# Fair Tax?



## JPR (Aug 31, 2004)

I came across this website www.fairtax.org .  Read the research area.  Do you think this would work?

JPR


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 31, 2004)

I don't understand this, from the website:




> *The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home. Most importantly, U.S. exports are not burdened by the FairTax, as they are with the current income tax. So the FairTax allows U.S. exports to sell overseas for prices 22 percent lower, on average, than they do now, with similar profit margins.
> 
> *


*Ok, so

-US export companies now would no longer need to build in the cost of their taxation in order to attain a specific profit margin...but do they not need to build in the increased cost of goods, materials, and supplies used due to sales tax increases? 
-Given that the end result should be that the Government generates an equal amount of revenue under each tax regime, *and this plan touts lowered income tax burdens for business, where does the offsetting revenue come from? If a business previously spent "X" on income taxes, they must now spend "X" on sales taxes under the new regime, otherwise the burden is being shifted to the consumers. So either the burden is shifted to consumers, or business spends the same amount on tax either way. If business spends the same either way, what's the point of changing the way taxes are paid?


----------



## TonyM. (Aug 31, 2004)

No. I absolutely do not think that tax plan would be fair or a good idea.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 3, 2004)

Places 100% of the burden of taxation on citizens.

Corporations have many of the same rights as citizens, but are exempt from taxation under this plan.

All rights and privleges but no taxes ... gee, I wonder who wrote this bill? Do you think it might be Corporations? Naaa .. that would be cynical.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

See, I think this is the only truly fair way to tax.  Although, in some ways, it makes sense to tax the rich more, it really isn't fair by definition, because fair is synonymous with equal.  

If you tax goods and services, then the rich will pay more taxes because they will pay for more goods and services.  Also, if you have a consumption tax like this, then the rich will have no loopholes which will allow them not to pay as much as they probably should.  Also, if all taxes come from consumption of goods and services, then the corporations will not have to pay to hire accountants and tax lawyers to figure out their finances.  They will pay their taxes when they buy their goods for production, as I see it.  

Government spending would drop, too because there would be no need for the IRS, really.  
Come to think of it, taxing business is unfair.  It's double taxatin, which the Constitution is strongly against.  Think about it...corporations are run by citizens.  Citizens pay taxes on their income, but the profits from business go to citizens in paychecks or shareholders dividends or whatever.  If you tax a business, then again tax the take-home pay from the business then goes to the citizens, you are taxing the same money twice.  

A consumption tax would do away with all of the loopholes an complications of our current tax system in a fair and consistent way.  I know that some political extremists maintain an "eat the rich" mentality, and I wish I were rich enough to be affected by it, but this is a truly fair and efficient way of taxing.


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 4, 2004)

How about we just drop taxes all together?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

Hehe, that's a better idea.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

When discussing this thread ... try changing the word 'TAX' to 'SERVICE'.

You know, if we weren't spending more than a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on the military, we might be able to cut some taxes a bit .... how about that ?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

Well, michaeledward, the only thing worse than being the police of the world is having a world with no police.  We have the capability to make the world a better place and therefore we have some responsibilty to do so.  

Whatever we are currently spending on military is worth it because we are keeping the bad guys there and not here.  Besides, the $300 tax cut Bush gave everyone was a good start and by doing that, he improved the economy.  That 300 went back into people's pockets, increasing demand for products, thus increasing jobs.  Besides that, let's look at what Kerry wants to do.  Cut military spending AND reverse the Bush tax cuts.  Think of how much money we'd spend on reconstruction and how much we'd lose in consumer confidence, not to mention foreigh countries' US investments if the terrorists spent more time in the US and less time in the Middle East because we cut military spending.

I'm actually quite moderate...I'd vote for Lieberman over most Republicans.  But in this election, the military and the economy are too important to vote for Kerry.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Well, michaeledward, the only thing worse than being the police of the world is having a world with no police. We have the capability to make the world a better place and therefore we have some responsibilty to do so.


