Sarah Palin kidnaps, rapes, and murders the Tea Party movement
|
Tagged with : nae true tea partier , palination What are tags? |
fatsean: We're discussing why the FairTax plan would result in an increased burden on the middle class. Here we have the example of the wealthy who save most of their money and don't spend it in the USA. FairTax allows this enormous loophole which will likely result in a huge revenue shortfall if implemented. Given the structure of the FairTax, the middle class will feel the burden.
Why wouldn't someone living in the USA spend their money in the USA?
Why wouldn't someone living in the USA spend their money in the USA?
Here's a press release about the Tea Party Express tour from the "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC.
Meet Howard Kaloogian and Sal Russo. Howard is the chairman of the PAC. You may remember him from such jobs as Assistant Republican Leader: California State Assembly and Lead Gubernatorial Recall Election. Sal is the Russo of Russo, Marsh and Rogers, a Republican PR firm.
Meet Howard Kaloogian and Sal Russo. Howard is the chairman of the PAC. You may remember him from such jobs as Assistant Republican Leader: California State Assembly and Lead Gubernatorial Recall Election. Sal is the Russo of Russo, Marsh and Rogers, a Republican PR firm.
so vote republican: Why wouldn't someone living in the USA spend their money in the USA?
I just gave you a reason with my example: They can buy and equip an entire foreign factory and not have to pay the FairTax rate on it.
I just gave you a reason with my example: They can buy and equip an entire foreign factory and not have to pay the FairTax rate on it.
sloth: Oh?
The Phelps people aren't loud and visible? They don't have loud obnoxious groupies? They aren't Democrats?
No offense, but you're a fucking asshole dumbshit for always bringing up Phelps as some sort of condemnation of Democrats. If Charles Manson suddenly proclaimed his love for all things conservative/Republican, it wouldn't change a single thing about the GOP unless the GOP embraced Manson's endorsement. Until you show that the Democratic Party welcomes the endorsement of the Westboro lunatics, all you're showing is you are a dumbshit.
The Phelps people aren't loud and visible? They don't have loud obnoxious groupies? They aren't Democrats?
No offense, but you're a fucking asshole dumbshit for always bringing up Phelps as some sort of condemnation of Democrats. If Charles Manson suddenly proclaimed his love for all things conservative/Republican, it wouldn't change a single thing about the GOP unless the GOP embraced Manson's endorsement. Until you show that the Democratic Party welcomes the endorsement of the Westboro lunatics, all you're showing is you are a dumbshit.
blandly pompous: No offense, but you're a fucking asshole dumbshit for always bringing up Phelps as some sort of condemnation of Democrats. If Charles Manson suddenly proclaimed his love for all things conservative/Republican, it wouldn't change a single thing about the GOP unless the GOP embraced Manson's endorsement. Until you show that the Democratic Party welcomes the endorsement of the Westboro lunatics, all you're showing is you are a dumbshit.
Yeah, sloth....You're a baby fucker.
no offense.
Yeah, sloth....You're a baby fucker.
no offense.
fatsean: I just gave you a reason with my example: They can buy and equip an entire foreign factory and not have to pay the FairTax rate on it.
Does a business re-investing their money in the US pay income taxes on it?
Does a business re-investing their money in the US pay income taxes on it?
so vote republican: Does a business re-investing their money in the US pay income taxes on it?
That's not what my example was. Under the FairTax system a private citizen can duck taxes on the majority of their wealth by investing it out of the country.
That's not what my example was. Under the FairTax system a private citizen can duck taxes on the majority of their wealth by investing it out of the country.
fatsean: That's not what my example was. Under the FairTax system a private citizen can duck taxes on the majority of their wealth by investing it out of the country.
Wealthy people don't own cash wealth. They own businesses.
Your example has no basis in reality.
Wealthy people don't own cash wealth. They own businesses.
Your example has no basis in reality.
The Tea Party failure is basically proof that the GOP cannot be saved from itself. The Tea Party seemed to start as a revolt by members of the GOP against Bush's bailout, then Faux Noise got in there and started painting it as some sort of non-partisan populist movement against all things not-Republican. Now the Tea Partiers have been spun around in circles so many times they don't even know why they started doing what they are doing.
sabine: Here's a press release about the Tea Party Express tour from the "Our Country Deserves Better" PAC.
I'm not reading that crap, but I will point out: The Tea Party Express is not the entirety of the Tea Party movement. They are a niche group of latecomers who hitched their wagon to the Tea Party meme to launch an anti-ObamaCare PAC.
Again, this is what I keep trying to explain to y'all: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties. There are tarded groups out there. There are non-tarded groups out there. There are tarded groups opposed to some of the other tarded groups.
Go ahead, ask Faethe when she signed onto the Tea Party Express message.
I'm not reading that crap, but I will point out: The Tea Party Express is not the entirety of the Tea Party movement. They are a niche group of latecomers who hitched their wagon to the Tea Party meme to launch an anti-ObamaCare PAC.
Again, this is what I keep trying to explain to y'all: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties. There are tarded groups out there. There are non-tarded groups out there. There are tarded groups opposed to some of the other tarded groups.
Go ahead, ask Faethe when she signed onto the Tea Party Express message.
so vote republican: Wealthy people don't own cash wealth. They own businesses.
Your example has no basis in reality.
Why do they own businesses instead of holding cash? Seems that the cash would afford them more opportunities. I think it might be that the current tax code encourages them to keep the money in the business because holding it personally gets them dinged for income tax.
Your example has no basis in reality.
Why do they own businesses instead of holding cash? Seems that the cash would afford them more opportunities. I think it might be that the current tax code encourages them to keep the money in the business because holding it personally gets them dinged for income tax.
blandly pompous: The Tea Party failure is basically proof that the GOP cannot be saved from itself. The Tea Party seemed to start as a revolt by members of the GOP against Bush's bailout, then Faux Noise got in there and started painting it as some sort of non-partisan populist movement against all things not-Republican. Now the Tea Partiers have been spun around in circles so many times they don't even know why they started doing what they are doing.
