Taxpayer Last Act

[Bible_Belt]

Note that the bill is bipartisan. The democratic leadership is just as for sale as republicans have always been, and not all that different altogether. There are three parties in Congress right now. The new, younger, progressive democrats despise their own party just as much as they do the republicans, and for good reason.

A bipartisan group in Congress wants to make it harder for you to do taxes

Congress is set to pass one of the most blatant pieces of corporate welfare in years.

www.vox.com

A bipartisan group in Congress wants to make it harder for you to do taxes
Congress is set to pass one of the most blatant pieces of corporate welfare in years.

 

[speed dawg]

Note that the bill is bipartisan. The democratic leadership is just as for sale as republicans have always been, and not all that different altogether. There are three parties in Congress right now. The new, younger, progressive democrats despise their own party just as much as they do the republicans, and for good reason.

A bipartisan group in Congress wants to make it harder for you to do taxes

Congress is set to pass one of the most blatant pieces of corporate welfare in years.

www.vox.com

A bipartisan group in Congress wants to make it harder for you to do taxes
Congress is set to pass one of the most blatant pieces of corporate welfare in years.

I don't see the problem here. If the IRS creates this software, then the government is going to get bigger, because people will be hired to manage this software. This is simple private vs. public sector. We will be taxed higher to pay for it.

 

[speed dawg]

It makes ZERO sense to have an income tax. It basically forces us to create less wealth.

We should operate only on a sales tax. Then those who consume the most, pay the most. What could be more fair?

The best government programs are run this way. Department of Transportation is the best example. Federal Highway Administration (and State Departments), Federal Aviation Administration, etc., all based on fuel taxes. Of course, that's getting tougher to do for the highway side because of electric cars, but eventually they will be taxed too.

 

[Bible_Belt]

We should operate only on a sales tax. Then those who consume the most, pay the most. What could be more fair?

Flat taxes are the definition of regressive. The hole in your logic is that billionaires don't consume products like gasoline at a level representative of their enormous wealth. The idea that flat taxes ate fair is a ridiculous lie, told by the rich, as an effort to continue to screw the poor.

 

[Bible_Belt]

I don't see the problem here. If the IRS creates this software, then the government is going to get bigger, because people will be hired to manage this software. This is simple private vs. public sector. We will be taxed higher to pay for it.

Omg, this sounds like Fox News logic. Get tha guvment outta my life!

I guess you are saying Ronald Reagan was a socialist? By today's standards, he probably would be.

The law is blatant corporate welfare. It amazes me how people can be sold ideas like this. All hail corporate profits!

 

[speed dawg]

Flat taxes are the definition of regressive. The hole in your logic is that billionaires don't consume products like gasoline at a level representative of their enormous wealth. The idea that flat taxes ate fair is a ridiculous lie, told by the rich, as an effort to continue to screw the poor.

Number 1, regressive and progressive are just terms made up for one to sound negative and one to sound positive. An idea is either good or bad.

Number 2, is the difference in what the tax funds. Gasoline taxes go to roads, so those programs would stay the exact same. Income tax, that pays for stupid social stuff, would go away or have to be funded by other things, which it would be. So no, everyone would still pay the same, depending on what you consume. Could be housing, jets, boats, whatever. Would generate enormous amounts of jobs.

But there again, I do tend to agree with you that a 100% flat tax would have some unintended consequences. There needs to be SOME redistribution by government oversight, but not as much as you say.

Omg, this sounds like Fox News logic. Get tha guvment outta my life!

Typical Bible_Belt shame phrase, check.

I guess you are saying Ronald Reagan was a socialist? By today's standards, he probably would be.

Typical false evidence to support shame phrase, check.

The law is blatant corporate welfare. It amazes me how people can be sold ideas like this. All hail corporate profits!

Finally, you come back to your opinion, al

Anyways, onto the issue. You either pay higher taxes or you pay a private firm. Or #3, you do your taxes yourself without the help of government software. Who cares?

