aye aye!

Hussien the Hessian made it though.

Unfortunately, the majority of their money is imaginary. It's not like they have a big Scrooge McDuck style vault full of cash.

Their fortunes mostly exist as potential money. So we can't just take it and do what we want with it.

Look, man, it wasn't going to happen anyway so why'd you have to ruin it for me? How many kids did you stop today to say oh hey Santa Claus isn't real and one day your mommy and daddy will be dead?

Jesus. I'm gonna go get wasted now. Thanks for the drinking problem, Binro.

Better question - how much money do his parents make?

http://www.alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

Why do you hate America?

Taxes are redistribution of wealth. Communism is redistribution of wealth. Therefore anyone who says they want to raise taxes is a socialist commie. We should eliminate all government programs except the military, which will be paid for by tax cuts to the wealthy, due to the trickle-down hand of the market.

I've taken an Econ course, read Ayn Rand, and watch Mad Money all the time, so I know what I'm talking about.

So if you cut taxes on the middle class and raise taxes on the poor, does that make you a Commie-Nazi?

Of course not. The poor should pay a greater percentage in taxes because they don't contribute to society as much as the wealthy do.

lol Mad Money

i love that show, watching it for financial advice is like watching MANswers for marital advice

The flat tax is a reasonable suggestion if its also coupled with the elimination of the sales tax, property taxes, and many forms of subsidies, rebates and closed loopholes. Otherwise its regressive.

More of the taxes poor and middle-class Americans pay come from income and sales taxes than with the wealthy. The top 1% pay a higher income tax, but less of their wealth is subject to the income tax anyway. Having all income tax levels equal actually results in the poor paying a much greater percentage of their money toward taxes than the rich.

Then there's also the fact that loopholes and subsidies through the tax code won't realistically be eliminated either, as its politically popular to provide individual reductions to groups. Its also naive to think evading taxes will go down if the tax form is "fairer" (enforcement and mistakes might improve though), especially when dealing with companies and individuals with private tax specialists. Also, the enforcement costs of tax collecting are fairly insignificant when compared to the other monetary changes brought about by a flat tax shift.

Then there's also the significant argument as to whether we want to provide equal treatement to struggling families as to prospering ones. When an innate role of government is to assist in the well-being of the society, is it truly "fair" to provide the same level of help to a student burdened with debt as to Donald Trump?

You know what? That was too long.

Feel free to ignore and mock.

the actual flat tax by the hoover institute is fully comprehensive and addresses the points you've raised. most people make the mistake of assuming 'flat tax' means one tax 'bracket' when in fact the flat tax plan is, as mentioned, fully comprehensive.

consider yourself mocked!

please just read the book. it's online in pdf if you don't wish to buy it:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/3602666.html

and allow me to qualify my position. socially liberal, economically responsible with the understanding that going into debt is appropriate at times.

okaaaaaay, I'm aware of the flat tax, just not how it applies to my question. I mean, I'm willing to read a whole book, but if you could just make it simple and tell me how it applies, I'd be super gratefull

Flat tax would be fine if rich people actually voluntarily paid for social services that are required, but they don't, so fuck off.

Sorry, that was a little excessive.

erratic: conversations like these go better when people have a full understanding of the topic as opposed to knowing the bullet points. but, i'll just say over simplisticly that more tax revenue comes into the government from a spurred economy, less money is spent on enforcement, and more people end up paying taxes at a lower rate.

in the second edition of the flat tax plan book they give examples of other countries who have implemented their plan after it was released originally in the early 80s, that confirms their original hypothesis.

You have certainly put an enormous amount of faith in the Hoover Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Of course the flat tax is "easy to comprehend," that is what it is intended to do. And yes, those nations that have recently instituted a flat tax have experienced enormous growth (and a widening gap between the rich and poor), but that's completely because after the fall of the Iron Curtain nobody was paying any taxes and there were no proper incentives or institutions with which to collect and manage revenue.

Read this too:

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/what-we-learn-when-we-learn -economics/


The flat tax would fundamentally redistribute wealth in a way that scares me. If we are to believe that the wealthy will use their profits to satisfy the societal needs of the poor (health care, higher education, disaster recovery, etc.) I'd like to see evidence of that outside of Warren Buffet, who is an extreme case (since he still kept a measly 15 billion to toy around with). Buffett was also attacked by the likes of George Will, who feel that reinvesting in the economy helps the poor more than feeble charity.

Or, I should say, it's NOT like he understands. Duh.

Oh lord if only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf9k2dq347I

A: HIS BIG OL' BLACK LIPS MOVE

patriotactfisawarfunding

excellent trolling btw

oh, i didn't mean to respond to you

but wow, if you think your ebony messiah will end government corruption :/