The Tea Party has not failed, and it won't.
The Tea Party has not failed, and it won't.
fatsean: That's not what my example was. Under the FairTax system a private citizen can duck taxes on the majority of their wealth by investing it out of the country.
Let's use your example.
I'm a wealthy person with $5M.
I want to invest that. I start a business and fund it with $3M. The business takes in $1M. I want to spend that $1M.
Current system: I pay $200K income tax on the $1M and spend $800K.
FairTax: I don't pay income on the the $1M, and spend $1M, paying $200K in sales tax.
Obviously that's vastly over simplified, but in either case I don't pay tax until I want to spend the money.
Let's use your example.
I'm a wealthy person with $5M.
I want to invest that. I start a business and fund it with $3M. The business takes in $1M. I want to spend that $1M.
Current system: I pay $200K income tax on the $1M and spend $800K.
FairTax: I don't pay income on the the $1M, and spend $1M, paying $200K in sales tax.
Obviously that's vastly over simplified, but in either case I don't pay tax until I want to spend the money.
sloth: I'm not reading that crap, but I will point out: The Tea Party Express is not the entirety of the Tea Party movement. They are a niche group of latecomers who hitched their wagon to the Tea Party meme to launch an anti-ObamaCare PAC.
Again, this is what I keep trying to explain to y'all: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties. There are tarded groups out there. There are non-tarded groups out there. There are tarded groups opposed to some of the other tarded groups.
Go ahead, ask Faethe when she signed onto the Tea Party Express message.
I'm still not sure what's going on, tbh. I just know that does not reflect what's going on around me. I also get the impression that the movement is a lot more effective than I ever thought it would be, and that this has some establishment groups concerned. I also don't know if it will ever become a full blown party or not.
Again, this is what I keep trying to explain to y'all: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties. There are tarded groups out there. There are non-tarded groups out there. There are tarded groups opposed to some of the other tarded groups.
Go ahead, ask Faethe when she signed onto the Tea Party Express message.
I'm still not sure what's going on, tbh. I just know that does not reflect what's going on around me. I also get the impression that the movement is a lot more effective than I ever thought it would be, and that this has some establishment groups concerned. I also don't know if it will ever become a full blown party or not.
blandly pompous: No offense, but you're a fucking asshole dumbshit for always bringing up Phelps as some sort of condemnation of Democrats.
Ok, repeat after me, slowly: I'm not condemning Democrats, I'm condemning dumbasses who can't understand that because an idiot associates themselves with a group does not mean that entire group embraces that idiot's message. If you can't accept me pointing out that Phelps is a member of your group, and therefore you must be JUST LIKE PHELPS, then perhaps you should stop saying that everyone who is involved with any flavor of Tea Party must be JUST LIKE THE LAROUCHE IDIOTS.
I'm holding a mirror up to you, and I'm sorry if it hurts.
blandly pompous: If Charles Manson suddenly proclaimed his love for all things conservative/Republican, it wouldn't change a single thing about the GOP unless the GOP embraced Manson's endorsement. Until you show that the Democratic Party welcomes the endorsement of the Westboro lunatics, all you're showing is you are a dumbshit.
That is exactly my point.
Faethe, and many like her, are Tea Partiers who do not embrace the morons hitching their name to the Tea Party bandwagon. And you are a dumbshit for claiming that she and others like her must be just like the idiots because that's all you see. The idiots spewing their BS under the aegis of Tea Partyism do nothing to change a single thing about faethe or the original/core Tea Partiers.
I think they're deluded for being Paultards, but I'm not the one painting them with a false brush because of others adopting their group name.
Ok, repeat after me, slowly: I'm not condemning Democrats, I'm condemning dumbasses who can't understand that because an idiot associates themselves with a group does not mean that entire group embraces that idiot's message. If you can't accept me pointing out that Phelps is a member of your group, and therefore you must be JUST LIKE PHELPS, then perhaps you should stop saying that everyone who is involved with any flavor of Tea Party must be JUST LIKE THE LAROUCHE IDIOTS.
I'm holding a mirror up to you, and I'm sorry if it hurts.
blandly pompous: If Charles Manson suddenly proclaimed his love for all things conservative/Republican, it wouldn't change a single thing about the GOP unless the GOP embraced Manson's endorsement. Until you show that the Democratic Party welcomes the endorsement of the Westboro lunatics, all you're showing is you are a dumbshit.
That is exactly my point.
Faethe, and many like her, are Tea Partiers who do not embrace the morons hitching their name to the Tea Party bandwagon. And you are a dumbshit for claiming that she and others like her must be just like the idiots because that's all you see. The idiots spewing their BS under the aegis of Tea Partyism do nothing to change a single thing about faethe or the original/core Tea Partiers.
I think they're deluded for being Paultards, but I'm not the one painting them with a false brush because of others adopting their group name.
so vote republican: Let's use your example.
I'm a wealthy person with $5M.
I want to invest that. I start a business and fund it with $3M. The business takes in $1M. I want to spend that $1M.
Current system: I pay $200K income tax on the $1M and spend $800K.
FairTax: I don't pay income on the the $1M, and spend $1M, paying $200K in sales tax.
Obviously that's vastly over simplified, but in either case I don't pay tax until I want to spend the money.
But my example does not have the wealthy person creating a US-based business.
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
I'm a wealthy person with $5M.
I want to invest that. I start a business and fund it with $3M. The business takes in $1M. I want to spend that $1M.
Current system: I pay $200K income tax on the $1M and spend $800K.
FairTax: I don't pay income on the the $1M, and spend $1M, paying $200K in sales tax.
Obviously that's vastly over simplified, but in either case I don't pay tax until I want to spend the money.
But my example does not have the wealthy person creating a US-based business.
