The Trump Shutdown

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I vote to keep the IRS shut down indefinitely and go with a National Sales Tax instead.

Putin would love that. We would have to cut the military and there would be no money for the wall, consumer spending would plummet and the economy would tank. Anymore great ideas? 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Putin would love that. We would have to cut the military and there would be no money for the wall, consumer spending would plummet and the economy would tank. Anymore great ideas? 

 

We could still get as much money through taxes as we do now, just in a different, more fair way. The IRS is the agency that didn't collect any taxes from Trump.  You sure you want to keep them around?

 

My way, anytime Trump buys a new golden toilet, he gets taxed.

 

Edited January 8, 2019 by reddogblitz

[Tiberius]

Just now, reddogblitz said:

 

We could still get as much money through taxes as we do now, just in a different, more fair way.

No, not even close. 

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Tiberius said:

No, not even close. 

 

Why not?

 

We cross posted.  Just want to make sure you saw this:

 

The IRS is the agency that didn't collect any taxes from Trump.  You sure you want to keep them around?

 

My way, anytime Trump buys a new golden toilet, he gets taxed.

Edited January 8, 2019 by reddogblitz

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Why not?

 

We cross posted.  Just want to make sure you saw this:

 

The IRS is the agency that didn't collect any taxes from Trump.  You sure you want to keep them around?

 

My way, anytime Trump buys a new golden toilet, he gets taxed.

Consumption taxes will hurt consumer spending and will not make up for loss of revenue. The wealthy do not consume enough to make up for the other lost revenue. 

[reddogblitz]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Consumption taxes will hurt consumer spending and will not make up for loss of revenue. The wealthy do not consume enough to make up for the other lost revenue. 

 

People will have more money to spend.  Middle class andPoor people aren't going to buy anything because they don't want to pay taxes?

 

Also, on April 15, the govt sends every person a check with enough money to pay their first $20,000 (or whatever) in purchases so poor people won't be screwed.  If tax rate is 25%, then $5,000.  Takes out the whole regressive argument.

 

That way people that can get high priced accountants (like Trump) still pay taxes like everyone else. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by reddogblitz

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

People will have more money to spend.  Middle class andPoor people aren't going to buy anything because they don't want to pay taxes?

 

Also, on April 15, the govt sends every person a check with enough money to pay their first $20,000 (or whatever) in purchases so poor people won't be screwed.  If tax rate is 25%, then $5,000.  Takes out the whole regressive argument.

 

That way people that can get high priced accountants (like Trump) still pay taxes like everyone else. 

Rich people pay the majority of the federal taxes, right? But they are only a small percentage of the population. They won't buy enough to make up for the lost revenue. This will shift tax burden to middle class, and also create tax shortfalls, so you will have to borrow more or cut military. 

 

You will also also turn every cash register in the country into our tax collection system with a huge incentive to cheat, so the Feds will be investigating all that, all the time. 

 

Black market out of canada and mexico will be huge! Goods 25% cheaper?!? 

And you should start a thread about this! Lol 

[IDBillzFan]

28 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I vote to keep the IRS shut down indefinitely and go with a National Sales Tax instead.

 

Funny. The left can't go with a NST because they can't confiscate 70% of everyone's income that way.

 

They must have it all, because the left is convinced that only the government can take care you because you're too stupid to take care of yourself.

 

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

... You will also also turn every cash register in the country into our tax collection system  ...

sorry to be the bearer of bad news here but.... this is already the case.

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Rich people pay the majority of the federal taxes, right? But they are only a small percentage of the population. They won't buy enough to make up for the lost revenue. This will shift tax burden to middle class, and also create tax shortfalls, so you will have to borrow more or cut military. 

 

You will also also turn every cash register in the country into our tax collection system with a huge incentive to cheat, so the Feds will be investigating all that, all the time.  

 

Black market out of canada and mexico will be huge! Goods 25% cheaper?!? 

And you should start a thread about this! Lol 

 

No incentive to cheat on taxes now?

 

People can buy black market cigarettes and booze and weed (in my state) to avoid taxes.  How many people do that?  Everybody I know pops over 7-11 to get a 6 pack.  Finding an illegal way to do it to save a little is a hassle. Remember, they'll have MORE money to spend.

[notwoz]

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-trump-lies-gambling-speech-odds-35-bet-20190108-story.html?fbclid=IwAR3yQUE5EhJMJK0jLwYXqfCDQOqjopqLLX_PJLs226nu2NlHL4ZhRaG4GcY

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No incentive to cheat on taxes now?