The net benefit of any of this is negligible. In that vein though, I tend to agree, why pass the law to begin with, but it doesn't matter if they do.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Billionaires consume way more than the average person. Especially fuel. How much do they consume flying around in private jets and helicoptors?

Therefore, how is a consumption tax unfair?

The typical American has less than $2,000 in the bank, which goes into a billion 5,000 times. So for every gallon of gas a working person buys, a billionaire must buy 5,000 gallons for the tax to be anything other than regressive. It doesn't happen that way. Gas taxes, like all flat taxes, exist to stick it to poor people, not rich. That is why Republicans love them. That is their idea of "fair."

 

[speed dawg]

The typical American has less than $2,000 in the bank, which goes into a billion 5,000 times. So for every gallon of gas a working person buys, a billionaire must buy 5,000 gallons for the tax to be anything other than regressive. It doesn't happen that way. Gas taxes, like all flat taxes, exist to stick it to poor people, not rich. That is why Republicans love them. That is their idea of "fair."

You do not listen to anyone else's viewpoints. I mean, at all. You may have read it, but you did not LISTEN i.e. give the points any real consideration.

One of the first marks of a highly effective person is the ability to listen to others. Everything you said here has been addressed, and you simply go back to the old point, rather than address the refute.

 

[speed dawg]

Your analysis is flawed because it goes by asset, not the current income methodology.

The flawed analysis notwithstanding....

• What is the difference in cost for a jet or a car?
• How much taxes would be paid there?
• What about the maintenance cost difference?
• Which purchase creates more jobs?
• Pilots?
• Air traffic controllers?

The delta adds up and the billionaire pays far more taxes under the consumption tax approach.

Moreover, when you tax income you create less wealth because wealth creation becomes punished.

Shouldn't we be creating more wealth for everyone?

Not to mention people will more freely spend their money when they feel confident in the market. Look no further than the current economy and how good people 'feel' under Trump's administration. Even the Trump haters are more confident in the economy right now, though they'll never give him credit for it.

The people creating jobs are more likely to take risks when they feel like the system is in a good place.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Typical corporate apologists. The brainwashing is too strong.

 

[Mike32ct]

The typical American has less than $2,000 in the bank, which goes into a billion 5,000 times. So for every gallon of gas a working person buys, a billionaire must buy 5,000 gallons for the tax to be anything other than regressive. It doesn't happen that way. Gas taxes, like all flat taxes, exist to stick it to poor people, not rich. That is why Republicans love them. That is their idea of "fair."

Imagine if there was no income tax, but only a consumption tax. It would actually reward and encourage savers. You could earn as much as you like, but if you choose to save as much of it as possible (i.e. live frugally), you would pay little in taxes.

Right now, there are only tax "benefits" for stashing money in your 401k, which is Wall Street's way of pushing people into the stock market casino. If you just want to put money in your savings account, you get F-ed because the pathetic interest that banks pay doesn't cover inflation*. And the interest is taxable as income.

*Another back door method of pushing people into stocks.

 

[Mike32ct]

And just to be clear, I'm not anti-stocks at all. People can and should be able to invest any way that they want. But I do feel like our system punishes very conservative savers. That's my point.

 

[Xenom0rph]

I despise the word "progressive".There's nothing progressive about building a platform on open borders and gender identity politics...fvkc the democrats. I'm voting straight up red MAGA in 2020.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Unfortunately corporations get away with not having to pay taxes while people like you and me are threatened with imprisonment for the same. So I'm not so gung-ho about the IRS and its motives. In other words, not brainwashed.

So your anger goes at the ones who enforce the tax laws rather than the corporate lobbyists that write them?

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm not angry. Just telling the truth. The IRS is just the extortion unit of the federal mafia. And it is indifferent to whether individuals can pay or not. All a corporation needs to do is raise its prices to pay for its tax bill. As for the enforcers, they're just doing their job like anybody else. They don't have your interests in mind.