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
fatsean: But my example does not have the wealthy person creating a US-based business.
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
Where does he buy his house? His food? Hire his maid?
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
Where does he buy his house? His food? Hire his maid?
Anyway, the Teabag Leader writes crib notes on her hand.
sloth: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties.
Anger and frustration. Both of which are great at motivating people to take action, and terrible at helping them judge what action to take.
Anger and frustration. Both of which are great at motivating people to take action, and terrible at helping them judge what action to take.
That's kind of the point. Palin has attached herself to it and, rightly or wrongly, is now the face of the Tea Party and she's brought enough fail for everyone.
sabine: Anger and frustration. Both of which are great at motivating people to take action, and terrible at helping them judge what action to take.
Ok, yes. I meant to say there's no centralized committee organizing them. Frustration is, indeed, a unifying theme.
Ok, yes. I meant to say there's no centralized committee organizing them. Frustration is, indeed, a unifying theme.
sloth: Faethe, and many like her, are Tea Partiers who do not embrace the morons hitching their name to the Tea Party bandwagon.
The LaRouche people are a separate issue, but the point I was trying to make about the Tea Party Express is that a large chunk of what is causing this:
faethe: I also get the impression that the movement is a lot more effective than I ever thought it would be
...is GOP $$$.
The LaRouche people are a separate issue, but the point I was trying to make about the Tea Party Express is that a large chunk of what is causing this:
faethe: I also get the impression that the movement is a lot more effective than I ever thought it would be
...is GOP $$$.
oftenrong: That's kind of the point. Palin has attached herself to it and, rightly or wrongly, is now the face of the Tea Party and she's brought enough fail for everyone.
She has attached herself to it, but that doesn't make her the face of the Tea Party. It makes her the face of that bloc of Tea Partiers. Others are pissed off at her butting in. And still others are lost in their own little reality and haven't noticed.
She has attached herself to it, but that doesn't make her the face of the Tea Party. It makes her the face of that bloc of Tea Partiers. Others are pissed off at her butting in. And still others are lost in their own little reality and haven't noticed.
sloth: Where does he buy his house? His food? Hire his maid?
You seem to be assuming that the wealthy spend the same percentage of their wealth on food and housing as do the lower and middle classes. I don't think that is true.
You seem to be assuming that the wealthy spend the same percentage of their wealth on food and housing as do the lower and middle classes. I don't think that is true.
sabine: The LaRouche people are a separate issue
I have to say, LaRouchians are so amusing that if they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.
sabine: but the point I was trying to make about the Tea Party Express is that a large chunk of what is causing this:
...is GOP $$$.
This is true. And a large part of what's attracting GOP $$$ is their success. It's a typical feedback-loop bubble, and when it burts it's going to be ugly.
I have to say, LaRouchians are so amusing that if they did not exist it would be necessary to invent them.
sabine: but the point I was trying to make about the Tea Party Express is that a large chunk of what is causing this:
...is GOP $$$.
This is true. And a large part of what's attracting GOP $$$ is their success. It's a typical feedback-loop bubble, and when it burts it's going to be ugly.
fatsean: You seem to be assuming that the wealthy spend the same percentage of their wealth on food and housing as do the lower and middle classes. I don't think that is true.
You seem to be assuming a lot about my assumptions.
You seem to be assuming a lot about my assumptions.
sloth: Who is *they*? It's not like there's a central committee for Tea Party people.
I mean, that's kinda like saying, "If Democrats didn't want to be seen as gay-bashers, they shouldn't have sent the Phelps clan to protest at all those funerals."
Surely someone must have organized this conference, yes? Some group or committee must have formed to organize the event, and the planning for it must have taken months, and a considerable amount of fundraising. It hardly seems possible that this event could have been organized and someone like Palin chosen as keynote speaker without at least tacit approval from the people interested in coming. I mean why bother planning and fundraising and setting up speakers for an event if no one will like the results and show up. Do you really think the whole fiasco was organized by some tiny minority within the group that had no backing from the greater membership? You frequently say you have “no dog in this hunt,” yet you seem awfully determined to defend the teabaggers from accusations of bias. Is it really so hard to believe the majority of this group has a pronounced right wing slant on social issues as well as fiscal ones that overshadows the few quiet members who would prefer to focus merely on fixing the economy?
I mean, that's kinda like saying, "If Democrats didn't want to be seen as gay-bashers, they shouldn't have sent the Phelps clan to protest at all those funerals."
Surely someone must have organized this conference, yes? Some group or committee must have formed to organize the event, and the planning for it must have taken months, and a considerable amount of fundraising. It hardly seems possible that this event could have been organized and someone like Palin chosen as keynote speaker without at least tacit approval from the people interested in coming. I mean why bother planning and fundraising and setting up speakers for an event if no one will like the results and show up. Do you really think the whole fiasco was organized by some tiny minority within the group that had no backing from the greater membership? You frequently say you have “no dog in this hunt,” yet you seem awfully determined to defend the teabaggers from accusations of bias. Is it really so hard to believe the majority of this group has a pronounced right wing slant on social issues as well as fiscal ones that overshadows the few quiet members who would prefer to focus merely on fixing the economy?
sloth: You seem to be assuming a lot about my assumptions.
Oh, I am. Especially your assumption that this FairTax plan will not result in a revenue shortfall when compared to the current tax code. And that's before your assumption that the wealthy won't pare back their consumption to secure more wealth :P
Oh, I am. Especially your assumption that this FairTax plan will not result in a revenue shortfall when compared to the current tax code. And that's before your assumption that the wealthy won't pare back their consumption to secure more wealth :P
sloth:
She has attached herself to it, but that doesn't make her the face of the Tea Party.
Time will tell. It wouldn't be the first movement hijacked, right, Paul of Tarsus?
She has attached herself to it, but that doesn't make her the face of the Tea Party.
