Thread: The Blue-State Tax Burden

Originally Posted by Confed999

It's an automatic refund by not collecting it. It's a payout without the government middleman taking 50% for himself. And compared to your ideas of "progressive", it isn't close.

OK, we will play it your way. 30% taxation across the board. The poor get a 100% "automatic refund", as you call it, and the middle class get a 50% automatic refund. All I have done is add one tier to your two-tier system.

I can't name any President in quite some time, if ever, that wasn't for creating greater government control of our political, religious and economic freedom.

So, in your mind, all presidents in the last 100 years have been socialists, not just Teddy Roosevelt. Fair enough.

I only believe in equal taxes, I will not descriminate against people for anything less than a want to harm others.

If equal taxes are the only fair taxes to you, how no taxes at all except a 100% estate tax for rich, middle class and poor? That is a fair tax and it solves my problem of a permanent wealthy class.

As to the "concentration", it seems it would only be a true problem if all their money was cash and burried in their yard.

I think if you look at Central and South America, you will see that their problems extend beyond burying cash in their back yards. A high percentage of active capitalists are "first generation" wealthy.

John D Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Warren Buffet, etc, etc. The second generation doesn't do very well. People work a lot harder getting rich than they do once they get there. A simple solution is to have no second generation rich.

You claim to be a Libertarian, do you know anything about the "fair tax" plan at all?

Not all libertarians like the "fair tax" plan:

Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Senate Blasts Fair Tax (Again)

ATLANTA, Oct. 13 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued today by the Buckley For Senate campaign.

Allen Buckley, the Libertarian Party's candidate for U.S. Senate in Georgia, has blasted the so-called Fair Tax bill (H.R. 25), calling it a "sham." The bill, co-sponsored by his Republican opponent, Johnny Isakson, would cause the deficit to explode, shut down the new housing market (and industries flowing thereto) and doubly tax retired persons.

link

Originally Posted by Broken

OK, we will play it your way. 30% taxation across the board. The poor get a 100% "automatic refund", as you call it, and the middle class get a 50% automatic refund. All I have done is add one tier to your two-tier system.

The tier you added has no reason to have reduced taxes. And that's still not "my way".

Originally Posted by Broken

no taxes at all except a 100% estate tax for rich, middle class and poor? That is a fair tax and it solves my problem of a permanent wealthy class.

Nope, it harms the family supported by the deceased, for no reason. Total government seizure of assets and property seems pretty scarry to me.

Originally Posted by Broken

People work a lot harder getting rich than they do once they get there. A simple solution is to have no second generation rich.

They can be lazy if they want to be. If the money is in the economy, I don't care what the money's owners are doing.

Originally Posted by Broken

Not all libertarians like the "fair tax" plan

Not liking it, and understanding what I was talking about are two different things. It didn't seem you understood from your repilies.

Regardless, there is no point in discussing this further with me. I've said my piece, if you don't like it, whatever...

People work a lot harder getting rich than they do once they get there. A simple solution is to have no second generation rich.

I don't know if this statement is true, but you are ignoring the fact that the rich have most of the capital.

Originally Posted by Praxus

I don't know if this statement is true, but you are ignoring the fact that the rich have most of the capital.

I am not ignoring it, I am counting on it.

"Originally Posted by Broken1
Where do you draw the line when you define "poor"?"

Like somebody earlier said it is relative. The poor in the USA often times live better then the middle class in some countries. Poor has not true concrete definition.