 

People can buy black market cigarettes and booze and weed (in my state) to avoid taxes.  How many people do that?  Everybody I know pops over 7-11 to get a 6 pack.  Finding an illegal way to do it to save a little is a hassle. Remember, they'll have MORE money to spend.

 

In any tax system there is incentive to cheat, I do agree that a sales tax is much easier to cheat and skim than income which has a two party reporting system in most non-service industries. If you moved to a national sales tax you simply would not raise more money than the current progressive tax system. Rich people do not spend their income at nearly the same rate. Just to keep things simple and flat for sake of argument. Lets say that someone earning 1 million dollars gets taxed at a federal level 30% after deductions plus a payroll tax capped after about 140k. 

 

That person is paying 300,000 in taxes plus payroll taxes. Now under a national sales tax with a 25% rate that person could spend all of their money earned and only end up paying 250,000 in taxes. Its more likely that a person earning 7 figures would spend 50% of their earning and save/invest the other 50% thus more than likely paying 125,000 in taxes assuming that every thing they bought was taxed and reported. 

 

Unless I am missing something it just doesn't add up.

[notwoz]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

In any tax system there is incentive to cheat, I do agree that a sales tax is much easier to cheat and skim than income which has a two party reporting system in most non-service industries. If you moved to a national sales tax you simply would not raise more money than the current progressive tax system. Rich people do not spend their income at nearly the same rate. Just to keep things simple and flat for sake of argument. Lets say that someone earning 1 million dollars gets taxed at a federal level 30% after deductions plus a payroll tax capped after about 140k. 

 

That person is paying 300,000 in taxes plus payroll taxes. Now under a national sales tax with a 25% rate that person could spend all of their money earned and only end up paying 250,000 in taxes. Its more likely that a person earning 7 figures would spend 50% of their earning and save/invest the other 50% thus more than likely paying 125,000 in taxes assuming that every thing they bought was taxed and reported. 

 

Unless I am missing something it just doesn't add up.

Where did you get this example? Because none of it makes any sense. 

[reddogblitz]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If you moved to a national sales tax you simply would not raise more money than the current progressive tax system. Rich people do not spend their income at nearly the same rate.

 

Who says we need to raise MORE money?  With all the analytics and statistical analysis availAble today, it wouldn't be hard to figure out the right rate to get what the government needs.

 

Rich people may spend at a lower rate of income, but spend a heck of a lot more in real dollars.

 

The real reason politicians could not go for it is people would truly know how much they are paying on a daily basis as opposed to being just a line item on their pay statement they never look at. Lowering taxes would become a bigger priority for a lot of voters.

[billsfan89]

10 minutes ago, notwoz said:

Where did you get this example? Because none of it makes any sense. 

 

How does it not make any sense? If you switched federal income taxes to a national sales tax that doesn't eliminate state and local taxes. Federal dollars vs. Federal dollars is what you have to look at. If you make 1,000,000 in income and are taxed at a federal rate of 30% after deductions and the money that falls into a lower bracket that means you are paying about 300,000$ in taxes right? 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000 and that's not factoring in payroll taxes. If you went to a national sales tax to replace federal income taxes and the rate was 25% a person earning 1,000,000 spending all of their money on taxable reported goods would still only pay 250,000 in taxes. Where is the math faulty? The debate is what raises more money.

[billsfan89]

16 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Who says we need to raise MORE money?  With all the analytics and statistical analysis availAble today, it wouldn't be hard to figure out the right rate to get what the government needs.

 

Rich people may spend at a lower rate of income, but spend a heck of a lot more in real dollars.

 

The real reason politicians could not go for it is people would truly know how much they are paying on a daily basis as opposed to being just a line item on their pay statement they never look at. Lowering taxes would become a bigger priority for a lot of voters.

 

If lowering taxes on wealthy people dramatically in the interest of fairness meant drastically slashing military spending, programs that invest in science, getting rid of social security and medicare (no IRS means no payroll taxes,) destroying regulatory agencies, lowering education investment, lowering infrastructure spending, killing the NASA budget, and mostly eliminating programs that help the poor and working poor you would see people clamoring for a progressive tax system again. You have to be extremely wealthy or a sucker to think that people are that desperate for lower and more fair taxes on the wealthy to destroy all those things. 

 

I know this board is very conservative in general and basically adheres to a rather Ron Swanson like ideology. But if you actually looked at what your tax dollars get spent on you find that Americans get a decent deal. 61% of federal spending is on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, all very popular programs. Of the other 39% the largest item is military spending which is about 16% of the federal budget. 