“Federal mafia?” That’s some extreme paranoia my friend.

 

[AttackFormation]

It takes me literally 2 minutes to do my taxes every year. I get an electronic form which has already been completed by the tax authority, I sign it, I click send, and that's it. Then you come into this thread and see Americans not wanting this because "it'll make the gubment bigger!". What the fvck is wrong with you man? Private corporations want the government to use the least efficient solutions and lobby all day for it precisely so you'll agree to privatize everything instead and you see that in action with the tax preparing firms in this case, lobbying to prevent the government from being effective.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Other than the inheritance tax, which the Repubs really hate, the income tax is the only way to make rich people pay more in taxes. That is what is behind these right wing talking points like "abolish the IRS." The top .1% is not cool with paying their fair share, so they enlist the top 20% or so to think they are being persecuted. Fox News and their continuous character assasination of AOC is a good example. She threatened to make Rupert Murdoch pay taxes, so he has unleashed his right wing fake news hate machine on her, trying to convince everyone that she will tax them as much as the .1% Anyone who watches Fox News is not that bright....or president....or both....so these people are easy to fool.

 

[EyeBRollin]

"Paranoia"? That's some extreme medical diagnosing my friend.

Calling it the mafia is an insult to the mafia. At least they're organized.

Other than that, not much difference. They shake you down, and if you don't comply, they will punish you. Resist, and they will kill you. Governments will also reserve the right to stuff you into fatigues and send you overseas to get blown up. Usually the mafia enlists its soldiers.

Are you suggesting the IRS will kill you over owning taxes?

 

[Spaz]

The typical American has less than $2,000 in the bank, which goes into a billion 5,000 times. So for every gallon of gas a working person buys, a billionaire must buy 5,000 gallons for the tax to be anything other than regressive. It doesn't happen that way. Gas taxes, like all flat taxes, exist to stick it to poor people, not rich. That is why Republicans love them. That is their idea of "fair."

The govt should abolish gas tax for private cars and add it on towards corporate users of heavy vehicles to negate loss of revenue.

 

[Von]

Sale taxes favors the rich and the wealthy.

Sales taxes are flat.. Let say 15% but applies to all economic/wealth/income status

If your income is 30 000$ and you buy gaz.. You pay 15%.

If your income is 500 000$ and you buy gaz.. You pay 15%.

Now you had each pay 80$ In gaz (taxes of 15% in sales added).

The cost is higher for a 30 000$ income than for the 100 000$... yet they bought the same think with the same taxes.

People assume because you make $$$, you'll spend more ... funny.. The rich usely buy the least expensive stuff

It's basic math.

A sale taxe is based on transaction.

If you increase sale taxes or instaure one.. It technically reduce consomptions.

However, people need to have 1) a Home 2) buy food 3) get dress.... Now you made these 3 costs more by 15% for the 90% of people who make under 100 000$. The rich won't be impacted on these 3 factors.

People who pay mortgages will have to add the sales taxes on their payments. Rent will increase by 15% due to added taxes on the renters payment.

An income taxe make more sense since it's based on your revenues, not on your consumption habits. If you want more "equality"

A sales taxes would prevent the poor from consumption while favouring the riches freedom.

Gouvernement are supposed to help redistribute wealth and allow service to all segments of population, no matter their origin, status, or wealth.

Income taxes is suppose to give you that.
Sales taxes is suppose to have the rich pay for the poor.

Is it reality ? "No taxation without representation" .. If the rich end up paying 95% of government taxes.. Then they will seek to control It all and have all services

Once again , the 1% is favoured.

About the IRS, the IRS budget was cute massively during Bush-Obama terms. IRS in bloomberg magazine said their budget was so low, they couldn't afford tax collectors anymore, especially to go collect tax in the libertarian parts of Arizona