ASTAP

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 189
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
I like ASTAP.  It is a tax plan that I think can provide the government with the money it needs to function without taxing the rich excessively.  Let me know what you guys think on it.  The link is below:


If interested, but can't access it, let me know and I can share it with you.  It's not set in stone so I can make improvements where I see fit.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
What is it?

A progressive tax?
Flat tax?
Or something else entirely? 

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Check the plan out if interested.  If you can't access, then let me know and I can share it with you.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
Check the plan out if interested.  If you can't access, then let me know and I can share it with you.
Can't access it. 
Can't you copy it here? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I tried sharing it with you, but I don't know your email.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
I tried sharing it with you, but I don't know your email.
Can't you copy it here or lay out the argument here? 

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist




The Goal




Source(s)

Making this the only form of taxing people so people are taxed on bad or neutral things, but not taxed on good things like starting a buisiness, making an income or owning a house.

Item
How much tax($)
Unit for it
US population affected
Total Revenue($)
Total Revenue(Billions of $)

Smoke Ciggaretts
5.10
20 Ciggaretts
50,000,000.00
69,854,062,500.00
69.8540625
1,2
Alchohoul
2.00
Beer equ of alchohoul
232,421,052.63
266,802,766,917.29
266.8027669
3
Gasoline(it pollutes, people will still buy it)
0.75
Gallon
256,000,000.00
107,250,000,000.00
107.25
4
Food
0.00
1.00
320,000,000.00
0.00
0.00
6
Rape
1,250,000.00
Victim
320,000,000.00
122,800,000,000.00
122.80
5
Adult American tax
17,000.00
Person
256,000,000.00
4,352,000,000,000.00
4352

STD/STI tax
200
Having an STD
65,000,000
13,000,000,000.00
13
7
Adultury
1000
Per encounter
1408000
1,408,000,000.00
1.408
10
Unintended pregenecy tax
5,000
Per pregnency
14,400,000
72,000,000,000
72
9








Totals



5005.114829


Goal: $5 trillion










Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I did not expect it to format like it did.  Sorry.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
So you have a smoking tax?
Alcohol tax
Gasoline tax
Food tax
Rape tax
Rape victim tax
Adult American tax
STD tax
Adultery tax
Pregnancy and unintended pregnancy tax.

How is this going to fix the tax system and can you tell me with every single tax you stated how it is fair and what would happen if you do get your way?

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Most of the taxes except the adult american tax is pretty small in cost, and I don't have a rape victim tax.  I do have a rape tax because rape is evil.  I have an unintended pregnancy tax to discourage people from having premarital sex.  I have an STD tax to encourage more people to get their STDs treated.  Alcohol should be discouraged with a tax.  Same with smoking.  The adultery tax is supposed to discourage non consenting adultery.  Adultery breaks families apart.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
I do have a rape tax because rape is evil. 
How about a violence tax?
Any illegal law broken tax?
I have an unintended pregnancy tax to discourage people from having premarital sex.
Birth control is better for that than a tax. 
I have an STD tax to encourage more people to get their STDs treated.
Taxation only encourages people to pay the taxes in order to not get jail time. Everything else is wishful thinking. It is like saying I want to tax the poor to encourage them to be wealthier in the future. It just doesn't work like that.
Alcohol should be discouraged with a tax
People who are addicted with that substance simply will pay more for it. Addiction is the problem with alcohol not the cheap prices and taxation is not going to stop people from buying things they are addicted to.
The adultery tax is supposed to discourage non consenting adultery.  Adultery breaks families apart.
I want to see any evidence you have that taxation encourages a condition you laid out.
Example:
This source states X
In A country a taxation on B stopped people to not do bad condition C.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I suppose there could be a violence tax, but I don't know how much revenue that would bring in.

Breaking any illegal law would vary fro law to law.  I don't think there should be a minimum punishment for breaking a law because some crimes just aren't that punishable.  An example would be stealing a penny.

Birth control is better for that than a tax. 
I'm fine with people using contraception.  I don't think the government should be paying for it.

If people are taxed for having an STD, they would want treatment more in order to avoid paying the tax.  There should be an exception for non treatable STDs, but spreading those by having sex should be more punishable.  I think people can afford treatment.

