lowering income tax rates is not spending but replacing a progressive income tax with a flat sales tax (assuming the tax cuts are disproportionately enjoyed by those in higher income brackets) is hugely regressive and --irionically-- will hurt poor red state proles the most.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823687)

agree that on the face of it reducing the tax rate in every bracket has the practical effect of reducing the effective tax for everyone.

the reality --which i'm sure you know-- is that such "tax cuts" typically favor higher earners by either a/ focusing adjustments more on the higher tax bracket thresholds than the lower ones and b/ also focusing rate cuts also more on the higher tax bracket ranges.

moreover, my primary point was that a flat sales tax is punitive to the extent that lower earners are unlikely to enjoy offsetting income tax cuts to the same extent that higher earners do: if you can show me a real example of where this wasn't the case i would be happy to be enlightened

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824188)

you are yammering about national sales tax. that is what has essentially happened the last 4 years with Biden's intentionally manufactured inflation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824664)

inflation =/= sales tax (or a tariff), as with the former the government is not the end recipient of the additional dollars paid as they are with the latter mechanism.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824830)

Is this Conservative Financial Porn?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823756)

would be 100% fine if the next dem does it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823744)

And what's the expected revenue to be generated from these tariffs? A couple hundred billion a year, maybe? That's not a lot considering the size of the annual budget. A lot of negative impact for peanuts.

The TLDR answer is the amount of tariffs to raise enough to pay for something as big as universal healthcare would destroy the economy. We would need to find a better way to fund it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823810)

you would pay for his legs?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823848)

you must have to stand up when you poast stuff like this because the cum blasting out of your asshole would lift you from your seat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48823867)

libs have shit for brains

the best way to fund universal healthcare is to realize that there is no such thing as universal healthcare and any attempt to accomplish it will be an expensive, inefficient clusterfuck for all involved

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824039)

negative rights = easily done

positive rights = expensive, inefficient clusterfucks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824064)

the idea that it can be done in an effective, fair, inexpensive, efficient manner...lol, fuck no

positive rights are just a form of theft dressed up as compassion

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824083)

No free healthcare for Trumpmos.

No tariffs to support worthless Trumpmo "jobs."

Also, I fully support Canada, Mexico, EU, and even China in their trade war targeting red states. Just bought some Canadian shit yesterday in fact. LOL fuck Kentucky, fuck Tennessee, those fags can eat shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5706755&forum_id=2).#48824841)