-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If by peasants, you mean average middle class Americans, then coffee helps them out so most will drink it. It is taxable.
ASTAP
Posts
Total:
189
-->
@Alec
If by peasants you mean average middle class Americans...
I decided to start supporting your tax plan actually. Referring to all households that make less than six figures as peasants is just my way of getting myself into character so that you and I can be on the same wavelength.
What do we do if the peasants start a boycott of coffee? I am picturing a BCP (Boston Coffee Party) scenario. This is a serious concern to me.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What do we do if the peasants start a boycott of coffee? I am picturing a BCP (Boston Coffee Party) scenario. This is a serious concern to me.
If they don't want to drink coffee, that's fine. Coffee isn't central to my tax plan, so if coffee gets boycoted by everyone, then we'll have to slightly raise taxes on other things.
Referring to all households that make less than six figures as peasants is just my way of getting myself into character so that you and I can be on the same wavelength.
I don't do this. I think the US should get rid of the income tax so this is how I propose doing it.
-->
@Alec
I don't do this. I think the US should get rid of the income tax.
I know, all the rich kids should be able to get their pony and helicopter ride. You can't achieve that if you allow the peasants to not drink coffee though...
You should look at your new plan and show on the spreadsheet how it affects poor people by trying to bidget for them like you did before. Right now you are showing how an upper-middle to upper class budget ($35 per hour is definately upper-middle class at least, higher if multiple people in that household have that high of an income) would work. I am sure that will turn out great if you showed what a non-richie budget would look like.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Hard to believe that your a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a keep what you earn policy and this tax bill maximizes the American's ability to keep what they earn. How else do I effectively get rid of the income tax?
I know, all the rich kids should be able to get their pony and helicopter ride.
I don't get nor want either of these things.
You can't achieve that if you allow the peasants to not drink coffee though...
They can drink it, it just gets taxed.
You should look at your new plan and show on the spreadsheet how it affects poor people by trying to bidget for them like you did before.
I did.
Right now you are showing how an upper-middle to upper class budget ($35 per hour is definately upper-middle class at least, higher if multiple people in that household have that high of an income) would work
It's average for Americans(https://www.google.com/search?safe=strict&source=hp&ei=bQ31XImcBtK8ggeK3qO4Aw&q=US+GDP+per+capita&btnK=Google+Search). Our GDP per capita is around $60,000 per person per year.
-->
@Alec
Hard to believe that your a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a keep what you earn policy and this tax bill maximizes the American's ability to keep what they earn. How else do I effectively get rid of the income tax?
I'm not a libertarian anymore. Remember back in post 92 where I said I was going to change and support your ideas? That means I'm a Stalinist now. We can be friends.
They can drink coffee, it just gets taxed.
We need them to drink the coffee but I asked what you would do if they don't drink it. You still haven't answered that question to my satisfaction.
Alec I feel like you are not taking this Boston Coffee Party possibility seriously. I am not saying it will for sure happen. It is just a possibility.
It is less likely to happen if we start preparing now... such as putting in a section where we show what the peasants budget would look like... Kind of like you did with previous versions... and claim to have done with this one... But you aren't... Because you only have a budget for a person making $35 an hour... $35 an hour is peasant-level to people with rich mommies and daddies but to most that is a pretty good income.
We need to show the disgusting peasants that there is hope in our new system. Show them what a peasant budget would look like after our successful revolution where we increase the sales tax by 100% - 300% and add additional taxes to anything that makes them happy.
After all... If someone of your financial genius cannot create such a budget then how can anyone?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That means I'm a Stalinist now. We can be friends.
I'm not a Stalinist. He believed in communism. I support ultra-capitalism and this is designed for the rich 1/3 of the population to be able to keep their hard earned money. It also encourages the poor 2/3 of the population to emulate the rich.
We need them to drink the coffee but I asked what you would do if they don't drink it. You still haven't answered that question to my satisfaction.
Assuming every low income person boycotts coffee, we just tax other things.
Because you only have a budget for a person making $35 an hour... $35 an hour is peasant-level to people with rich mommies and daddies but to most that is a pretty good income.
I modified the salary to be close to the US average; $60,000 per year.
Show them what a peasant budget would look like after our successful revolution where we increase the sales tax by 100% - 300% and add additional taxes to anything that makes them happy.