Time will tell. It wouldn't be the first movement hijacked, right, Paul of Tarsus?
fatsean: Oh, I am. Especially your assumption that this FairTax plan will not result in a revenue shortfall when compared to the current tax code. And that's before your assumption that the wealthy won't pare back their consumption to secure more wealth :P
I don't know why you assume that I'm assuming these things. Do you think I'm advocating the FairTax as a panacea? Do you think I'm the person in this thread who's described themselves as a FairTaxer? How bizarre.
I don't know why you assume that I'm assuming these things. Do you think I'm advocating the FairTax as a panacea? Do you think I'm the person in this thread who's described themselves as a FairTaxer? How bizarre.
oftenrong: Time will tell. It wouldn't be the first movement hijacked, right, Paul of Tarsus?
lol. Paul "I saw an 800' Jesus on the road toTulsa Damascus" of Tarsus?
lol. Paul "I saw an 800' Jesus on the road to
sloth: I don't know why you assume that I'm assuming these things. Do you think I'm advocating the FairTax as a panacea? Do you think I'm the person in this thread who's described themselves as a FairTaxer? How bizarre.
Well your questions didn't seem to make sense given the context.
Well your questions didn't seem to make sense given the context.
fatsean: Well your questions didn't seem to make sense given the context.
You know, I am capable of objectively evaluating the merits and demerits of proposals, even ones I don't support. It's a novel approach to life which I heartily recommend.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
You know, I am capable of objectively evaluating the merits and demerits of proposals, even ones I don't support. It's a novel approach to life which I heartily recommend.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
sloth: You know, I am capable of objectively evaluating the merits and demerits of proposals, even ones I don't support. It's a novel approach to life which I heartily recommend.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
They're not all baby-rapers. That would be the Republicans.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
They're not all baby-rapers. That would be the Republicans.
bluegargoyle: Backstory? Is he the "driving force" in this scenario?
He's the organizer of the conference that was held in Nashville over the weekend.
He's the organizer of the conference that was held in Nashville over the weekend.
sabine: Anger and frustration. Both of which are great at motivating people to take action, and terrible at helping them judge what action to take.
I would say that here it is Paultards. Yep. And a lack of fiscal responsibility on behalf of both parties. An article I read about the Perot movement said that the good thing that came out of that was that both parties realized people actually gave a shit about the deficit and responded accordingly. I'm thinking it will be something like that.
I would say that here it is Paultards. Yep. And a lack of fiscal responsibility on behalf of both parties. An article I read about the Perot movement said that the good thing that came out of that was that both parties realized people actually gave a shit about the deficit and responded accordingly. I'm thinking it will be something like that.
bluegargoyle: Backstory? Is he the "driving force" in this scenario?
All I get is that is the name of a guy who is a lolyer on the Simpsons?
All I get is that is the name of a guy who is a lolyer on the Simpsons?
faethe: I'm thinking it will be something like that.
What is the important macroeconomic policy position that you expect the Tea Party movement to cause mainstream movement towards?
What is the important macroeconomic policy position that you expect the Tea Party movement to cause mainstream movement towards?
sloth: You know, I am capable of objectively evaluating the merits and demerits of proposals, even ones I don't support. It's a novel approach to life which I heartily recommend.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
Since you did jump into a conversation about the FairTax I think I made a reasonable assumption.
Similarly, you may have noticed that I'm not a Tea Partier and in fact I reject their premises, even though I'm not willing to falsely malign the entirety of the movement as racist, baby-raping gay-bashers.
Since you did jump into a conversation about the FairTax I think I made a reasonable assumption.
fatsean: Since you did jump into a conversation about the FairTax I think I made a reasonable assumption.
I know you do.
I know you do.
sloth:
lol. Paul "I saw an 800' Jesus on the road toTulsa Damascus" of Tarsus?
Yeah. I'm probably not the first but I think I may have obliquely made Ron Paul Jesus with that analogy.
lol. Paul "I saw an 800' Jesus on the road to
Yeah. I'm probably not the first but I think I may have obliquely made Ron Paul Jesus with that analogy.
fatsean: But my example does not have the wealthy person creating a US-based business.
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
So he invests in a foreign land and spends it in a foreign land.
Why are we taxing him again? So he'll leave?
Consider the man with $5M who invests $3M in foreign markets. He buys and sells and amasses a nice chunk which he then spends in a foreign land. Without the capital gains tax he pays no tax on any of it.
FairTax is just creating more incentives for the wealthy to spend and invest out of the United States.
So he invests in a foreign land and spends it in a foreign land.
Why are we taxing him again? So he'll leave?
sloth: I know you do.
*shrug* Jump into a two-way convo where each party has taken an opposing side and most people will think you are taking one of those sides...unless you explain your position. Asking vague open-ended questions isn't explaining your position.
*shrug* Jump into a two-way convo where each party has taken an opposing side and most people will think you are taking one of those sides...unless you explain your position. Asking vague open-ended questions isn't explaining your position.
sabine: What is the important macroeconomic policy position that you expect the Tea Party movement to cause mainstream movement towards?
Am I allowed to look at the notes I have scribbled on my hand?
Am I allowed to look at the notes I have scribbled on my hand?
so vote republican: So he invests in a foreign land and spends it in a foreign land.
Why are we taxing him again? So he'll leave?
The country in which he amassed his wealth needs money to operate.
Why are we taxing him again? So he'll leave?
The country in which he amassed his wealth needs money to operate.
faethe: Am I allowed to look at the notes I have scribbled on my hand?
I'm currently assuming "FairTax as generally laid out by Neal Boortz", but thought I'd give you a chance to restate it.
I'm currently assuming "FairTax as generally laid out by Neal Boortz", but thought I'd give you a chance to restate it.
fatsean: most people will think you are taking one of those sides
Why are y'all so obsessed with figuring out which side of anything anybody is on?
Why are y'all so obsessed with figuring out which side of anything anybody is on?
fatsean: The country in which he amassed his wealth needs money to operate.