People who are addicted with that substance simply will pay more for it.
If that happens, then it's a reliable source of income.  Besides, aren't rich people more likely to be addicted to alcohol, so it's basically a tax on them for the most part.  Poor people can't afford to get drunk.

I want to see any evidence you have that taxation encourages a condition you laid out.
If you punish (insert behavior), you get less of it.

dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
What is an adult american tax and how would it work?

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
If you are an adult in the US, you get taxed $17,000 per year.  This way, even if people gradually stop doing other things, the US still gets tax revenue.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
You do realise of course that this tax would disproportionately different people depending on their income. For some, $17,000 is an entire years earnings. Essentially this tax would offload the vast majority of the tax burden onto the poor masses and completely unaffects the wealthy super minority

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
My spreadsheet shows how the poor can afford this tax system with thousands a year in excess money, after Food, Insurance, Shelter, Taxes, and Other has been paid for.  The link is below:


TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
I don't think the government should be paying for it.
If the government pays for it then they wouldn't even need to discourage against people who are not ready to have children or would be at risk of children without birth control.
If people are taxed for having an STD, they would want treatment more in order to avoid paying the tax.
What if they can't pay for it?
Are you on assumption that people just have STD's just because of some sick joke?
There should be an exception for non treatable STDs, but spreading those by having sex should be more punishable.  I think people can afford treatment.
If it wasn't clear already looking at the data 66.5 percent of bankruptcies are filed under medical issues. You thought is not really realistic.
If that happens, then it's a reliable source of income.
So you are for exploiting weaknesses in humans?
Besides, aren't rich people more likely to be addicted to alcohol, so it's basically a tax on them for the most part. 
You pretty much stated rich people are not likely to get addicted to alcohol which would mean they drink it very little so your argument for taxing rich people that buy alcohol would not generate money if you claims are correct.
Poor people can't afford to get drunk.
Alcohol is cheap therefore the poor can afford to get drunk. 
I want to see any evidence you have that taxation encourages a condition you laid out.
If you punish (insert behavior), you get less of it.
This is not evidence. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If the government pays for it then they wouldn't even need to discourage against people who are not ready to have children or would be at risk of children without birth control.
If you don't want kids, don't have sex.

What if they can't pay for it?
Then they save up to get treatment.  I imagine it's very cheap compared to $200/year.

So you are for exploiting weaknesses in humans?
To an extent, yes.  There also will be people that quit alcohol consumption due to the taxes.  It's not a big tax either.

If it wasn't clear already looking at the data 66.5 percent of bankruptcies are filed under medical issues. You thought is not really realistic.
Those are for surgeries that are very expensive.  Just getting an STD treated I imagine costs very little money.  Once STDs are eradicated, then humanity can enjoy sex more since there is less incentive to enforce abstinence.

You pretty much stated rich people are not likely to get addicted to alcohol
I imagine rich people are disproportionally more likely to be practicing alcoholics because they can afford it.  

Alcohol is cheap therefore the poor can afford to get drunk. 
The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?



Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,298
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
If you are an adult in the US, you get taxed $17,000 per year.  This way, even if people gradually stop doing other things, the US still gets tax revenue.

Why does your tax plan require me to give 107% of my income to the government? Are you a spoiled rich kid that doesn't realize 17k is a lot of money for some people or did you accidently add an extra zero?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My spreadsheet shows how someone who works a minimum wage job (I'm assuming you do) can pay the $17,000.  They just work more hours at the store they work at, and then they cut back on spending.  This way, they can save money that can be used for investments, making the poor person richer.  If you work a minimum wage job, then the sheet for how you can pay the $17,000 tax is below:


Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,298
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
My spreadsheet shows how someone who works a minimum wage job (I'm assuming you do)

You automatically assume anyone making less than 17k a year is working a minimum wage job?

That answers my question. Spoiled rich kid it is.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You automatically assume anyone making less than 17k a year is working a minimum wage job?
Yes.  This seems like a fair assumption to make.