 

Which means that the rest of the federal budget including servicing the debt (which is about 6% of federal spending) is only about 23% of the total federal budget. That includes very popular things like National Parks, Science and Educational programs, research grants, NASA, housing programs, food stamps, Infrastructure spending, Environmental protection, other regulatory agencies, and the post office. 

 

I get that there is wasted money and bloat in the federal government but to act like there isn't waste in other big private sector agencies would be dishonest. Any large entity has waste and fraud. Overall I think that the American people would rather keep the current progressive tax system than to completely dismantle and the services that the government provides. 

[Tiberius]

53 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No incentive to cheat on taxes now?

 

People can buy black market cigarettes and booze and weed (in my state) to avoid taxes.  How many people do that?  Everybody I know pops over 7-11 to get a 6 pack.  Finding an illegal way to do it to save a little is a hassle. Remember, they'll have MORE money to spend.

With the new e-economy, selling black market clothes and stuff would be easy, and at 25% cheaper, that's a yes. 

 

 

You brought up Trumps toilet, so would you charge all home building materials? Construction equipment for companies? Real eastate? 

[Buffalo_Gal]

17 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

How does it not make any sense? If you switched federal income taxes to a national sales tax that doesn't eliminate state and local taxes. Federal dollars vs. Federal dollars is what you have to look at. If you make 1,000,000 in income and are taxed at a federal rate of 30% after deductions and the money that falls into a lower bracket that means you are paying about 300,000$ in taxes right? 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000 and that's not factoring in payroll taxes. If you went to a national sales tax to replace federal income taxes and the rate was 25% a person earning 1,000,000 spending all of their money on taxable reported goods would still only pay 250,000 in taxes. Where is the math faulty? The debate is what raises more money.

 

How much are the deductions? If you have  $1m and have $0 in deductions, $300k is correct at a straight 30% rate (i.e. 30% on the first dollar to the last dollar). But if you have $500k in deductions you would pay the rate of tax on the remaining $500k (so $150k if it is still 30%).  The deductions are key, and so is if there is a gradual tax rate or a tax rate that is the same first dollar to last dollar.

 

As far as what raises more money? No idea.   

 

[B-Man]

SO IT LOOKS LIKE AOC IS EITHER LYING OR BEING LIED TO:

 

 

 

 

Funny, that:

 

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

How much are the deductions? If you have  $1m and have $0 in deductions, $300k is correct at a straight 30% rate (i.e. 30% on the first dollar to the last dollar). But if you have $500k in deductions you would pay the rate of tax on the remaining $500k (so $150k if it is still 30%).  The deductions are key, and so is if there is a gradual tax rate or a tax rate that is the same first dollar to last dollar.

 

As far as what raises more money? No idea.   

 

 

The current top rate is 37% on income over 500k. I rounded that down to 30% to adjust for deductions and income falling in other brackets. Even if you rounded that effective total rate (which I am doing for simplicity sake) to 25% just to overestimate deductions that person earning a million would still pay 250k in taxes. On a national sales tax of 25% you would have to hope that person earning one million spends all of their money on taxable goods in a single year to get to that amount and that's not even factoring in payroll taxes. 

 

I just see no way that a national sales tax earns more money than the current progressive tax system. 

[Foxx]

if the federal government can not operate on a 10% flat tax, then it is an ogre that needs to be trimmed.

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

With the new e-economy, selling black market clothes and stuff would be easy, and at 25% cheaper, that's a yes. 

 

 

You brought up Trumps toilet, so would you charge all home building materials? Construction equipment for companies? Real eastate? 

 

People work under the books in a income tax economy too. In any tax system you will find people skirting the system. The point should be hard numbers that rich people would get a big fat windfall of money only paying about 25% on less than 50% of what they spend (Assuming they don't try and skim on certain purchases) as opposed to being taxed on all the reported income they make. 

 

Overall it becomes a rather easy issue to illustrate that flat or fair tax is basically wanting poor people and middle class people to pay more or the same in taxes but have programs that invest in them and the nation overall (social safety net and other public programs) in order to give a huge windfall to the wealthy who already are doing insanely well. When Warren Buffett states that we coddle the rich in this country you know the problem with the economy isn't that the rich don't have enough money. 

[reddogblitz]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

With the new e-economy, selling black market clothes and stuff would be easy, and at 25% cheaper, that's a yes. 

 

 

You brought up Trumps toilet, so would you charge all home building materials? Construction equipment for companies? Real eastate? 