I think that most conservatives would have a serious dispute with you about whether the United States has a *responsibility* to make the world a better place. 

I think we have a moral obligation to not make the world a worse place, but even I, don't think we have a responsibility.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Whatever we are currently spending on military is worth it because we are keeping the bad guys there and not here.


There is absolutely no evidence that this statement is true. Certainly, we know that there are 'bad guys' over there, fighting to protect their homeland, but we really don't know if this is keeping any bad guys out of our country or not. We can assume that because there have been no attacks since 9/11 that what we are doing is working ... but that is almost like assuming that Saddam Hussein has 'massive stockpiles' of chemical and biological weapons, and therefore starting a war with Iraq to 'disarm' the country. The truth has turned out to be that we really didn't know. And now we have 979 dead US Service men. (Not to mention 16,000 dead Iraqi's, (how many of these were *innocent bystanders?*)




			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Besides, the $300 tax cut Bush gave everyone was a good start and by doing that, he improved the economy. That 300 went back into people's pockets, increasing demand for products, thus increasing jobs.


I am assuming you are referring to the 400 dollar per child tax credit the President & Congress distrubuted. First, it did not go to everyone, it went to those with children. Second, there is very little evidence that this had any impact in the economy at all. I know the check I received ($800.00)is sitting in a savings account.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Besides that, let's look at what Kerry wants to do. Cut military spending AND reverse the Bush tax cuts. Think of how much money we'd spend on reconstruction and how much we'd lose in consumer confidence, not to mention foreigh countries' US investments if the terrorists spent more time in the US and less time in the Middle East because we cut military spending.


Wow .. here you are just travelling in Fantasy land.

John Kerry has proposed *expanding* the U.S. Military Active Duty Forces by *40,000.*
John Kerry has proposed doubling the U.S. Military Special Forces Capability.
John Kerry has proposed increasing the tax cuts to 'middle Americans', those making less than $200,000.00 per year.
John Kerry has proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those Americans who have an income greater than $200,000.00 per year (does this affect *you?*)
In case you have't noticed, consumer confidence is already suffering quite a bit. 
But again, you are assuming that terrorist are unable to make any attacks in this country. I propose this is a falacy. Since September 11, 2001, the numbers of deaths by terrorism is rising. Bali, Russia. There are too many uncertainties.




			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> I'm actually quite moderate...I'd vote for Lieberman over most Republicans. But in this election, the military and the economy are too important to vote for Kerry.


You apparently haven't read any of Kerry's proposals ... which kind of doesn't surprise me .... but perhaps you should.

Mike


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

*sigh*  Well, now we are way off topic for this thread...sorry about that.  But here we go again.  

First, what was World War II about?  Vengence for Pearl Harbor?  Hardly...it was to stop tyranny in Europe and Asia.  I think most Americans would agree that if we can make the world better, we should.  Hussein killed a ridiculous number of people, so we took him out.  Yes, oil money may have been involved, but we can not sit back and watch tyrants go crazy.  Iraq and Afghanistan had extra purposes, like money and bin Laden, but the end results of removing the Taliban and Hussein was just and good.  I don't care what most conservvatives OR most liberals think of what I said, because like I said, I'm pretty much in the middle.

Wow, you're right there is no proof that we are keeping them there and not here.  Except maybe the fact that there have been several attempts here, but none successful since 9/11.  But there's no proof the other way, either.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anything blows up here any time soon.  Obviously, we aren't keeping them all over there because of Clinton's intelligence failings and Bush's immigration policy is pathetic in an attempt to cater to the Mexican voters.  But the thing is, it's easier now to keep them there than it is to get the ones that are already here out.  Does out military endeavor do it?  I think marginally, but like you said, there's no way to prove it either way until something happens.

No, I was referring to the $300 check I got in the mail.  All tax cuts in the history of tax cuts have been good.  Probably every tax cut to come in the future will be good.  Kerry voted against an 87 billion dollar bill to fund the troops with gear.  That is what I meant by spending less on the military.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  I mean, sure, now he's making all kinds of promises about expanding the military.  He's also the same guy that said he'd create 10 million new jobs in his first term  Since unemployment is 5.5%, he would bring unemployment to what?  2%?  Never.