The sales tax is around 8 cents per dollar; that's not very much yet it provides huge amounts of revenue for the government.
-->
@Alec
Hard to believe that your a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a keep what you earn policy and this tax bill maximizes the American's ability to keep what they earn. How else do I effectively get rid of the income tax?
Tax corporate profit
Assuming every low income person boycotts coffee, we just tax other things.
The sales tax is around 8 cents per dollar; that's not very much yet it provides huge amounts of revenue for the government.
As it stands people pay between 0% and 12% in sales taxes depending on what state/city they live. Your current plan is to implement an 8.25% federal sales tax, there is currently no federal sales tax. That means people that currently pay a 6% sales tax will have to start paying about 14% in sales tax, people that currently pay 10% will have to start paying about 18%, etc... unless you also plan on forcing every individual state and local government to repeal their sales tax laws.
I modified the salary to be close to the US average; $60,000 per year.
I am not talking about the average American, I am talking about the dirty unwashed peasants. Over 50% of Americans make less than $60k per year.
We need to show the disgusting peasants that there is hope in our new system. Show them what a peasant budget would look like after our successful revolution where we increase the sales tax by 100% - 300% and add additional taxes to anything that makes them happy.
After all... If someone of your financial genius cannot create such a budget then how can anyone?
-->
@Snoopy
Tax corporate profit
That's basically an income tax. Also 100th post.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
As it stands people pay between 0% and 12% in sales taxes depending on what state/city they live. Your current plan is to implement an 8.25% federal sales tax, there is currently no federal sales tax. That means people that currently pay a 6% sales tax will have to start paying about 14% in sales tax, people that currently pay 10% will have to start paying about 18%, etc... unless you also plan on forcing every individual state and local government to repeal their sales tax laws.
An 18% sales tax isn't a whole lot of money, especially since even the poor can afford it as the link below confirms.
We need to show the disgusting peasants that there is hope in our new system.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619 shows how minimum wage workers can pay for the tax system on their end. If they work 5 days a week with a 3 week vacation, and a bunch of other conditions as the sheet shows, they can get about $15 a day once all other expenses are paid.
If they work 5 days a week with a 3 week vacation, and a bunch of other conditions as the sheet shows, they can get about $15 a day once all other expenses are paid.
We must be looking at different spreadsheets, son. The one I see says working 12 hours a day 340 days a year.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
343 days a year is 5 days a week.
-->
@Alec
Alec... how many weeks are in a year?
-->
@Alec
Median individual income is 31k. This means 50% of individuals are below that value.
Repeoductice Maintence makes no sense at all.
If tax burden is significantly higher for those earning less than 31k, you will destroy the US economy.
Again - disproportionate targeting of the poor and policie that enshrine wealth inequality will set the US up for a worker revolution.
You don’t appear to be able to count. And still have no grasp on reality - I suspect because you do not work.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Alec... how many weeks are in a year?
52 weeks in a year but the poor people would work about 49 of these weeks, like everyone else on average.
-->
@Ramshutu
Repeoductice Maintence makes no sense at all.
Designed to only allow rich, competent people to reproduce so eventually, we get rid of the incompetent and replace them with the compitent. In the meantime, since poor people benefit more from children grants, this causes American society to become dumber and poorer since less rich people are reproducing and more poor people are.
If tax burden is significantly higher for those earning less than 31k, you will destroy the US economy.
They get more revenue under my plan then before.
Again - disproportionate targeting of the poor and policie that enshrine wealth inequality will set the US up for a worker revolution.
The tax policy does not target the poor more then the rich. Often, it does the opposite. There is just no income tax involved.
I suspect because you do not work.
I have a history with summer jobs, so I have worked previously.
-->
@Alec
52 weeks in a year
Alec... what is 52 times 5?
-->
@Alec
Designed to only allow rich, competent people to reproduce so eventually, we get rid of the incompetent and replace them with the compitent. In the meantime, since poor people benefit more from children grants, this causes American society to become dumber and poorer since less rich people are reproducing and more poor people are.
Yay for Eugenics!
But you don’t mean “rich competent people”.
You mean “some lucky poor people and those who are born to already generally successful families”. Like before, its just wishful thinking based on ridiculously faulty assumptions, and based on a romantic and wholly false concept of upward mobility.