 

EVERYTHING.

 

All the exceptions and exemptions that rich people and big corporations and their lobbyists can buy politicians to give them is what has got our current system into the ridiculous state it is now so that regular people pay taxes while people that are really really really rich like Trump do not.

 

The black market argument is a red herring.  Nice try. 

[keepthefaith]

I'm not happy that Trump chose this point in time to draw a line in the sand over wall funding when the real problem here is not passing a fiscally responsible budget on time.  Once again our federal government is unable and unwilling to carry out its most basic responsibilities.

[reddogblitz]

Just now, billsfan89 said:

Overall it becomes a rather easy issue to illustrate that flat or fair tax is basically wanting poor people and middle class people to pay more or the same in taxes but have programs that invest in them and the nation overall (social safety net and other public programs) in order to give a huge windfall to the wealthy who already are doing insanely well.

 

How much taxes does Trump pay? Legally he pays none.  If he had to pay 25% of the cost of his golden toilets and fancy suits and ties and Malania's clothes and jewelry and the maintenance on Trump Force 1, he'd be paying a lot more.

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

EVERYTHING.

 

All the exceptions and exemptions that rich people and big corporations and their lobbyists can buy politicians to give them is what has got our current system into the ridiculous state it is now so that regular people pay taxes while people that are really really really rich like Trump do not.

 

The black market argument is a red herring.  Nice try. 

So a $300,000 house will cost $75,000 more? ok! 

 

And why why is someone mailing cheap goods from Canada far fetched? 

[Kevbeau]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

Rich people do not spend their income at nearly the same rate. 

That’s why a lot of them are rich.

[billsfan89]

Just now, reddogblitz said:

 

How much taxes does Trump pay? Legally he pays none.  If he had to pay 25% of the cost of his golden toilets and fancy suits and ties and Malania's clothes and jewelry and the maintenance on Trump Force 1, he'd be paying a lot more.

 

You have to talk in larger numbers when talking about full scale economic policy as opposed to stating that because one person or a set of people cheat taxes means another system would work better when the numbers simply don't add up. Also the solution to our tax laws are not well enforced because of corruption shouldn't be to completely eliminate the IRS and switch to a tax system that will result in less revenue. Maybe we should go after the corrupting money influence in politics and make sure that we best enforce the tax laws we have so that we have more money for things like infrastructure and science?

 

The current progressive tax system raises about 3.4 trillion in federal dollars. That's the amount you would have to hope a national sales tax would raise minus the 150 billion you give people via a yearly rebate to cover their first 20k. I don't see the numbers working. I am willing to be proven wrong if you have evidence to back it up but right now it just doesn't seem convincing that a rebate backed sales tax would fund the government at current levels. I am a numbers guy, I try my best to be objective, if you have projections and estimates that say otherwise I would hear it out. 

 

I also am genuinely asking how would a sales tax eliminate the IRS? Don't you still need to enforce people paying the sales tax?

[B-Man]

 

 

.

[notwoz]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

How does it not make any sense? If you switched federal income taxes to a national sales tax that doesn't eliminate state and local taxes. Federal dollars vs. Federal dollars is what you have to look at. If you make 1,000,000 in income and are taxed at a federal rate of 30% after deductions and the money that falls into a lower bracket that means you are paying about 300,000$ in taxes right? 30% of 1,000,000 is 300,000 and that's not factoring in payroll taxes. If you went to a national sales tax to replace federal income taxes and the rate was 25% a person earning 1,000,000 spending all of their money on taxable reported goods would still only pay 250,000 in taxes. Where is the math faulty? The debate is what raises more money.

Income tax and sales tax have nothing to do with each other. If you make $100k a year and I make $50k year and we both buy an iPhone, we pay the same tax. It has nothing to do with income or even net worth. Sales tax is a consumption tax. You buy something, you pay tax. You buy something expensive, you pay more tax. You buy something cheaper, you pay less tax. As for income tax, have you ever heard of the marginal tax rate? Anyone who makes $1 million a year and pays $300k in income tax needs to shoot his or her accountant.  
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2017/12/13/your-guide-to-tax-brackets-in-2018.aspx

 

[B-Man]

Quick reminder for the PPP dull-witted............

 

 

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

 

Interesting.  I would have thought a large majority thought there was a crisis, and would have differed only on whether or not the crisis was immigrants or Trump.