You didn't say he amassed his wealth here. You said he is living here, apparently on nothing, and investing elsewhere.
You didn't say he amassed his wealth here. You said he is living here, apparently on nothing, and investing elsewhere.
sabine: Why are y'all so obsessed with figuring out which side of anything anybody is on?
So I know how best to defend my position. Know your opponent, etc. Nothing is more boring than answering an onslaught of overly vague questions with enough detail to properly represent one's opinions...only to find that you wasted your time because the questions were just there to derail your point :)
So I know how best to defend my position. Know your opponent, etc. Nothing is more boring than answering an onslaught of overly vague questions with enough detail to properly represent one's opinions...only to find that you wasted your time because the questions were just there to derail your point :)
so vote republican: You didn't say he amassed his wealth here. You said he is living here, apparently on nothing, and investing elsewhere.
My assumption was that the $5M came from domestic investments/income/business/whatever. Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains! Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account. But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
My assumption was that the $5M came from domestic investments/income/business/whatever. Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains! Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account. But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
fatsean: The country in which he amassed his wealth needs money to operate.
And if he amassed his wealth here, then he would have been selling things. Things on which a sales tax would have applied.
And if he amassed his wealth here, then he would have been selling things. Things on which a sales tax would have applied.
sabine: Conversations have participants, not opponents.
This thread feels more like an argument, actually.
This thread feels more like an argument, actually.
fatsean: My assumption was that the $5M came from domestic investments/income/business/whatever.
Any domestic investment/income/business that sold something would have paid taxes during the sales transaction.
Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains!
Capital gains doesn't go into effect until something is sold. Something isn't sold until the person wants to spend it. I have investments that are ten years old that have tripled in value that I have paid no tax on.
Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account.
That's how it works now.
But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
He doesn't have to send it out of the country to grow without paying taxes now.
Any domestic investment/income/business that sold something would have paid taxes during the sales transaction.
Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains!
Capital gains doesn't go into effect until something is sold. Something isn't sold until the person wants to spend it. I have investments that are ten years old that have tripled in value that I have paid no tax on.
Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account.
That's how it works now.
But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
He doesn't have to send it out of the country to grow without paying taxes now.
so vote republican: And if he amassed his wealth here, then he would have been selling things. Things on which a sales tax would have applied.
And the tax burden is shifted from the wealthy to the lower/middle classes. Who now buy fewer goods due to their reduced spending power and pay less tax over all.
And the tax burden is shifted from the wealthy to the lower/middle classes. Who now buy fewer goods due to their reduced spending power and pay less tax over all.
so vote republican: Any domestic investment/income/business that sold something would have paid taxes during the sales transaction.
Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains!
Capital gains doesn't go into effect until something is sold. Something isn't sold until the person wants to spend it. I have investments that are ten years old that have tripled in value that I have paid no tax on.
Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account.
That's how it works now.
But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
He doesn't have to send it out of the country to grow without paying taxes now.
But an investment isn't wealth until you sell it. I think that's important.
You're right, he has ways to earn income on his wealth now but this FairTax plan would give him more opportunities.
Then the FairTax goes into effect and suddenly no capital gains!
Capital gains doesn't go into effect until something is sold. Something isn't sold until the person wants to spend it. I have investments that are ten years old that have tripled in value that I have paid no tax on.
Now he doesn't need to tie his money up in a business to avoid taxation, he can just let it sit in a savings account.
That's how it works now.
But he won't let it sit, he wants to get a return while paying the least amount of tax. So he sends it out of the country.
He doesn't have to send it out of the country to grow without paying taxes now.
But an investment isn't wealth until you sell it. I think that's important.
You're right, he has ways to earn income on his wealth now but this FairTax plan would give him more opportunities.
fatsean: But an investment isn't wealth until you sell it. I think that's important.
Correction. Wealth isn't wealth until you spend it.
You're right, he has ways to earn income on his wealth now but this FairTax plan would give him more opportunities.
All you need are one.
Correction. Wealth isn't wealth until you spend it.
You're right, he has ways to earn income on his wealth now but this FairTax plan would give him more opportunities.
All you need are one.
fatsean: And the tax burden is shifted from the wealthy to the lower/middle classes. Who now buy fewer goods due to their reduced spending power and pay less tax over all.
The lower classes are covered by the prebate. You are correct that this doesn't favor the middle class, and I do believe this is a shortcoming which needs to be remedied.
The lower classes are covered by the prebate. You are correct that this doesn't favor the middle class, and I do believe this is a shortcoming which needs to be remedied.
It's like saying "Sure we give all the inmates keys, but if we leave the doors unlocked, that's just one more way for them to get out."
Yes, yes you are right. It is.
Yes, yes you are right. It is.
so vote republican: The lower classes are covered by the prebate. You are correct that this doesn't favor the middle class, and I do believe this is a shortcoming which needs to be remedied.
Well then we've been arguing for nothing :)
Well then we've been arguing for nothing :)
fatsean: Well then we've been arguing for nothing :)
so vote republican: I agree there are issues because it is ultimately impossible to completely "get the rich" under a FairTax system. There would need to be additional ways to prevent the concentration of wealth. But the current system isn't really doing that either...
But it certainly is less regressive in many ways than our current system.
so vote republican: I agree there are issues because it is ultimately impossible to completely "get the rich" under a FairTax system. There would need to be additional ways to prevent the concentration of wealth. But the current system isn't really doing that either...
But it certainly is less regressive in many ways than our current system.
sabine: I'm currently assuming "FairTax as generally laid out by Neal Boortz", but thought I'd give you a chance to restate it.
Pretty much that, and the larger issue of candidates who respond to their constituents. As in, Orlando city commissioners approve 2 billion dollar entertainment complex because there just aren't any large venues in the City. They approve this right before Elton John plays the new UCF arena, which doesn't count for some reason. Also, Disney, Universal, not to mention the huge entertainment complexes we already have.