Uoure stupid, naive plan doesn’t consider how people create their own success, mires the lower and middle classes in a taxation burden; and doesn’t bother to explain or assess how any of the practical issues of mobility will be addressed considering that you are now inherently raising a concrete and impassable barrier to the poor.
Naively assertion “people can give up their children”, or “people will work to pay this tax”, or “people can still become rich”, is grotesquely ignorant and based on your own lack of any apparent qualified knowledge of the real world.
What you also ignore, is this will destroy the country socially - for the reasons listed on the previous page - and you ignored
They get more revenue under my plan then before.
You are proposing frost the tax burden on the poor will be massively reduced by many orders of magnitude; yet the amount of federal income will be roughly the same. You also argue that concurrently welfare programs will be removes
if you have the ability to count - you realize that it is not possible to do that without raising taxes on the poor substantially.
Again - disproportionate targeting of the poor and policie that enshrine wealth inequality will set the US up for a worker revolution.The tax policy does not target the poor more then the rich. Often, it does the opposite. There is just no income tax involved.
Under your naive plan, the poor will pay a far high percentage of their salary to the government then the poor. As there must necessarily be a higher burden on the poor than the rich: the rich will get substantially and massively richer while the poor will languish.
This rapid growth in income inequality and additional hardship will, given historical present of the French, Russian, and all communisy revolutions, foster an environment of open revolt.
I have a history with summer jobs, so I have worked previously.
Troll troll troll troll troll. Lol
You cannot possible be wretchedly dumb enough to surmise that working over a summer is sufficient experience of major long term employment, the
stress and pressures of managing your own budget and maintaining yourself.
The same way you cannot be pathetically dumb enough to believe your experience of spending 2 days in a tent is sufficient experience to determine that it could be used as a permanent place of residence.
The same way that you suggesting that families simply give up their children for adoption cannot be the product of an honestly believed rational thought.
I’m calling you out, this is a deliberate act to troll. No one is this consistently stupid, and consistently provocative: this nativity is an act.
Kudos to you though, this is probably the most epic example of Uber trolling I have seen. Well done, sir.
-->
@Ramshutu
yet the amount of federal income will be roughly the same.
Also wants to spend $3 trillion a year giving everyone $1k per month... just saying...
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nothing says “I’m a legit Fiscal conservative”. Better than implementing a universal basic income, doubling the federal budget, reducing Military spending by 15% and increasing the federal debt by 500%.
-->
@Ramshutu
Naively assertion “people can give up their children”, or “people will work to pay this tax”, or “people can still become rich”, is grotesquely ignorant and based on your own lack of any apparent qualified knowledge of the real world.
What's wrong with sending their kids to a better life in the long term? People would adopt the kids with frequent advertising.
yet the amount of federal income will be roughly the same. You also argue that concurrently welfare programs will be removes
Under ASTAP, the federal revenue would skyrocket and the burden of taxes gets drastically reduced to sales taxes and some others.
the poor will pay a far high percentage of their salary to the government then the poor.
How?
As there must necessarily be a higher burden on the poor than the rich: the rich will get substantially and massively richer while the poor will languish.
The rich pay more then the poor through means other then the income tax.
that working over a summer is sufficient experience of major long term employment, the stress and pressures of managing your own budget and maintaining yourself.
Most people work partly over the summer. The poor aren't above everyone else.
The same way you cannot be pathetically dumb enough to believe your experience of spending 2 days in a tent is sufficient experience to determine that it could be used as a permanent place of residence.
This part has been edited out although I don't see what's wrong with it.
The same way that you suggesting that families simply give up their children for adoption cannot be the product of an honestly believed rational thought.
The parent ought to want what's best for their kid and if that means adoption then so be it.
The rest is poor conduct.
-->
@Alec
You’re trolling we get it. You literally cannot be serious - no one is this cretinously dumb.
Why bother with the expense of making people live in tents; how about government issued hammocks, people can wash their clothes in drink fountains?
Forget about food costs, people can live of nuts and squirrels that they can trap with nets crafted from their own hair. I saw something similar once on McGuyver, and ate a packet of dry roasted peanuts - so it’s possible.
