I just hope if the options are Hillary and trump, people will smarten up and check that thirst box, even if it was hitler -Yuri
I remember you saying Dick Nixon was your favorite President. Well I guess he wasn't Ronny the Rat, Nixon was a bit better. You are a supportrr of BDS but Dick was allies with Israel.
In what I've read the only President to disencourage the racist "Jewish state" was JFK., asking for nuclear examinations, but he died only a few months later and no other President has questioned Israel about its' nukes to my knowledge
Even Hitler was better to separate Church and State. I dislike Christian, Islamic, and Jewish states. I believe in a separation between Church and State
I understand your point but if the wealthy don't spend their money what do they do with it? If they save it what would they save it for if they never spend it? If they never spend it then it goes to their heirs and when the heirs spend it they would pay the taxes. I don't think money that is never spent can be counted as money since it's worthless. Maybe they use the money they never spend to invest and create jobs for other people, we know the poor people aren't creating the jobs. Maybe what I'm saying is all money is eventually spent.
Often times they invest it and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't believe that wealth is an issue inherently, and I have no problem with people being wealthy. The thing is statistically wealthy people spend a significantly smaller percentage of their income than non wealthy people, which is not to say that they don't spend a lot of money just that they wouldn't be hot as hard as poorer individuals by a national sales tax.
The notion that only wealthy people create jobs is not necessarily accurate. In an economy you need both wealthy investors/entrepreneurs with capital but they are nothing without a large consumer base in the middle/lower class. Both groups of people need each other for the economy to survive/thrive. This is why if wealth inequality becomes too extreme it can be detrimental to the economy because there is not enough consumption by the people in the lower/middle class to drive the businesses started by more wealthy individuals.
If the basics like food, health care, and housing aren't taxed then actually the wealthy would pay tax on a larger percentage of their income than the rest of us because most of what poorer people spend their money on wouldn't be taxed where as the wealthy would spend a larger percentage of their money on taxable items. I'd like to be wealthy for a while so I could find out what they do with money they never spend.
I literally just told you what a vast majority do and that is to invest the money they have that they haven't spent. I think maybe this is a possible answer but just leads to another complicated beuracratic system where government has to decide what is considered a basic and what is considered a luxury. I'm not saying it's not feasible just that it's not as simple as people make it out to be and would also require a complex system.
Well, like you said, it's the middle class that is the driving economic force in this country, and like I said earlier they would be sharing less of the tax burden than the wealthy due to how it is specifically structured. Many states already decide what is basic and they do not tax them.
What is the benefit of doing a consumption based tax verses an income tax. Why wouldn't it better to eliminate a lot of the tax loopholes/write offs that allow the top tax brackets to pay less than the tax brackets beneath them? I'm not asking to try and disprove you, I'm just legitimately curious if there are any arguments to support the notion that a flat tax would be better. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't instituting a more intricate flat tax that tries to solve the problem of sales taxes being regressive be tougher than merely fixing a progressive taxation system like income tax? If you don't I would love to hear your reasoning behind why you believe a fair tax would be effective because I haven't heard too many convincing arguments from flat tax proponents, but I haven't looked too much into it. I think taxes are broken because they've become way too complex, allowing only people with massive teams of lawyers to pay lower rates through deductions and loopholes. It's why you basically see every tax bracket go up in terms off effective rate until you get to the highest tax bracket where the wealthiest people end up paying less than people in the upper middle class. I think the only way to really change this is to either set a minimum effective tax rate that people in the top bracket have to pay or a drastic overhaul which dramatically reduces the deductions that really only benefit ultra wealthy people. There's deductions that make a lot of sense like for mortgages, kids, etc but then there's all sorts of weird deductions that really only help out people in the upper echelons of society and allow them to pay a smaller effective tax rate than they really should be paying based on the marginal rates. The best idea I can think of is to set a couple more tax brackets. I would lower the marginal rates for people under 400,000. Between 400,000 and a million I would keep marginal rates about the same, and then for about 1 million plus I wouldn't raise marginal rates but I would set some kind of minim effective tax rate so that people in this bracket wouldn't pay less than the brackets immediately proceeding them. like is currently the case. This of course isn't a perfect plan but I think is a much more likely to be instituted and help straighten out the system a little. I definitely think that the government needs to find ways to simplify the tax code but unfortunately they've decided to use it as a tool to enforce policy rather to collect funds for programs.