should be on the markup only. And I think the final price on the price tags of goods and services should include the tax.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
I was simply trying to explain it in a way you would understand. What I am trying to convey to your puny eurobrain is that the tax should be on the markup only. And I think the final price on the price tags of goods and services should include the tax.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
tax should be on the markup only
And that won't work. On each transaction involving VAT there is always an INPUT VAT and an OUTPUT VAT in each of the processes within the life of those goods. The difference between OUTPUT VAT and INPUT VAT is what is either paid or reclaimed from Government at EACH stage of the process. The markup represents what the profit (or loss (as you know some goods are loss leaders)) would be required from the transaction and NOT the VAT due/refunded.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
And I think the final price on the price tags of goods and services should include the tax.
So my calculations were spot on. Go invest in a calculator that gives you the correct answers :doh: However, that's me done this thread :)