Guess who is not getting re-elected? And candidates that respond to regulatory issues, like we need some. Those are my two big issues. Smaller issues (but no less important for me) is access to healthcare, oversight at all levels, and the ability for people to form unions with a lot less trouble than they can now. And illegal immigration (which to me is an enforcement issue). And dialing back the bullshit on spending on terror, and standing up to essential services trying to bankrupt the county by refusing to downsize despite a shrinking tax roll. Education spending, too.
Pretty much that, and the larger issue of candidates who respond to their constituents. As in, Orlando city commissioners approve 2 billion dollar entertainment complex because there just aren't any large venues in the City. They approve this right before Elton John plays the new UCF arena, which doesn't count for some reason. Also, Disney, Universal, not to mention the huge entertainment complexes we already have.
Guess who is not getting re-elected? And candidates that respond to regulatory issues, like we need some. Those are my two big issues. Smaller issues (but no less important for me) is access to healthcare, oversight at all levels, and the ability for people to form unions with a lot less trouble than they can now. And illegal immigration (which to me is an enforcement issue). And dialing back the bullshit on spending on terror, and standing up to essential services trying to bankrupt the county by refusing to downsize despite a shrinking tax roll. Education spending, too.
You have a better chance of winning the lottery after being struck by lightning than having the Fair Tax stupidity become reality. Your time would be better spent arguing over which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars.
faethe: the larger issue of candidates who respond to their constituents
This sounds nice, but what happens when their constituents disagree with one another?
This sounds nice, but what happens when their constituents disagree with one another?
blandly pompous: You have a better chance of winning the lottery after being struck by lightning than having the Fair Tax stupidity become reality. Your time would be better spent arguing over which is better, Star Trek or Star Wars.
Do you think VATs are stupid?
Do you think VATs are stupid?
sabine: This sounds nice, but what happens when their constituents disagree with one another?
Then it's up to the candidate to find common ground. If there is no common ground, the candidate makes a choice that they live with. It's my experience that if you listen to people long enough they do have a common agenda. How they approach it varies. Like for right now I can tell you the biggest issue in Orlando is corruption. How people approach that varies a lot, but that is what is behind it. We need a reformer. And people need to take more responsibility for themselves. It's not going to go away on it's own.
Then it's up to the candidate to find common ground. If there is no common ground, the candidate makes a choice that they live with. It's my experience that if you listen to people long enough they do have a common agenda. How they approach it varies. Like for right now I can tell you the biggest issue in Orlando is corruption. How people approach that varies a lot, but that is what is behind it. We need a reformer. And people need to take more responsibility for themselves. It's not going to go away on it's own.
sloth: Again, this is what I keep trying to explain to y'all: There is no central unifying theme to the Tea Parties. There are tarded groups out there. There are non-tarded groups out there. There are tarded groups opposed to some of the other tarded groups.
I've heard it said more than once that the Tea Party doesn't have a leader or any sort of tenets or platform or something like that. So what the hell is it then? Saying you're a member of the Tea Party sounds as meaningful as saying you're a member of the Disneyland Party which happens to be all the people who are at Disneyland on a particular day. What's the point of belonging to a near-meaningless group? Or is this just the way to be front and center in the media while holding viewpoints that most would find repugnant?
I've heard it said more than once that the Tea Party doesn't have a leader or any sort of tenets or platform or something like that. So what the hell is it then? Saying you're a member of the Tea Party sounds as meaningful as saying you're a member of the Disneyland Party which happens to be all the people who are at Disneyland on a particular day. What's the point of belonging to a near-meaningless group? Or is this just the way to be front and center in the media while holding viewpoints that most would find repugnant?
sabine: This sounds nice, but what happens when their constituents disagree with one another?
90% of the constituents disagreed with TARP. It sailed through anyway.
90% of the constituents disagreed with TARP. It sailed through anyway.
blandly pompous: I've heard it said more than once that the Tea Party doesn't have a leader or any sort of tenets or platform or something like that. So what the hell is it then? Saying you're a member of the Tea Party sounds as meaningful as saying you're a member of the Disneyland Party which happens to be all the people who are at Disneyland on a particular day. What's the point of belonging to a near-meaningless group? Or is this just the way to be front and center in the media while holding viewpoints that most would find repugnant?
Having Palin onstage doesn't help either.
Having Palin onstage doesn't help either.
blandly pompous: I've heard it said more than once that the Tea Party doesn't have a leader or any sort of tenets or platform or something like that. So what the hell is it then? Saying you're a member of the Tea Party sounds as meaningful as saying you're a member of the Disneyland Party which happens to be all the people who are at Disneyland on a particular day. What's the point of belonging to a near-meaningless group? Or is this just the way to be front and center in the media while holding viewpoints that most would find repugnant?
If you are that interested, why don't you go find your local group of Paultards or Fairtaxers and talk to them about what it means. Your local people.
I'm beginning to think this whole thing started on the internets and kind of is still centered there. Like people who agree go have a real life meet up and do get involved in grassroots.
If you are that interested, why don't you go find your local group of Paultards or Fairtaxers and talk to them about what it means. Your local people.
I'm beginning to think this whole thing started on the internets and kind of is still centered there. Like people who agree go have a real life meet up and do get involved in grassroots.
faethe: people need to take more responsibility for themselves
I think your heart is in the right place, but FairTax still looks like a horrible idea to me.
I think your heart is in the right place, but FairTax still looks like a horrible idea to me.
sabine: I think your heart is in the right place, but FairTax still looks like a horrible idea to me.
You haven't stated any objections other than the problem with high income individuals which have already been acknowledged.
You haven't stated any objections other than the problem with high income individuals which have already been acknowledged.
fatsean: And the tax burden is shifted from the wealthy to the lower/middle classes. Who now buy fewer goods due to their reduced spending power and pay less tax over all.