[billsfan89]

3 hours ago, notwoz said:

Income tax and sales tax have nothing to do with each other. If you make $100k a year and I make $50k year and we both buy an iPhone, we pay the same tax. It has nothing to do with income or even net worth. Sales tax is a consumption tax. You buy something, you pay tax. You buy something expensive, you pay more tax. You buy something cheaper, you pay less tax. As for income tax, have you ever heard of the marginal tax rate? Anyone who makes $1 million a year and pays $300k in income tax needs to shoot his or her accountant.  
https://www.fool.com/taxes/2017/12/13/your-guide-to-tax-brackets-in-2018.aspx

 

 

I understand how sales tax works, its not a hard concept. I am arguing that there is no way in hell a national sales tax would raise anything near what our current progressive tax system currently raises. If someone makes a million dollars a year, under the current system even if you want to be generous with deductions they probably still pay 200-250k in taxes not including payroll taxes. Under a national sales tax that person making 1,000,000 a year would have to spend all 1,000,000 on taxable reported goods to contribute 250k in taxes. They would have to spend 800k on taxable reported goods to pay 200k in taxes. Almost any high earner gets a really good tax break via a national sales tax. 

 

Are you arguing that a national sales tax would rake in enough money to replace the current income tax, capital gains taxes, payroll taxes, and smaller assorted taxes that currently take in 3.4 trillion dollars? My argument is it wouldn't. Now your argument could be that you would rather just do the sales tax and make due with the money it produces but that would then require deep deep cuts to all aspects of government. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by billsfan89

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[reddogblitz]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So a $300,000 house will cost $75,000 more? ok! 

 

And why why is someone mailing cheap goods from Canada far fetched? 

 

I'll tell you what.  I'll answer your question with more than a one sentence gotcha if you'll do the same.  To show my sense of fair play, I'll go first.

 

A couple of points.

 

Yes, the house costs more.  But you also have more money.  If I make $100,000 and am income taxed at 20%, then I have $80,000 per year for a house.  If I get my full $100,000, I have $20,000 extra for my house.  4 years at $80,000 is over $300,000.  4 years at $100,000  is over $375,000.  A wash.

 

Now as to the black market.  Yes,  there would be more black  market activity. But if you think about it a minute, where are all these black market goods going to come from?  Some from theft no doubt but theft is still against the law.  Some from Canada I guess.  According to this however, prices are HIGHER in Canada.  http://www.mytravelcost.com/Canada/compare-price-countries/

 

How is that gonna work?  Let's take clothes for example.  19% cheaper in USA.  So if we add 25% to USA price it's 6% different.  After shipping and profit for the black marketer, you'd probably pay more.

 

Also 80% of consumer goods are bought from 20% of the retailers (Walmart etc.).  And with the proliferation and convenience of ordering online, do you really think a lot of people would go through the trouble to find a black marketer to pay cash for something when they can just push a button and have it arrive at their door even if costs a little more?  Would be really easy to collect those taxes.

 

Are you really going to the black market to buy toilet paper and tooth paste too?  What about new tires for your car?  Have someone ship them to you from Canada and then haul them down to someone to put on the rims and on the car?

 

Yes it's a concern, but with all of the tax avoidance and evasion legal and otherwise going on now, seems it would be a wash at worst.  Neither of us knows for sure.   It would also bring the black marketers and criminals into the tax system. presently they pay ZERO taxes (like Trump).  When they need to buy baby formula and dog food and clothes etc they will be paying some tax.  Illegal aliens will pay taxes too.

 

Now, my question for you.  Do you think our system is fair when people who are really really rich can legally avoid and in some cases like Trump, pay ZERO taxes?   If not, what should we do about it?

 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by reddogblitz

[Doc Brown]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

.

So, the people that see it as a crisis just happens to coincide around Trump's approval rating.  Who would've guessed that?

Edited January 9, 2019 by Doc Brown

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

 

11 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Interesting.  I would have thought a large majority thought there was a crisis, and would have differed only on whether or not the crisis was immigrants or Trump.

 

It's the only way I see anyone who isn't Republican would see a "crisis". Of course immigration needs fixing, but come on...a continual drop in crossings since 2006? Well over a decade? 

 

Zero terrorists crossing the Southern border, our of 4000 caught a year?

 

Drugs coming...through legal checkpoints, rather than where the wall would protect? (according to the DEA)

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/08/683205814/fact-check-trumps-oval-office-pitch-for-a-border-wall

 

Locking kids up in cages, on the other hand...

 

[Tiberius]

6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I'll tell you what.  I'll answer your question with more than a one sentence gotcha if you'll do the same.  To show my sense of fair play, I'll go first.