If people can’t afford children, they will be happy to let their children off suffering from this mortal coil, and deposit them in a soylent green composting facility where their kids can be processed into cheap food for the rest of the poor plebiscite.
There should be a complaint tax where people are charged twenty billion dollars every time they complain, they can pay by becoming venture capitalists, and selling their blood. I lent a friend $15 and got $20 back, so it’s easy for people.
How about we make poor people earn money by making them work as human furniture for billionaires...
Please...
You're not being serious, stop wasting everyone’s time.
-->
@Alec
Now I know you definately saw post 108 since you have posted since then.
So... Alec... what is 52 times 5?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
what is 52 times 5?
260.
-->
@Ramshutu
You're not being serious, stop wasting everyone’s time.
I can talk to people who don't accuse me of being a troll, like blamonkey. He's been waiting a long time for a response and I owe him one.
-->
@Alec
You're not really responding to anything being said.
Legitimate issues with your plan are raised, it’s implementation and its consequences; and you’re simply dismissing them as irrelevant.
For example: Living in a tent requires external sanitation for peeing, pooping and cleaning yourself, places for cleaning and washing clothes. Equipment and hardware for cooking food, electricity for light. They are difficult to secure, and thus are easy to rob or invade. Anywhere where there is a large collection of people living in temporary accommodating like tents, there are invariably major health issues, issues with crime, robbery, rape - for these reasons. Given your plan, it’s not one or two individuals but millions of people. This would require the equivalent of refugee camps to facilitate such things. Given that you also noted that individuals would give up their cars necessitating walking to their place of employment.
Your plan necessitated thousands of people holding a 12 hour a day job in these circumstances, to be able to go to work clean, with clean clothes; to take in adequate nutrition, whilst they all work at a stop and shop less than 1 hours walk away.
You didn’t address any of those issues. Your response was to assert that none of this was a problem because a) you lived in a tent for 2 days, b) you worked a summer job, and that people can and will eat a well balanced diet complete with a full spectrum of nutrients required to maintain their health by “eating sandwiches”.
There are major practical flaws in your plan, which you neither acknowledge or address: and this inability to defend your position appropriately is reflected in all of your responses to every point raised so far.
To answer the questions like this, you need to detail why its not an issue: why would people not live in large tent cities? Why would sanitation not be an issue? how will people find work close enough to walk? How many jobs would be required? Is it practical? How would it be practically possible for all these individuals to bathe, clean their clothes, get their kids to school: etc?
Your non-answers fo these questions are just that. Non answers. Naive repetion of your vehement belief that it will all be okay, does very little in the face of the major and crippling issues that have been raised throughout, and in detail.
This is why I’m now certain that you’re a troll.
When confronted with a major list of practical issues and crippling deficiencies of your plan, and the long list - that your sole response is to not address any of them directly, but simply dismiss them with ridiculously fatuous explanations such as “you can live in a tent” or “you can wash in someone else’s house” can only be explained by one of two things.
1.) You are so profoundly stupid that you do not realize how inadequate the assertion that people can “just live in tents” is at addressing the key practical issues raised, and you are profoundly ignorant at how inapplicable the experience of camping for a whole of two days is to the practical experience in the operation and administration of large scale temporary housing projects.
2.) You’re not profoundly ignorant, and you’re just making increasingly facetious and ridiculous explanations of practical concerns to see how Absurd you can make your explanations before people realize you’re being absurd on purpose.
This is repeated on almost every issue and every points raised.
I am logically faced with the choice of believing you’re one of the most stupid person I have ever met: given the level of ignorance in your responses, or you’re the most epic and excellent troll I have ever encountered. The latter is much less insulting, so I’m taking that.
-->
@Alec
260
Alec... if 52 times 5 is 260 and there are 52 weeks in a year then how can working 5 days a week mean working 340 days a year?
-->
@Ramshutu
No need to convince him that he is a troll, he already knows he is. Just troll him back like me.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Post #113
I think we should work on the totally not a troll tax plan (TNATTP)
I can ran a half marathon last weekend. Ergo, we can encourage workers to give up their cars and run 13 miles to work every day. Obviously, as training improves pace, running every day will mean the ability to run this distance at 1hr 10 minutes. I base this off I once ran 100 in 20 seconds, which multiplied by 10x21.1 would be 70 minutes.