So do the figures put forward for the national sales tax rate account for a likely significant drop in the sale of goods resulting from imposition of the tax?
i.e. if everyone sees an extra 30% tax appear on stuff, and they all stop buying, where does the government make up the shortfall? Jack up the rate to 50%?
So do the figures put forward for the national sales tax rate account for a likely significant drop in the sale of goods resulting from imposition of the tax?
i.e. if everyone sees an extra 30% tax appear on stuff, and they all stop buying, where does the government make up the shortfall? Jack up the rate to 50%?
so vote republican: You haven't stated any objections other than the problem with high income individuals which have already been acknowledged.
Acknowledged != addressed, and I don't see any FairTax proposals that solve the problem, perhaps because the high income individuals are helping draft them.
It would create huge incentives for evasion, enforcement would be hard and expensive, I don't believe the revenue neutrality math until you get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% tax rate, old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden, making mortgage interest suddenly taxable would flip even more homeowners into foreclosure, and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
I agree with you that US tax policy should favor saving more and consumption less. FairTax goes way too far.
Acknowledged != addressed, and I don't see any FairTax proposals that solve the problem, perhaps because the high income individuals are helping draft them.
It would create huge incentives for evasion, enforcement would be hard and expensive, I don't believe the revenue neutrality math until you get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% tax rate, old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden, making mortgage interest suddenly taxable would flip even more homeowners into foreclosure, and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
I agree with you that US tax policy should favor saving more and consumption less. FairTax goes way too far.
sabine: I think your heart is in the right place, but FairTax still looks like a horrible idea to me.
And this is where criticism needs to prove the rule. Like I said, I am really glad it's getting attention. It surprises me because it was just this little idea a few years ago. Now it's grown up into a discussion point :)
And this is where criticism needs to prove the rule. Like I said, I am really glad it's getting attention. It surprises me because it was just this little idea a few years ago. Now it's grown up into a discussion point :)
sabine: Acknowledged != addressed, and I don't see any FairTax proposals that solve the problem,
Why don't you make a suggestion to address it instead of constant criticism?
perhaps because the high income individuals are helping draft them.
That's a poor arguing technique and you know it.
It would create huge incentives for evasion,
The current system is worse.
enforcement would be hard and expensive,
The current system is worse.
I don't believe the revenue neutrality math until you get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% tax rate,
Even from your own links?
old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden,
I don't think it should be an immediate and 100% change.
making mortgage interest suddenly taxable would flip even more homeowners into foreclosure,
And make homes that much more affordable rather than continuing the house of cards we helped create.
and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
Again, this would sort itself over time without the distortions we've been creating.
I agree with you that US tax policy should favor saving more and consumption less. FairTax goes way too far.
Any consumption based tax has all the problems you listed.
Why don't you make a suggestion to address it instead of constant criticism?
perhaps because the high income individuals are helping draft them.
That's a poor arguing technique and you know it.
It would create huge incentives for evasion,
The current system is worse.
enforcement would be hard and expensive,
The current system is worse.
I don't believe the revenue neutrality math until you get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% tax rate,
Even from your own links?
old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden,
I don't think it should be an immediate and 100% change.
making mortgage interest suddenly taxable would flip even more homeowners into foreclosure,
And make homes that much more affordable rather than continuing the house of cards we helped create.
and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
Again, this would sort itself over time without the distortions we've been creating.
I agree with you that US tax policy should favor saving more and consumption less. FairTax goes way too far.
Any consumption based tax has all the problems you listed.
so vote republican: Why don't you make a suggestion to address it instead of constant criticism?
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking directly for criticism. Fine. Tax on capital gains and on income over $250,000. Have a son-of-AMT that requires intermediate valuation of held assets, so sale is not the only trigger for capital gains.
fucking freepness: Any consumption based tax has all the problems you listed.
Yes, it does. That's why consumption-based taxes should not be the centerpiece of tax policy. Ergo FairTax is broken as designed.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking directly for criticism. Fine. Tax on capital gains and on income over $250,000. Have a son-of-AMT that requires intermediate valuation of held assets, so sale is not the only trigger for capital gains.
fucking freepness: Any consumption based tax has all the problems you listed.
Yes, it does. That's why consumption-based taxes should not be the centerpiece of tax policy. Ergo FairTax is broken as designed.
sabine: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were asking directly for criticism. Fine. Tax on capital gains and on income over $250,000.
I'm comfortable with that. I'd go to the point of removing capital gains and applying all gains directly to income. Provided we stopped having the ridiculous high taxes on income of course.
Have a son-of-AMT that requires intermediate valuation of held assets, so sale is not the only trigger for capital gains.
This would also affect the value of homes in the way you listed. I don't think simply having something should subject you to taxation. This would cause people to leave the country.
Yes, it does. That's why consumption-based taxes should not be the centerpiece of tax policy. Ergo FairTax is broken as designed.
I see. So you think a tax on consumption is important except for the part where it taxes consumption.
I'm comfortable with that. I'd go to the point of removing capital gains and applying all gains directly to income. Provided we stopped having the ridiculous high taxes on income of course.
Have a son-of-AMT that requires intermediate valuation of held assets, so sale is not the only trigger for capital gains.
This would also affect the value of homes in the way you listed. I don't think simply having something should subject you to taxation. This would cause people to leave the country.
Yes, it does. That's why consumption-based taxes should not be the centerpiece of tax policy. Ergo FairTax is broken as designed.
I see. So you think a tax on consumption is important except for the part where it taxes consumption.
so vote republican: I don't think simply having something should subject you to taxation.
If you're trying to accurately even the burden out on taxpayers, factoring in the current value of all their assets seems like a decent step. The current system where you're taxed upon asset transfer is more practical, but theoretically having assets going up and down in value being treated as profit and loss seems fairer to me.
so vote republican: So you think a tax on consumption is important except for the part where it taxes consumption.