That answers my question. Spoiled rich kid it is.
Ad hominid attack.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
Your spreadsheets are set to private. That said, your description doesn't inspire much confidence. When you're fiddling around with numbers it's easy to lose sight of the significance of those numbers. Hours to work don't just magically appear and there is no automatic switch for spending. Take the minimum living wage of Florida for example which is ~$24,000. Zap off the 12% federal income tax to give ~$21,000 and add on your tax to give ~$38,000. You need to take home ~$730 a week which is ~$104 a day. The current minimum wage in Florida is $8.46 so you would need to work on average 12 hours a day. Assuming 8 hours of sleep, this leaves 4 hours of spare time. Of course you also need to calculate time spent for meal preparation, personal hygiene and house work. This doesn't seem remotely reasonable to me



 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
If you don't want kids, don't have sex.
If you don't want to die. Don't get shot. Care to explain how gun laws are not necessary?
Then they save up to get treatment.  I imagine it's very cheap compared to $200/year.
People claim bankruptcy for a necessity like medical and you think they can save up for this?
I asked another question
Are you on assumption that people just have STD's just because of some sick joke?
So
To an extent, yes. 
What makes you so sure that the government won't take it a step further and not help people with alcohol almost make like a tax loop that assures them a consistent supply of taxes?
There also will be people that quit alcohol consumption due to the taxes.  It's not a big tax either.
Evidence that taxes will stop people from doing things? Preferably something similar to alcohol.
Those are for surgeries that are very expensive.  Just getting an STD treated I imagine costs very little money.  Once STDs are eradicated, then humanity can enjoy sex more since there is less incentive to enforce abstinence.
STD is a medical issue. If the person files for bankruptcy due to medical issues who can you say they can pay for it?
This always happen with you. It is like a brick wall in your brain. You can't more about the position you hold and simply parrot the same thing again as if you somehow rebutted my claims. I get the same thing from people like Mopac.
I imagine rich people are disproportionally more likely to be practicing alcoholics because they can afford it.  
So you are for taxing the rich?
The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?
Where are you getting these numbers from? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
Your spreadsheets are set to private.
My mistake.  I fixed it to public sharing now.  Hopefully you can access it.  If not, request access and I can share it with you.



Hours to work don't just magically appear and there is no automatic switch for spending.
There are 24 hours in a day.  A minimum wage worker can work 15 hours a day and have their expenses fulfilled with a $7.25 minimum wage.

Take the minimum living wage of Florida for example which is ~$24,000.
How did you get $24000 a year?  My link got nearly $40,000 per year with a $7.25 minimum wage(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/[email protected]&ts=5cd74641&actionButton=1#gid=320988619).

Of course you also need to calculate time spent for meal preparation, personal hygiene and house work.
Showering once a day takes about half an hour.  Meal preparation can be done quickly if they buy food that's easy to prepare, like many sandwiches.  If they can't afford I house, I suggest just buying a tent and using that as a shelter.  It works and it's cheap, which is what poor people need.  Thoughts on that?



Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to die. Don't get shot. Care to explain how gun laws are not necessary?
This is off topic, so I shouldn't respond to this.  If you want to have a gun debate on a forum, make a forum about it.  This forum is about ASTAP.

People claim bankruptcy for a necessity like medical and you think they can save up for this?
They file for bankruptcy for surgeries other then STD treatment.  I imagine to treat an STD, you just have to take some pills, although I might be wrong on this.

What makes you so sure that the government won't take it a step further and not help people with alcohol almost make like a tax loop that assures them a consistent supply of taxes?
The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.  If alcohol is treated like tobacco, less people would want to drink.  The tax loss would be gradual and can be added on to the adult tax when it happens.

STD is a medical issue. If the person files for bankruptcy due to medical issues who can you say they can pay for it?
Not all medical issues are expensive.  I don't know how expensive it is to treat an STD, but if they don't get treated, then eventually every human will have ever STD and humanity would suffer on such a basis.

So you are for taxing the rich?
Not on the basis of income, but on the basis of "sins".  If there is a sin tax that rich people are more likely to indulge in, that is tecnecally a tax on the rich, but not because they are rich.


