Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Destino did you ever think this would motivate the poor to get a job now It will motivate them to vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino It will motivate them them to vote I think it is safe to say you have no clue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by phanatic What would be your solution to the inevitable social security crisis? Tax the rich to the tune of sixty percent? it's already been proven that taxation will do NOTHING to solve the bubble created by the baby boomers. Stay on topic champ. How will a plan that shifts the burden on those that have the least solve the social security crisis? You want to talk our idea's start a "your tax idea thread" and I'll be happy to explain to you how I support privatizing SS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma I think it is safe to say you have no clue Yeah having to pay more when you can't afford the same things today, isn't motivational. Hearing a texas cowboy explain he turned the corner is. Whatever clue it is you think you have, delete it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Destino if an NST were to be instituted it would have to be complimented with a reduction or elimination of the payroll tax. An NST would also eliminate any "black money" There is a thread in the tailgate where we have discussed the pros and cons of the NST and there is an interesting article from January in the "Atlantic Monthly" where a writer is vouching for an NST. The writers plan was pretty simple, and fair so even a liberal yourself would like it. Here is the crux of the NST plan: Take total earned income-subtract savings and investments= money you "consumed" Now if you consumed more then 10k but less then 25k you would pay something like 10 percent in taxes. If you spent 25k but less then 50k you would pay 15 percent, etc etc. This way essential items like milk and butter would be taxed less then items such as cars and boats. That is the only way an NST could work. After a lot of research though I am for a flat tax with no deductions, which would force rich people to pay more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Do you have any idea of the kind of class warfare such a plan would unleash. let me explain something to you. The bottom 50% of the US makes less then 29k a year. Can you grasp the simple concept that increasing the price of PRODUCTS to those that currently pay non or very little tax would create much more discussions and not less? You call me the elitist, while you make it clear you haven't pulled your head out and blinked the real world into focus. How about the fair tax? Have you ever read it? Do you understand it would take some time to fully implement it? NO MORE TAXES OUT OF YOUR CHECK! Yes, smart guy, I fully realize that 42% of the entire country pays NO witholding taxes ontheir checks. The fair tax would pay EVERYONE the amount of the tax for the essentials in life, every month. Your perception is one of security. Mine is of prosperity. Therin lies the difference my socialist friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Yeah having to pay more when you can't afford the same things today, isn't motivational. Hearing a texas cowboy explain he turned the corner is. Whatever clue it is you think you have, delete it. :doh: you don't get it, first it depends on what percentage and on what?? Second you mentioned 29K in one of you posts, well they do pay taxes as we speak and when you make that much you don't buy a lot so it won't effect them. The rich who buy the most will be paying the most, ah but this is what you don't see now do you And for the poor it might just motivate them to make more money, wow not depend on on the government what a concept, maybe we can trash welfare while we are at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan After a lot of research though I am for a flat tax with no deductions, which would force rich people to pay more :notworthy We can dream. But sadly no democrat or republican would support no deducations. BTW - a national scaled income tax wouldn't disband the IRS, if anything the system would create a loophole nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan Destino if an NST were to be instituted it would have to be complimented with a reduction or elimination of the payroll tax. An NST would also eliminate any "black money" There is a thread in the tailgate where we have discussed the pros and cons of the NST and there is an interesting article from January in the "Atlantic Monthly" where a writer is vouching for an NST. The writers plan was pretty simple, and fair so even a liberal yourself would like it. Here is the crux of the NST plan: Take total earned income-subtract savings and investments= money you "consumed" Now if you consumed more then 10k but less then 25k you would pay something like 10 percent in taxes. If you spent 25k but less then 50k you would pay 15 percent, etc etc. This way essential items like milk and butter would be taxed less then items such as cars and boats. That is the only way an NST could work. After a lot of research though I am for a flat tax with no deductions, which would force rich people to pay more absolutely fascinating. Wouldnt there still be a need for oversight in this plan? I like the sound of it off the top, but would worry about potential abuse. How would the consumption be tracked? Man, this is an interesting topic though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by phanatic Your perception is one of security. Mine is of prosperity. Therin lies the difference my socialist friend. You don't know what I support, wing nut. If you did you wouldn't make an @ss out of yourself by calling me a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino You don't know what I support, wing nut. If you did you wouldn't make an @ss out of yourself by calling me a socialist. how about a todays version of robin hood, someone he likes to wear tight clothing and steal from the rich and give to the poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma And for the poor it might just motivate them to make more money, wow not depend on on the government what a concept, maybe we can trash welfare while we are at it :laugh: You think the poor aren't motivated to make more money. Get off your preppy butt and go talk to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma how about a todays version of robin hood, someone he likes to wear tight clothing and steal from the rich and give to the poor Would that make you the corrupt noble seeking to raise taxes on the have nots? err...that would motivate them though. uh, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino :laugh: You think the poor aren't motivated to make more money. Get off your preppy butt and go talk to them. would you be if the government payed you to stay at home when you didn't have a job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Would that make you the corrupt noble seeking to raise taxes on the have nots? err...that would motivate them though. uh, yeah. Unlike you I never said raise their taxes, and also unlike you I don't like wearing tights outside :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma would you be if the government payed you to stay at home when you didn't have a job Where is the home, and how much do they pay. Please add context to your little cry for me for I have too much whine fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phanatic Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino You don't know what I support, wing nut. If you did you wouldn't make an @ss out of yourself by calling me a socialist. I guess I'm in good company then? Considering you're the king of the asses, I'll take that as a compliment. Your post count doesn't afford you the opportunity to continually attack those that oppose your beliefs. of course, you probably didn't realize you were doing that. Right? Smart guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Hey folks! This topic is good enough and controversial enough to give us all an awesome chance to debate the merits and/or ill effects of a plan such as this. Lets not ruin it with die hard political trash talk. I'd really like to learn more and feel I could be greatly benefited with the knowledge of others from this board. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 In other words kids, how's about a little less name calling and "witty" comebacks, ( ) and some honest debate about the advantages and disadvantages of a national sales tax. And possibly other ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 I knew we discussed this topic before. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56484&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Atlantic%20Monthly&pagenumber=2 In this thread is the link to the Atlantic Monthly Article I cited. Take a look and educate yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Stay on topic champ. How will a plan that shifts the burden on those that have the least solve the social security crisis? You want to talk our idea's start a "your tax idea thread" and I'll be happy to explain to you how I support privatizing SS. Have you even read the plan? -- It will give "credits" for food / clothing / daily needs. You will get an amount credited towards the taxes of purchasing those goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. A GREAT idea The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell DRUDGE. A Horrible idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Originally posted by luckydevil A GREAT idea MAYBE!! A Horrible idea YES!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Maybe someone should start a poll on this, so we can see where everyone stands.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 2, 2004 Share Posted August 2, 2004 Funny, but the GOP becomes more libertarian every day. There is nothing remotely libertarian about this proposal (the replacing it with a sales tax part) And I have to agree with Jb as well. It's not even conservative (though Jb arrives at that conclusion for all the wrong reasons) Just read the Hastert quote If you can do that, you can change gross national product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations." Essentially what Mr. Hastert and the RNC want to do is make the tax system more efficient. Why? To keep social welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security alive and strong............not exactly a conservative goal, let alone libertarian( in theory anyway). With that said The talk of getting rid of the IRS is wonderful and exciting( even if for the wrong reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.