I feel like economic theories are all bullshit fraudlie$.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740640)

when your car slows down you aren't going horribly in reverse

less progressive =/= regressive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740710)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Hall-Rabushka tax would be highly regressive, in part because high-income households tend to consume less of their income than lower-income households and because investment income would not be taxed (or rather double-taxed).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34741089)

but why bring up a consumption tax when we are talking about income tax? and just because 'tend' exists, a flat tax on consumption is still a flat tax.

investment income should be taxed as income. it is income. that aspect of hall rabushka is fairly considered regressive because it treats different types of income differently, by definition, to the wealthier peoples' benefits

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34741173)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34740185)

Let me be clear, I can also formulate many examples going the other way. I just don't like utility arguments like that because unless we are talking about the taking away of basic necessities (we are not) then its a stupid way to approach things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744697)

Gains in earnings for high income individual generally does not come from labor. Too often, these individuals gain income from capital, not labor.

Special interests will never let this happen, but tcr tax plan would be 0% up to $150k, ~20% up to 500k, and ~70% thereafter. This stat doesn't get pushed hard enough, but we could have 95% of this country pay jack shit and just tax the fuck out of the super rich. The idea that $60k earners should spend a week doing taxes to write an $8k check is absurd.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744403)

And just LOL at the logic that not having skin in the game, or the threat of a higher rate, stopping someone from earning more. 10 out of 10 people will choose to earn more and pay more under ANY tax code.

I'm a huge Trumpmo and the plan in my OP is tcr populist solution.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744569)

That said, I'm purposely being a contrarian faggot in this thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744597)

agency leads to pride. pride leads to ego. ego leads to not being worthless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744949)

there is no good flat tax rate to use unless you are willing to either destroy the federal govt or the poor/lower middle class people

set it too low to not affect the poor/lower middle class and you wont raise enough revenue. set it too high and you are going to make life miserable for people making < 60K or so

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744428)

the flat tax should apply to corporations, too

but your assertion is bullshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744812)

If you're arguing that middle-class guy X values tshirts more highly than poor guy Y values a house, you're making cgm's argument above, to which the government says I don't care. If rich guy Z values everything more highly than everyone else he doesn't just get everything, because that's not fair. Those are arguments against the utility monster.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744457)

what you are effectively saying is that there is more "use" for a poor dood to buy a bag of chips every week vs. a UMC dood buying a golf club. I don't see how you can actually confidently say this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744460)

But we make sure people have money for food (by taxing lower incomes less) because they need to eat, even if it's not efficient

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744526)

And I don't at all see how that would be the case. With a flat marginal rate inequality will widen and disproportionately fuck the poors. I really don't think your obsession with poors buying potato chips is going to lead to an economic revolution. You might consider looking at corporate rents, which is growing faster as a share of the economy than land, capital, labor, etc and is without question a bigger waste of money than laquisha buying a sprite

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744699)

what fucks poors, if anything, are the incentives and tricks that corporations are permitted to take advantage of to avoid paying full taxes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744838)

If the corporate rate is 35% but corps weasle it to 25%, and the flat tax is 15% with no friction, then the flat tax is still lower.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744907)

congratulations for making burden a euphemism

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744854)

"if you make 30 million and the bitch want 15, that's fine you ain't starvin. but if you make 30 thousand and the bitch want half, you just might have to kill her!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744487)

look, I can’t type stupid tripe just like you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744629)

spouts bullshit that runs counter to the entire point

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744867)

One weird trick hehe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3800962&forum_id=2#34744797)