 

A couple of points.

 

Yes, the house costs more.  But you also have more money.  If I make $100,000 and am income taxed at 20%, then I have $80,000 per year for a house.  If I get my full $100,000, I have $20,000 extra for my house.  4 years at $80,000 is over $300,000.  4 years at $100,000  is over $375,000.  A wash.

 

Now as to the black market.  Yes,  there would be more black  market activity. But if you think about it a minute, where are all these black market goods going to come from?  Some from theft no doubt but theft is still against the law.  Some from Canada I guess.  According to this however, prices are HIGHER in Canada.  http://www.mytravelcost.com/Canada/compare-price-countries/

 

How is that gonna work?  Let's take clothes for example.  19% cheaper in USA.  So if we add 25% to USA price it's 6% different.  After shipping and profit for the black marketer, you'd probably pay more.

 

Also 80% of consumer goods are bought from 20% of the retailers (Walmart etc.).  And with the proliferation and convenience of ordering online, do you really think a lot of people would go through the trouble to find a black marketer to pay cash for something when they can just push a button and have it arrive at their door even if costs a little more?  Would be really easy to collect those taxes.

 

Are you really going to the black market to buy toilet paper and tooth paste too?  What about new tires for your car?  Have someone ship them to you from Canada and then haul them down to someone to put on the rims and on the car?

 

Yes it's a concern, but with all of the tax avoidance and evasion legal and otherwise going on now, seems it would be a wash at worst.  Neither of us knows for sure.   It would also bring the black marketers and criminals into the tax system. presently they pay ZERO taxes (like Trump).  When they need to buy baby formula and dog food and clothes etc they will be paying some tax.  Illegal aliens will pay taxes too.

 

Now, my question for you.  Do you think our system is fair when people who are really really rich can legally avoid and in some cases like Trump, pay ZERO taxes?   If not, what should we do about it?

 

 

Oh for sure I would support tougher enforcement of the current tax laws. Republicans have been cutting the IRA and attacking it so that it can't do it's proper function. But it seems like you are saying that would be unfair, as the system you say is unfair, so better enforcement would be even more unfair. Right? 

 

My biggest problem is the numbers. Can you explain why you think we will get the same revenue from a sales tax as you do from the current system? Why should I believe this won't increase taxes on middle classes and be a big cut for the wealthy? That is the fundamental question right there. Why you say you want a fairer system, what does that mean? Fairer for who? 

 

And the black market thing wouldn't apply to everything, but with apps, online shopping etc., it would be easier to skirt the law and buy cheap mailed goods. As would corruption at the cash register. My point that businesses my be negatively affected also applies and would want to know more about it. Would a small business have to pay more than now? 

[BeginnersMind]

Wouldn’t it have been interesting to see Trump and the Ds specifically lay out their cases for where and how some parts of the border would benefit from a physical barrier and why. How other parts have natural barriers. How others can be monitored and protected in other ways. What the competing ideas are for detainees. How eminent domain would play a part. How long this would take to complete. Steel vs concrete practicality. Then discuss their differences. 

 

And all of this not as a friggin’ manufactured crisis. 

 

 

Instead both sides are children. Wall vs No Wall like it needs to be a binary thing. 

 

We shouldn’t be buying one side over the other in this debate. We should put a pox on both their houses and demand better. Get to the compromise and move on to more important work. 

 

Edited January 9, 2019 by BeginnersMind

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

5 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

Wouldn’t it have been interesting to see Trump and the Rs specifically lay out their cases for where and how some parts of the border would benefit from a physical barrier and why. How other parts have natural barriers. How others can be monitored and protected in other ways. What the competing ideas are for detainees. How eminent domain would play a part. How long this would take to complete. Steel vs concrete practicality. Then discuss their differences. 

 

And all of this not as a friggin’ manufactured crisis. 

 

Instead both sides are children. Wall vs No Wall like it needs to be a binary thing. 

 

We shouldn’t be buying one side over the other in this debate. We should put a pox on both their houses and demand better. Get to the compromise and move on to more important work. 

 

You know, I actually agree with you. 

 

To be honest, I think the idea of a contiguous wall is infeasible and stupid. If the compromise is strategically placed barriers, increased enforcement, but you actually make some progress on paths to citizenship and/or legal residency (with proper monitoring and vetting) I could stomach it.

 

There are legitimate chips on the table for real immigration reform and border protection. We shouldn't be putting the entire government on hold to have them be the stakes in a fake crisis.