Yes, rolling back tax cuts on the rich affects me because ALL tax cuts affect EVERYONE.  If the rich pay more in taxes, then they will spend less on goods and services.  It's really quite simple.  And no, I haven't noticed that consumer confidence is lacking.  I might have been told that by someone in the media or a left-wing campaign commercial, but it was on the rise every month between April and August, where it dropped again.  But for you to say that it is suffering "quite a bit" is hyperbole.

I obviously have read some of Kerry's proposals and some are good, others are ridiculous.  You assume a lot, like that I haven't read his stuff and that everything negative you hear about the current situation is true.  I'm not asking you to read up on anything; I'm asking people to think.

Every thing you listed is a separate debate, but...if Kerry doubles the special forces, then the special forces won't be so special anymore, heh.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> *sigh* Well, now we are way off topic for this thread...sorry about that. But here we go again.
> 
> First, what was World War II about? Vengence for Pearl Harbor? Hardly...it was to stop tyranny in Europe and Asia. I think most Americans would agree that if we can make the world better, we should. Hussein killed a ridiculous number of people, so we took him out. Yes, oil money may have been involved, but we can not sit back and watch tyrants go crazy. Iraq and Afghanistan had extra purposes, like money and bin Laden, but the end results of removing the Taliban and Hussein was just and good. I don't care what most conservvatives OR most liberals think of what I said, because like I said, I'm pretty much in the middle.
> 
> ...


OK ... who is the next 'tyrant' that you think 'most Americans' would be pleased if we deposed because the world would be a better place? 

Please tell me, what terrorists attempts have been made in this country in the last three years that were thwarted? Can you name any, other than Richard Reid? Can you show me evidence that we have done anything?

Stating that 'All Tax Cuts Are Good' means that you think the government shouldn't collect any taxes, therefore, should have any services, such as, the military which you think we should deploy around the world deposing 'tyrants' because 'most Americans' think we should make the world a better place. Can you exlain this dichotomy to me?

Senator Kerry's vote on the much mentioned 87 Billion dollars was actually two separate line items rolled into one bill. There was 67 Billion dollars to fund U.S. Military action, and 20 Billion dollars to fund Iraqi reconstruction. _The Reconstruction funds did not have appropriate oversight (which is, after all, the Congress's responsibility)._ Many forget, that *President Bush threatened to Veto* a Senate amended bill for *the 87 Billion* *Dollars* because the Senate was trying to *responsibly* pay for some of this money by withholding one of your 'always good' tax cuts from millionaires.

Concerning Kerry and job creation ... just look at the last Democrat's numbers ... it is completely possible to create 10 million jobs in a term. And, while the Bush Administration has *lost over 1 million jobs*, why hasn't the unemployement rate gone up? ... the two numbers are not connected. 

Can someone with military experience please explain to Xequat that special forces are special because there are a limited number of them. They are special because they receive training in a different skill set.

Good Grief. Mike


----------



## Xequat (Sep 4, 2004)

The next tyrant?  I don't know.  I never claimed to know.  But we'll know when he presents himself and since no other country in the world other than Israel (who's not exactly innocent themselves) and England seem to want to do anything about it, it's going to be up to US again.  We saw Hitler come into power and we stopped him.  We also watched Pol Pot in Cambodia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq kill their own people.  Now we're doing something about it.  I don't want to go out and start waging wars for the heck of it...I have too many friends in the military.  And I never said that I wanted to or even implied it any way.  Who's next?  I don't know...but if we have Bush in power, then they had better be worried.


Off the top of my head, I know a few weeks back that they stopped some terrorists in Columbus, OH from blowing up a shopping mall.  They didn't say which one.  And why doesn't Richard Reid count?