No, I think a tax on consumption should be a small (5% or so) and complementary part of the taxation system, not a wholesale replacement for national income tax.
If you're trying to accurately even the burden out on taxpayers, factoring in the current value of all their assets seems like a decent step. The current system where you're taxed upon asset transfer is more practical, but theoretically having assets going up and down in value being treated as profit and loss seems fairer to me.
so vote republican: So you think a tax on consumption is important except for the part where it taxes consumption.
No, I think a tax on consumption should be a small (5% or so) and complementary part of the taxation system, not a wholesale replacement for national income tax.
so vote republican: Why don't you make a suggestion to address it instead of constant criticism?
90% estate tax on any amount beyond the median household annual income.
90% estate tax on any amount beyond the median household annual income.
sabine: If you're trying to accurately even the burden out on taxpayers, factoring in the current value of all their assets seems like a decent step.
If you're trying to encourage them to save it seems like a completely irrational step.
No, I think a tax on consumption should be a small (5% or so) and complementary part of the taxation system, not a wholesale replacement for national income tax.
Yeah, combined with the above recommendation, I'm going to go ahead and say:
If you're trying to encourage them to save it seems like a completely irrational step.
No, I think a tax on consumption should be a small (5% or so) and complementary part of the taxation system, not a wholesale replacement for national income tax.
Yeah, combined with the above recommendation, I'm going to go ahead and say:
sloth: 90% estate tax on any amount beyond the median household annual income.
What if it's a family business?
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
What if it's a family business?
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
I don't believe the revenue neutrality math until you get somewhere in the neighborhood of a 50% tax rate
Right now we're taxing 30% of 80% of the economy. How can that possibly be the same revenue as 50% of 95% of the economy?
old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden
True. So add on a time-phased age-based prebate.
and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
They're already paying taxes on the income used for rent. How is paying at the point of renting instead of at the point of earning going to cause a balloon?
Right now we're taxing 30% of 80% of the economy. How can that possibly be the same revenue as 50% of 95% of the economy?
old people on fixed incomes who paid income tax all those years bear a disproportionate burden
True. So add on a time-phased age-based prebate.
and then when they go to rent, their rent balloons because it too is now taxable.
They're already paying taxes on the income used for rent. How is paying at the point of renting instead of at the point of earning going to cause a balloon?
so vote republican: What if it's a family business?
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
That's a damn shame.
\And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
That's a damn shame.
\And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
so vote republican: What if it's a family business?
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
That's a damn shame.
\And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
Businesses are generally valued at 10x the annual income or more, so effectively you destroy any ability to pass one onto your family.
That's a damn shame.
\And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
sloth: That's a damn shame.
And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
I want to pass on a business to my son. Earns a respectable $100K a year, valued at $1M.
He has to take out a $900K loan? And end up paying $5K a month for 30 years for what his Father built? If he's earning $100K/year, this is a 60% effective tax rate!
And, actually, it doesn't destroy the ability to pass a business on to your family. It means that you either have to break up the ownership or you have to pass it on before death or you have to have the new owner pay a one-time transfer fee (which, presumably, he should be able to get a loan to cover).
I want to pass on a business to my son. Earns a respectable $100K a year, valued at $1M.
He has to take out a $900K loan? And end up paying $5K a month for 30 years for what his Father built? If he's earning $100K/year, this is a 60% effective tax rate!
so vote republican: I want to pass on a business to my son. Earns a respectable $100K a year, valued at $1M.
He has to take out a $900K loan? And end up paying $5K a month for 30 years for what his Father built? If he's earning $100K/year, this is a 60% effective tax rate!
Yep. That's a damn shame. Thing is, though, *he* didn't build that business or earn its value. *You* did, and you're dead. For him it's unearned income. I will fully back your claim that you should keep more of your earned income. I will also say that your claim to unearned income is tenuous at best.
He has to take out a $900K loan? And end up paying $5K a month for 30 years for what his Father built? If he's earning $100K/year, this is a 60% effective tax rate!
Yep. That's a damn shame. Thing is, though, *he* didn't build that business or earn its value. *You* did, and you're dead. For him it's unearned income. I will fully back your claim that you should keep more of your earned income. I will also say that your claim to unearned income is tenuous at best.
sloth: Yep. That's a damn shame. Thing is, though, *he* didn't build that business or earn its value. *You* did, and you're dead. For him it's unearned income. I will fully back your claim that you should keep more of your earned income. I will also say that your claim to unearned income is tenuous at best.
He grew up working at the business and it is the only place he has worked for 40 years. He built it just as much as I did.
He grew up working at the business and it is the only place he has worked for 40 years. He built it just as much as I did.
so vote republican: He grew up working at the business and it is the only place he has worked for 40 years. He built it just as much as I did.
Then you should have been vesting him in the company as part of his compensation.
Then you should have been vesting him in the company as part of his compensation.
sloth: Then you should have been vesting him in the company as part of his compensation.
Good point. But then there is little difference between that and an inheritance so why tax one and not the other?
Good point. But then there is little difference between that and an inheritance so why tax one and not the other?
so vote republican: Good point. But then there is little difference between that and an inheritance so why tax one and not the other?
Because in one he's earning it as compensation. In the other, it's unearned income.
Because in one he's earning it as compensation. In the other, it's unearned income.
sloth: Because in one he's earning it as compensation. In the other, it's unearned income.
I see the definitive distinction, I don't see the actual distinction.
I see the definitive distinction, I don't see the actual distinction.
so vote republican: combined with the above recommendation, I'm going to go ahead and say:
It's only lip service if I'm claiming to support FairTax. I'm not.
It's only lip service if I'm claiming to support FairTax. I'm not.
sabine: It's only lip service if I'm claiming to support FairTax. I'm not.
You're claiming to support consumption limiting measures. Which you don't. At all.
You're claiming to support consumption limiting measures. Which you don't. At all.
If you logged in, you could post here.