Where are you getting these numbers from? 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
This is off topic, so I shouldn't respond to this.  If you want to have a gun debate on a forum, make a forum about it.  This forum is about ASTAP.
Not off topic. You don't understand how awful that argument is so tell me am I wrong?
If you don't want to die don't get shot.
They file for bankruptcy for surgeries other then STD treatment.  I imagine to treat an STD, you just have to take some pills, although I might be wrong on this.
Medical issues. If they can't afford necessary medical related issues how do you suppose the are supposed to be pay for less necessary or less immediate treatment? This is on the basis not STD treatment is unccessary so that you argument can actually stand by itself if I was actually being harsh then I would say it is not stretch people who claimed for medical related bankruptcy required money for necessary medical issues since STD treatment is necessary they wouldn't be able to pay for it. So basically even if I concede that STD treatment is not neccessary you don't have an argument. 
The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.
Evidence?
If alcohol is treated like tobacco, less people would want to drink.  The tax loss would be gradual and can be added on to the adult tax when it happens.
Dependant on if you have evidence.
Not all medical issues are expensive.  I don't know how expensive it is to treat an STD, but if they don't get treated, then eventually every human will have ever STD and humanity would suffer on such a basis.
Non-sequitur. They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
Not on the basis of income, but on the basis of "sins".  If there is a sin tax that rich people are more likely to indulge in, that is tecnecally a tax on the rich, but not because they are rich.
So you are for abolishing taxing income?
So you the government should be in the business of taxing people on bad actions not helping them?
Your claim:
The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?
Was supported by that link 
which is based on an anecdote. Am I correct? If so do you have actual evidence? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to die don't get shot.
If you don't want to get shot, arm yourself because the criminal will always have a weapon.

Medical issues. If they can't afford necessary medical related issues how do you suppose the are supposed to be pay for less necessary or less immediate treatment?
The people are insured.  ASTAP shows how they can get insurance paid for with a minimum wage job.

The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.
Evidence?

I don't know why you always want evidence, but the smoking rate is below:

They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
?

So you are for abolishing taxing income?
Yes.

The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?
Was supported by that link 
which is based on an anecdote. Am I correct? If so do you have actual evidence? 
It was based off of some research.  I know that it's about 10 drinks a day per person that is in the drunkest tenth of the US population.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
If you don't want to get shot, arm yourself because the criminal will always have a weapon.
If you don't want to get pregnant but still would like to enjoy sex. Preach to the government about paying for birth control rather then making people pay taxes for things that help enjoy good things without negative consequences afterwards.
The people are insured.  ASTAP shows how they can get insurance paid for with a minimum wage job.
Your tax plan is a joke. We are supposed to help bad people not tax them. You don't understand how to run a country if you value exploiting weakness above helping others.
I don't know why you always want evidence, but the smoking rate is below:

That is not evidence. Where are the citations? I can't accept this because I can easily create this graph. The sources prove the graph not the other way around.
They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
?
If they can't pay for necessary medical related issues how are they supposed to pay for STD treatment? 
So you are for abolishing taxing income?
Yes.
Tell me do you believe in trickle down economics? If so tell me how it has ever been effective with evidence.
It was based off of some research.  I know that it's about 10 drinks a day per person that is in the drunkest tenth of the US population.
It was an anecdote. Do you have actual evidence? One person personal experience is not a good way in saying most people have this are like this. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to get pregnant but still would like to enjoy sex. Preach to the government about paying for birth control rather then making people pay taxes for things that help enjoy good things without negative consequences afterwards.
Pay for your own birth control.  It's not that expensive.  You can buy 6 condoms for $5.  If you can't afford birth control, don't have sex.  It's easy.  I've been a virgin my whole life.

We are supposed to help bad people not tax them. You don't understand how to run a country if you value exploiting weakness above helping others.
ASTAP enables helping people by discouraging bad things.  They aren't big taxes either for the most part.

That is not evidence. Where are the citations?
If there were citations to the graph you would ask what are the citation's citations.  For some reason, you ask for links and when I provide links, you want links to those links.  If I gave you those, you would ask for more, etc.  Here is a citation approved by the CDC: https://public.tableau.com/profile/tina.norris#!/vizhome/FIGURE8_1/Dashboard8_1

If they can't pay for necessary medical related issues how are they supposed to pay for STD treatment?
They can get insurance.

Tell me do you believe in trickle down economics?
I don't believe that the government should subsidize any private company.  If this is trickle down economics, then no.

One person personal experience is not a good way in saying most people have this are like this. 
The person said that the top 10% of drinkers drink 74 beers a week.