I have to laugh at this one.  Um, I said tax cuts are good, not tax elimination.  There is no dichotomy.  This whole thread is about a fair tax, which I have already supported, not a zero tax.  I know that you are smarter than that and you know that I am too, so please stop insulting my intelligence and that of the people reading this thread.  Seriously, you come to this thread with this condescending attitude and I haven't insulted you once that I know of until now.  Let's keep it civil and maybe one of us can say something that might change our point of view.  I have strong opinions about many things, but I'm open to the possibilty that I might be wrong about some of them.  I just feel that terrorism has gone on for so long and nobody has ever gone on the offensive until now.  It's time to try something new.

As for the above, I did not know how complicated the 87billion dollar bill was; I concede you that point.  You are right, the Republicans are as shady with numbers as the Democrats and everyone else who has ever run...they make them say what they want said.  I see your point.  
Here's a good site I found...factcheck.com.  It looks at political ads from both sides and points out the BS in each...Rep and Dem equally.  Heh, it kinda makes me lose respect for them all.

Anyway, I brought up the 10 million jobs because I thought it was pretty widely accepted as a joke, ie a typical BS politician's campaign promise (not that Bush hasn't made any as well).  Bush's unemployment rate is currently 5.5.  I believe that Clinton's best was 5.4.  A lot of jobs were lost as a result of the 9/11 attacks and technology.  Yes, maybe a million jobs were lost, but that number isn't completely accurate because I've heard that it doesn't include people who started their own businesses, etc.  I don't know if the unemployment number includes them or not.  Figures lie and liars figure, heh.  The thing is, we have about 300million Americans.  10 million jobs means 3.3 percent improvement, right?  And that's assuming that all 300 million can work, which is obviously not true.  There is absolutely, positively, no way that anyone but God could get the unemployment rate that low.  

I was joking about the special force, Mike.  Just trying to keep the discussion a little lighter.  Get it?  They're not so special if there are twice as many.  It's a joke.  If you want to discuss some of those other points, I'd start another thread, LOL, this one's already off the topic of consumption taxes.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 5, 2004)

Attempting to stay on topic of taxes'



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> All tax cuts in the history of tax cuts have been good. Probably every tax cut to come in the future will be good.


Following the logic of this statement, you are proposing tax elimination. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Yes, rolling back tax cuts on the rich affects me because ALL tax cuts affect EVERYONE. If the rich pay more in taxes, then they will spend less on goods and services.


While tax policies do, in fact, dictate behavior, I would demand some evidence that the rich spend all of their earnings on goods and services. In order for repeal of the tax cut on the rich to to negatively affect everyone, you need to show a correlation between the two. Of course, you are arguing two arguments in this quote .... Kerry's tax rollback on those earning more than 200 grand a year .. and the flat tax. So we can let this slide.

Riddle me this ... the dividend tax cut.

I earn $50,000.00 per year in dividends from stock that I inherited. How much tax do I pay?
I earn $50,000.00 per year as wages as a trash pickup man for my town. How much tax do I pay?

Which contributes more to society? Who needs a tax break more?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 5, 2004)

Are you serious?  I said tax cuts are good.  I understand, and you know that I do, that the government needs money somehow to function.  Taxes are it.  I am not in any way proposing tax elimination, I am smiply stating that low taxes are good.  Where does it say that I want to eliminate taxes?  I said that probably all tax cuts in the furute will be good becuase everyone knows that they will not be cut to zero.  I don't know how I could have been clearer.


You actually need some evidence to see that the rich spend their money on goods and services?  What else would they do with it?  How about every H2 and Lexus you see on the road.  Of course they don't spend all of their money because most can afford to save some just in case.  But they certainly spend more that I do because they obviously have more to spend.

