Yeah, and I think that the McRib was a bad idea as well. But the flat tax would be a huge give-away to the upper classes who have benefited mightily from the current tax policies.
^Amazing, chemistry, physics, oceanography, zoology, botany, all those silly “scientists” who just don’t understand what makes the world go around, McRibs and Jesus.
No need to bother. Found his WSJ editorial.Laffer seems to be longer on belief in the goodness of the plan than actual numbers. (It’ll work, I just know it will, if we all really believe!)
Mr. Bartlett’s skepticism is explained in better detail, and his view is more in line with what I have read elsewhere. Too little revenue and unfair to the poor. Bartlett does not share Laffer’s enthusiasm that jobs will flow from it. How does it address the demand problem in the economy?
The Tax Policy Center did seem to think that it could approach revenue neutrality.
Why can’t the tax code be simplified without sacrificing progressivity? Flat tax plans clearly shift the tax burden to those least able to pay.
Some of Laffer’s associates think that his plan ushered us into this trickle down mess.
Stop calling me a “libtard,” and I’ll tell you. Bottom line: it ISN’T everyone paying their fair share. Does it include inheritance? Unearned income from stocks? Money stashed in the Caribbean? “Capital gains” that aren’t in fact capital but moving money around? EVERY flat tax proposed — including Perry’s and Cain’s — works out to a massive tax break for the rich, and no improvement or even an increase on the middle class and down.
My income was taxed when I earned it, and now I have to pay taxes when I buy stuff? Gray hare, money is taxed when it changes hands. Perfectly fair. The bigger question is why is it that conservatives consider it fair to tax money that you earn by working with your hands creating things, but NOT money that you earn because your rich daddy gave it to you, or because you earned money simply by owning money and you let an investment advisor lend it out? How is it American to let rich people pay no taxes if they choose not to take a wage?
Here are some actual facts, care of the Tax Policy Centerhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3221&DocTypeID=1Most people would pay more taxes— 84% of the population, according to this analysis. Not quite 99%, but impressively regressive nonetheless.
Bruce, we’re in agreement on the “stop fighting”, but that will be difficult when the “haves” keep telling the “have nots” to stop eating. It isn’t just the food production from our arable lands, but also the destruction of grazing lands, and well, those silly oceans that are losing their productive dynamic. We aren’t totally screwed yet, but we’re also past the time to start using “safe sex”.
And that “flat tax” is NOT “safe sex” for those on the lower end of the economic scale.
Does that arable land calculation also deduct acreage needed for commercial & residential buildings, roads, storage of food, fuel, water and other commodities, etc?
Stem cells have grown tasty steaks, with perfect muscle to fat ratios and fabulous consistency. Oh wait, connies are opposed to stem cells. Something about a Sky God.
I think universal birth control would be cheaper and less labor-intensive that universal increases in food production/distribution…but even more difficult to implement.The main drawback to providing enough food everywhere is that it will just encourage even faster population growth in the areas least able to support it. It won’t solve any problems…it’ll just push them into the future, where they’ll be even more difficult to deal with.If I were Emperor, I’d apply China’s one-child policy to the rest of the world until we got down to 3 billion or so. I see no advantages at all to having over 7 billion people on the planet, and many disadvantages.
Bruce, I LIKE the rich, have known many, just haven’t “joined ’em” in their economic circle. It is those within that circle that have the impression that wealth alone makes them “privileged”, and who remain unwilling to “share ANY of the wealth” who bother me. Gates, for example, is not in that circle, nor was Bill Boeing, or even a guy who started as a scumbag of sorts, Carnegie. Actually PAYING a max 35% on earnings over say, $2,000,000 annually, wouldn’t be that big a deal. (except to them). Capital gains should be at the same rate, on anything over $250,000, as it is NOT “earned” income.
Another tax the “little guys” pay for the “wealthy” IS the environmental cost of their toys, whether it is McMansions (and the resources needed to build them) or F-35’s and the WARS needed to “require” them.
Hiring of new employees has never been driven by how rich the rich are. If that were the case , we would now have full employment, since the 1% are raking in more than ever. It is driven by the demand for products, which we don’t have due to those give-aways to the rich.
I would gladly pay the difference that the fair tax would cost to be free from the paperwork, record keeping and general harassment that comes from having the IRS!
That’s right moron. I’m against both those things. I’m also pro legalization, pro stem cell, anti wal mart, an atheist and host of other true libertarian stances.
LumFan over 12 years ago
Yeah, and I think that the McRib was a bad idea as well. But the flat tax would be a huge give-away to the upper classes who have benefited mightily from the current tax policies.
pirate227 over 12 years ago
The McRib is MUCH better.
Noveltman over 12 years ago
No, they’re both nasty.
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
Explains why FoxNews was so excited about the McRib on the very day that a global warming “skeptic” announced that AGW is in fact real.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
^Amazing, chemistry, physics, oceanography, zoology, botany, all those silly “scientists” who just don’t understand what makes the world go around, McRibs and Jesus.
riley05 over 12 years ago
Comix, Dr. Muller was paid by the Koch brothers, and you can bet they didn’t pay him to change his mind and announce the global warming is real.
aguirra3 over 12 years ago
The system we have now isn’t working either…
charliekane over 12 years ago
Show me a link to Laffer’s take, and I’ll give it a look.
charliekane over 12 years ago
No need to bother. Found his WSJ editorial.Laffer seems to be longer on belief in the goodness of the plan than actual numbers. (It’ll work, I just know it will, if we all really believe!)
