Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
gandalf
Participant– Progressive = redistribute money from rich to poor
– Neutral = taxing each according to their means
– Regressive = redistribute money from poor to richRegressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.
It is NOT FAIR to take money from middle class households (the poor relatively no taxes) and give to wealthy and corporate classes. That is redistribution out of the pockets of the middle class to people and companies — WHO DON’T NEED IT. If you support the current tax code, you’re either a SHIRKER, or you’re among the deceived.
SDR, for the record, I don’t think you’re either a tax cheat or a right-wing idiot. I think you’re a moderately conservative but totally balanced and completely reasonable guy.
I suspect what you intended to say is that you support a ‘neutral’ tax policy — to each according to their means. That’s what I support too. So I think we’re probably in complete agreement here on the substance.
I have no idea how it gets implemented though. It’s tricky, and details matter. I think both wage income and gains from wealth should be treated as ‘Income’. That would be a good place to start. The VAT approach works around income tricks by taxing production.
Whatever the approach, the current regressive tax code is unfair and needs to be reformed. So I’m pleased the Obama administration is looking into this. Tax outlays as a percentage of GDP are too high on the middle class and too low for the wealthy and corporate classes.
I fully expect an ignorant and disingenuous outcry from anti-tax TEA-party idiots on the right (which includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude).
Participant– Progressive = redistribute money from rich to poor
– Neutral = taxing each according to their means
– Regressive = redistribute money from poor to richRegressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.
It is NOT FAIR to take money from middle class households (the poor relatively no taxes) and give to wealthy and corporate classes. That is redistribution out of the pockets of the middle class to people and companies — WHO DON’T NEED IT. If you support the current tax code, you’re either a SHIRKER, or you’re among the deceived.
SDR, for the record, I don’t think you’re either a tax cheat or a right-wing idiot. I think you’re a moderately conservative but totally balanced and completely reasonable guy.
I suspect what you intended to say is that you support a ‘neutral’ tax policy — to each according to their means. That’s what I support too. So I think we’re probably in complete agreement here on the substance.
I have no idea how it gets implemented though. It’s tricky, and details matter. I think both wage income and gains from wealth should be treated as ‘Income’. That would be a good place to start. The VAT approach works around income tricks by taxing production.
Whatever the approach, the current regressive tax code is unfair and needs to be reformed. So I’m pleased the Obama administration is looking into this. Tax outlays as a percentage of GDP are too high on the middle class and too low for the wealthy and corporate classes.
I fully expect an ignorant and disingenuous outcry from anti-tax TEA-party idiots on the right (which includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude).
Participant– Progressive = redistribute money from rich to poor
– Neutral = taxing each according to their means
– Regressive = redistribute money from poor to richRegressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.
It is NOT FAIR to take money from middle class households (the poor relatively no taxes) and give to wealthy and corporate classes. That is redistribution out of the pockets of the middle class to people and companies — WHO DON’T NEED IT. If you support the current tax code, you’re either a SHIRKER, or you’re among the deceived.
SDR, for the record, I don’t think you’re either a tax cheat or a right-wing idiot. I think you’re a moderately conservative but totally balanced and completely reasonable guy.
I suspect what you intended to say is that you support a ‘neutral’ tax policy — to each according to their means. That’s what I support too. So I think we’re probably in complete agreement here on the substance.
I have no idea how it gets implemented though. It’s tricky, and details matter. I think both wage income and gains from wealth should be treated as ‘Income’. That would be a good place to start. The VAT approach works around income tricks by taxing production.
Whatever the approach, the current regressive tax code is unfair and needs to be reformed. So I’m pleased the Obama administration is looking into this. Tax outlays as a percentage of GDP are too high on the middle class and too low for the wealthy and corporate classes.
I fully expect an ignorant and disingenuous outcry from anti-tax TEA-party idiots on the right (which includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude).
Participant– Progressive = redistribute money from rich to poor
– Neutral = taxing each according to their means
– Regressive = redistribute money from poor to richRegressive is what we have now, in large part because of all of the loopholes and avoidance. Tax policy is one of the reasons for the astronomical changes in wealth and income distribution in the past 30 years. The current regressive policy is not fair.
