Posted on 09/28/2015 8:18:50 AM PDT by Helicondelta
.
>> “BTW, just heard Rush confuse the AMT with the EITC” <<
Yes, I heard that as I was driving.
Very sloppy. The AMT is the worst abomination in taxation to ever come along, while the EITC is the most unjust gift of those ill-gotten funds to those that literally choose not to try.
.
It’s much easier to influence someone’s behavior by taxing their purchases than it is by taxing their income. It’s much easier for a person to choose to spend less than it is for them to choose to earn less. Taxation disincentivizes behavior, but we would far likelier to disincentivize spending than we would be to disincentivize earning income. Taxation should have as little influence on people’s behavior as possible, so an income tax is preferable to a sales tax.
Tithes come from the bible and were obviously based on income. It’s hard to imagine a biblical sales tax. Tithes make sense because they’re more or less directly based on your ability to pay taxes (other than allowances for how many children you might have to support). How much stuff you buy is a much weaker indicator of your ability to pay taxes.
.
And the injustice of taxation is compounded in taxing expenditures, which stimulate the economy, while not spending retards the economy.
The so-called Fair Tax is an exercise in absurdity.
Sloppy indeed, he's lost a step. And i like your descriptions of the two provisions....
and how about the Orwellian name “Earned Income Tax Credit?” It has nothing to do with earning, income, pay taxes or getting credit.....should just be called a government hand out, which is what it is.
Eternal serfdom through taxing everything above average at 100%
Trump should have been born in Europe.
I hate this kind of tax structure. It’s designed to manipulate human behavior. It pits one economic group against another and is used to suggest how people from certain groups “should” vote. Plus, it won’t be long until it morphs back into a punishing tax system where the have-nots will always vote for those who promise to take money from the haves and redistribute it. (Just in case anyone is interested, I’m one of the have-nots. I could probably benefit from some of the give-me-this-n-that programs that the progressives tout, but I never support things that are wrong just because it would make life easier for me.)
Any tax system that abolishes the IRS is okay with me, although I actually prefer a sales (fair) tax simply because with a flat tax you still have to report your income to the government.
Hannity is over the moon about Trump’s tax plan. What’s up with that?!???
A Kardashian for every persuasion! ;)
.
Hannity has always been Rupert’s mouthpiece.
.
Forrest Hannity.
“Karl Rove is a Great American!”
If 320 lbs is great.
No, if you believe what you’re saying, you need to look around. The stats simply do NOT support your assertion. It does not take 2 people to make the same household income today that it did 40 years ago.
From 1970 to 2004, the median income per person, inflation-adjusted, went up from $28,100 to $30,513. So if you have both people in your household earning the median income, you would have $61,026 in 2004 as compared to having only $28,100 with one person working in 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time.2C_by_race_and_sex
And it appears from some other sites our inflation-adjusted per capita income may have gone up another 10% since 2004.
Well Rove is great, Allen Colms is great ... they are all great Americans!
Just Great!
That word...I do not think it means what he think it means.
The "ripple effect" usually extends beyond the job areas of the H-1B's: Of the "small %", then those people go out and (in every case I know of) displace someone else for a lower wage than the original H-1B displaced worker received, then the newly displaced worker displaces the next guy, until you get to the point where either somebody just gives up, or bottoms out at minimum wage and further displacements don't further affect wages. In a decent economy / job market this effect would be far less, and probably even negligible, but this economy is FAR from being a decent job market for most. It's not too dissimilar from how a modest size plant closure can be absorbed by an area in a good economy, but can devastate the same area in a bad economy.
I SEE this often - if the analysis doesn't catch it, maybe the analysis needs improvement.
I think we are mostly in agreement on the tuition issue. :-)
As for cars... HOW can that graph you reference possibly be right? It shows (essentially) 23 weeks of median household income needed to buy an average car. Now let's run a simple calculation: Assume, conservatively for the moment, that the graph has flattened out, the last few years, and is not down to 20-21 weeks needed to buy an average new car. We'll stick with "23".
Then we go look up household median income in = $53,657 for 2014 (Source = Census Bureau). Not being TOO far off that, in my family's case, and taking a quick look at the 2014 Federal Income tax table, I'll very roughly guess that after SS, various taxes, and other forced payments (ObummerCare), etc., our "median" family is left with: (a likely optimistic) $45,000 in 2014. Multiply by 23/54 = $19,166.00. But, Kelley Blue Book reports $34,367.00 for an average new car cost in Dec., 2014. (Source = KBB). Let's say KBB is off a bit (various factors can effect actual sale prices) and it's $32,000.00. Still kinda coming up short, there, aren't we?
Running the calculation a little differently indicates that the household income needed to actually buy a $32,000 car with 23 weeks of income is ~ $85,000 per year, or a bit North of $72k / yr., if one ignores income taxes and such.
BTW, I'm not even sure KBB includes sales tax on new cars, to get to $34k+, but I assumed it does.
"Does it make sense"? Well, my family is doing a little better than the median, we are debt free, have no silly expenses, no kids in college, and... no way can we responsibly afford an average new car. I pulled it off on essentially a minimum wage, back in 1984 -- ok, granted I was single and it was a CRX. :-)
The “stats” are being distorted by success at the top. Families actually near median income are being squeezed out, mostly into poverty or near poverty.
Check out graph 1 under “3 reasons to be optimistic”:
That is a picture of the eventual destruction of this country, if not corrected.
Also check graph 1 under “As a Result, the U.S. Car Market Is Getting Older and Richer” (almost matches my quickie calc! Ie., to be “wise” to buy an average new car in 2015, you’d better be bringing in better than 90k a year.)
“Forrest Hannity.”
LOL accurate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.