Mr. Bartlett’s skepticism is explained in better detail, and his view is more in line with what I have read elsewhere. Too little revenue and unfair to the poor. Bartlett does not share Laffer’s enthusiasm that jobs will flow from it. How does it address the demand problem in the economy?
The Tax Policy Center did seem to think that it could approach revenue neutrality.
Why can’t the tax code be simplified without sacrificing progressivity? Flat tax plans clearly shift the tax burden to those least able to pay.
Some of Laffer’s associates think that his plan ushered us into this trickle down mess.
OK. Your turn.
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
Stop calling me a “libtard,” and I’ll tell you. Bottom line: it ISN’T everyone paying their fair share. Does it include inheritance? Unearned income from stocks? Money stashed in the Caribbean? “Capital gains” that aren’t in fact capital but moving money around? EVERY flat tax proposed — including Perry’s and Cain’s — works out to a massive tax break for the rich, and no improvement or even an increase on the middle class and down.
ARodney over 12 years ago
My income was taxed when I earned it, and now I have to pay taxes when I buy stuff? Gray hare, money is taxed when it changes hands. Perfectly fair. The bigger question is why is it that conservatives consider it fair to tax money that you earn by working with your hands creating things, but NOT money that you earn because your rich daddy gave it to you, or because you earned money simply by owning money and you let an investment advisor lend it out? How is it American to let rich people pay no taxes if they choose not to take a wage?
ARodney over 12 years ago
Oh, and if Cain’s plan lowers your taxes, you’re not in the middle class. You’re wealthy.
Motivemagus over 12 years ago
Here are some actual facts, care of the Tax Policy Centerhttp://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3221&DocTypeID=1Most people would pay more taxes— 84% of the population, according to this analysis. Not quite 99%, but impressively regressive nonetheless.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Bruce, we’re in agreement on the “stop fighting”, but that will be difficult when the “haves” keep telling the “have nots” to stop eating. It isn’t just the food production from our arable lands, but also the destruction of grazing lands, and well, those silly oceans that are losing their productive dynamic. We aren’t totally screwed yet, but we’re also past the time to start using “safe sex”.
And that “flat tax” is NOT “safe sex” for those on the lower end of the economic scale.
riley05 over 12 years ago
Does that arable land calculation also deduct acreage needed for commercial & residential buildings, roads, storage of food, fuel, water and other commodities, etc?
Noveltman over 12 years ago
Stem cells have grown tasty steaks, with perfect muscle to fat ratios and fabulous consistency. Oh wait, connies are opposed to stem cells. Something about a Sky God.
riley05 over 12 years ago
Steaks like that would be a benefit to the common man. Therefore, like anything that benefits the common man, the Republicans will be against it.
riley05 over 12 years ago
I think universal birth control would be cheaper and less labor-intensive that universal increases in food production/distribution…but even more difficult to implement.The main drawback to providing enough food everywhere is that it will just encourage even faster population growth in the areas least able to support it. It won’t solve any problems…it’ll just push them into the future, where they’ll be even more difficult to deal with.If I were Emperor, I’d apply China’s one-child policy to the rest of the world until we got down to 3 billion or so. I see no advantages at all to having over 7 billion people on the planet, and many disadvantages.
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
Bruce, I LIKE the rich, have known many, just haven’t “joined ’em” in their economic circle. It is those within that circle that have the impression that wealth alone makes them “privileged”, and who remain unwilling to “share ANY of the wealth” who bother me. Gates, for example, is not in that circle, nor was Bill Boeing, or even a guy who started as a scumbag of sorts, Carnegie. Actually PAYING a max 35% on earnings over say, $2,000,000 annually, wouldn’t be that big a deal. (except to them). Capital gains should be at the same rate, on anything over $250,000, as it is NOT “earned” income.
Another tax the “little guys” pay for the “wealthy” IS the environmental cost of their toys, whether it is McMansions (and the resources needed to build them) or F-35’s and the WARS needed to “require” them.
Rymlianin over 12 years ago
Hiring of new employees has never been driven by how rich the rich are. If that were the case , we would now have full employment, since the 1% are raking in more than ever. It is driven by the demand for products, which we don’t have due to those give-aways to the rich.
wcssharpe over 12 years ago
I would gladly pay the difference that the fair tax would cost to be free from the paperwork, record keeping and general harassment that comes from having the IRS!
d_legendary1 over 12 years ago
A libertarian who’s telling me to GO to a totalitarian gubbermint, yet is all about freedom fries, choices and all that stuff. And I’m the moran…
Dtroutma over 12 years ago
^He’s a “lavatorian” not “libertarian”.
grayhares01 over 12 years ago
That’s right moron. I’m against both those things. I’m also pro legalization, pro stem cell, anti wal mart, an atheist and host of other true libertarian stances.
.
Sorry to burst your bubble big guy…
grayhares01 over 12 years ago
They are only problem for people who refuse to take personal responsibility, work for a living and make America better…
riley05 over 12 years ago
No, I don’t think your math problems have anything to do with those people.