It is NOT FAIR to take money from middle class households (the poor relatively no taxes) and give to wealthy and corporate classes. That is redistribution out of the pockets of the middle class to people and companies — WHO DON’T NEED IT. If you support the current tax code, you’re either a SHIRKER, or you’re among the deceived.
SDR, for the record, I don’t think you’re either a tax cheat or a right-wing idiot. I think you’re a moderately conservative but totally balanced and completely reasonable guy.
I suspect what you intended to say is that you support a ‘neutral’ tax policy — to each according to their means. That’s what I support too. So I think we’re probably in complete agreement here on the substance.
I have no idea how it gets implemented though. It’s tricky, and details matter. I think both wage income and gains from wealth should be treated as ‘Income’. That would be a good place to start. The VAT approach works around income tricks by taxing production.
Whatever the approach, the current regressive tax code is unfair and needs to be reformed. So I’m pleased the Obama administration is looking into this. Tax outlays as a percentage of GDP are too high on the middle class and too low for the wealthy and corporate classes.
I fully expect an ignorant and disingenuous outcry from anti-tax TEA-party idiots on the right (which includes lots of average means white people who mainly can’t get over the fact the President of the U.S. is a black dude).
ParticipantAre you suggesting ‘regressive’ is fair?
Because that’s what we have in place right now. And it’s definitely not fair.
A flat tax with no avoidance. Great in theory. How is it implemented? How is income defined? What about gains from capital? Anything to reduce the absurd degree of tax avoidance and shirking in the current system.
ParticipantAre you suggesting ‘regressive’ is fair?
Because that’s what we have in place right now. And it’s definitely not fair.
A flat tax with no avoidance. Great in theory. How is it implemented? How is income defined? What about gains from capital? Anything to reduce the absurd degree of tax avoidance and shirking in the current system.
ParticipantAre you suggesting ‘regressive’ is fair?
Because that’s what we have in place right now. And it’s definitely not fair.
A flat tax with no avoidance. Great in theory. How is it implemented? How is income defined? What about gains from capital? Anything to reduce the absurd degree of tax avoidance and shirking in the current system.
ParticipantAre you suggesting ‘regressive’ is fair?
Because that’s what we have in place right now. And it’s definitely not fair.
A flat tax with no avoidance. Great in theory. How is it implemented? How is income defined? What about gains from capital? Anything to reduce the absurd degree of tax avoidance and shirking in the current system.
ParticipantAre you suggesting ‘regressive’ is fair?
Because that’s what we have in place right now. And it’s definitely not fair.
A flat tax with no avoidance. Great in theory. How is it implemented? How is income defined? What about gains from capital? Anything to reduce the absurd degree of tax avoidance and shirking in the current system.
ParticipantJust the opposite.
The tax code is badly in need of reform. The current tax structure is inefficient and regressive, riddled with loopholes and avoidance for wealthy individuals and sophisticated corporations.
Why would anybody oppose tax reform? Unless you’re one of the shirkers.
VAT may or may not be the way to go, but the current tax code is bullshit.
ParticipantJust the opposite.
The tax code is badly in need of reform. The current tax structure is inefficient and regressive, riddled with loopholes and avoidance for wealthy individuals and sophisticated corporations.
Why would anybody oppose tax reform? Unless you’re one of the shirkers.
VAT may or may not be the way to go, but the current tax code is bullshit.
ParticipantJust the opposite.
The tax code is badly in need of reform. The current tax structure is inefficient and regressive, riddled with loopholes and avoidance for wealthy individuals and sophisticated corporations.
Why would anybody oppose tax reform? Unless you’re one of the shirkers.
VAT may or may not be the way to go, but the current tax code is bullshit.
ParticipantJust the opposite.
The tax code is badly in need of reform. The current tax structure is inefficient and regressive, riddled with loopholes and avoidance for wealthy individuals and sophisticated corporations.
Why would anybody oppose tax reform? Unless you’re one of the shirkers.
VAT may or may not be the way to go, but the current tax code is bullshit.
ParticipantJust the opposite.
The tax code is badly in need of reform. The current tax structure is inefficient and regressive, riddled with loopholes and avoidance for wealthy individuals and sophisticated corporations.
Why would anybody oppose tax reform? Unless you’re one of the shirkers.
VAT may or may not be the way to go, but the current tax code is bullshit.
-
AuthorPosts
