Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

[TheTexan]

if that was in your hands, where would it be spent and why wouldn't the prices of it go up due to more money from you and other consumers?

Look at it this way.

Of income taxes:
24.9% gets literally blown up
23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
24.2% towards fuck if I know

That's a shit load of waste. If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot. If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.

 

[Nickels]

Because that's not the way it works, and it's never been the way it worked. People who make that kind of money don't get that 30k back.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.

Not to mention that the 30k can be used in investments and earn returns in the time period that it's tied up by the bureaucracy.

You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)

I'm really not sure what you're arguing here, except that you're defending the existence of the IRS and like paperwork and paying people to do bullshit "work."

Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.

 

[Kluge]

Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.



You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)



Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.

But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.

I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.

 

[Nickels]

Look at it this way.

Of income taxes:
24.9% gets literally blown up
23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
24.2% towards fuck if I know

That's a shit load of waste. If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot. If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.

No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN. (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it.

Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?

You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.

 

[Nickels]

But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.

I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.

No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, I just said their costs are not your concern.

 

[Kluge]

No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, I just said their costs are not your concern.

lol!

Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern.

Seriously?

 

[Nickels]

lol!

Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern.

Seriously?

there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.

 

[TheTexan]

No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN. (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it.

Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?

You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.

lol -rep for being intentionally stupid

 

[Nickels]

lol -rep for being intentionally stupid

What do you mean?

You're the one who said more apples means more wealth, and I'm not allowed to correct you?

 

[Kluge]

there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.

Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.

 

[Nickels]

Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.

How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

 

[Kluge]

How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.

Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"

 

[Nickels]

You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.

Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"

Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't.

I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today?

I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.

 

[Kluge]

Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't.

I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today?

I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.

WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.

I never said anything about supply and demand, you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."

 

[Nickels]

WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.

I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine.

I never said anything about supply and demand,

Your lack of it speaks more.

you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."

No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.

 

[Kluge]

I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine.



Your lack of it speaks more.



No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.

Quit being an asshole and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.

And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.

You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Look at it this way.

Of income taxes:
24.9% gets literally blown up
23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
24.2% towards fuck if I know

It's my understanding that it's more like 20% that goes toward servicing the interest on the national debt. From the GPO (.PDF file):

According to Obama (from that same report, emphasis mine):

That is why, working with the Congress, we will establish a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with identifying additional policies to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path—balancing the Budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015.

Why do you suppose that President Obama explicitly excluded interest on the debt as a budget consideration? Is it because "deficits don't matter", or could it be that it's just too staggering to even think about?

From that same report? Historical and projected interest (billions):

2009 187
2010 188
2011 251
2012 343
2013 436
2014 510
2015 571
2016 627
2017 681
2018 733
2019 786
2020 840

See that? A doubling rate for interest in just around four years, and more than a quadrupling of the interest projected in just a decade, as it goes from $188 Billion in 2010 to $840 Billion in 2020. That's the interest due in 2010 TIMES 4.64 in 2020. It's no wonder they don't project anything beyond that, because it hits a TRILLION (in interest only) shortly thereafter. In total, more than 5 Trillion will be paid out over the next decade.

Here's a piece CNN did on this recently, with projections going to 2022, just ten short years from now.

May you live in other than exponential times, and not surrounded by exponential growth-believing lunatics.

 

[Nickels]

Quit being an asshole and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.

Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.

And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.

No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Let's try this one, let's say starting tomorrow, each and every American decided that they'll work 1 extra hour per week. Does that make each American 1 hour of wage wealthier? NO. Not other than on paying saying so. It'll lead to each hour of work worth LESS because of supply and demand. What if each and every American decided to STOP buying TVs and cars? Does that mean the $30,000 they were going to spend makes them now $30,000 richer? NO. It means whereever else they spend their money, will now cost them more.

You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.

I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.

 

[Kluge]

Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.



No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.



I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.

I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:

It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans. Then you said the costs are none of my concern. THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS.

After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.

Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum.

But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.

 

[Nickels]

I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:

It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans.

It is, in proportion to how much you pay goes to them.

Then you said the costs are none of my concern.

Which is basically the same thing

THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS.

I said that'd be one way without taxing you, and since you know inflation is a cost, then you should know having more money isn't wealth.

After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.

I was answering you because you insisted on knowing how the IRS can be paid.

Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum.

And letting people keep money that was originally taken from them...is backed by what? Labor?

But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.