OK, let's bring it back to the subject of flat tax.  I don't care if you get 50K from an inheritance, your garbage collecting salary or selling crap on ebay.  If there is a flat tax, everyone would pay the same 22 percent or whatever the number is.  Who contributes more to society?  Well, that depends on if the guy with the 50K in dividends has other income from, say his company which collects trash and hires a bunch of other people.  Who cares who contributes more?  That's why it's called a fair tax.  With a consumption tax, we could eliminate taxes altogether for food and maybe non-name-brand clothing or something so that the people who can only afford necessities get a huge tax break while the rest of us pay for a little more luxury.  Since it's based on a percentage, then the richer will pay more because they will spend 30K on a car where a middle-class person might spend 15K.  Twice the car = twice the tax.  Who needs a tax break more?  The little guy.  And he'd get it with a consumption tax.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2004)

Yes, I am absolutely serious. As you well know, I can't point to where you said you want to 'eliminate all taxes'; which is why I said 'following the logic of your statement'. 

I don't know anything about what 'everyone knows', and how this thread has become a discussion between you and I, we need to deal with what we know, and what we are saying. Regardless, I do not accept the premise that 'everyone knows that taxes will not be cut to zero'. *If you examine the proposals of the Bush administration, you will se that they have attempted to cut the taxes on some sectors of income to zero.* Sure, they called it a 'dividend' tax, or a 'death' tax. But if you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO. So, how does 'everyone know' that zero is unrealistic?

Speaking of Hummer H2 vehicles on the road. Are you aware that small business owners (dentists, realtors, etc) were granted a new cap on Rule 179 tax cuts. This means that small business owners could 'write off' the entire purchase price of that vehicle (provided the vehicle is over 6,000 pounds GVWR). Again, a tax cut .... follow this.

I have a business in which I am the sole proprietor. For this business, I need a vehicle to transport clients. Over the course of the year, I earn let's say $72,000.00. I purchase a $62,000.00 Chevrolet Suburban. I write off, using IRS Rule 179 the 62k purchase price from my 72k income. For the year, I earned 10,000 dollars in my business. Want to guess how much tax I pay for the year ... *ZERO*.

So please, tell me again .... Why do you think 'everyone knows' the tax rate won't go to zero. As long as 'they' keep you distracted, you may not realize the rich cats are already getting their taxes cut to zero.



Now, to answer my question, which you choose not to.If I earn 50,000 in dividends, currently, I would pay 15% in taxes. 

Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,124.50
If I earn 50,000 in wages, currently, I would pay 27% in taxes. 
Assuming there are no deductions or tax shelters the tax would total = $7,915.00
These numbers work out this way because the first $26,250 dollars in both cases requires $3637.50 in taxes. But the person with wealth (stock) pays less taxes on the remaining $23,250.

http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/
​Now .. to your argument about the little guy paying less tax on consumption .... you are working from the assumption that all dollars are created equal. While this seems logical, you have to be rich to understand that they aren't.




Compare these two individuals:Person A has a bank account balance of 10,000,000.00.

Person B does not have a bank account balance but earns 50,000 per year.

Both people buy a car for $30,000.00. Both pay the same tax. 
For this discussion let's say 10% or $3,000.00 consuption tax.

How much does this tax affect each?

Person A, 3,000 is how much of 10,000,000? = 0.0003
That's 3 one thousandths of their wealth. That's right *ZERO* point *ZERO* *ZERO* *ZERO* THREE. (There's that pesky zero percent tax again)

Person B, 3,000 is how much of his 50,000 per year? 0.06
This is 6 tenths of their wealth.

So, person B is effectively paying 200 % more in taxes (as a percentage of their dollars) in taxes than person A.
​Surely, you can see that not all 3,000 dollar tax burdens are created equal.







http://www.savewealth.com/taxes/rates/single/


----------



## Gary Crawford (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't this consumption tax will ever fly because it would have an adverse effect on consumer spending which is the heart of our econemy.It is a good thing to discuss it though.In depth discussion on the tax U.S. tax code(which has five times as many words as the Bible) helps point out how flawed and unfair it is.I personally like the flat tax idea,but that one will never make it either.Here is why-The current system is a graduated system which relies mostly on the top 50% wage earners(96.03% of all federal taxes) and rewards the lowest incomes with little to no tax to A big check every years due to Earned Income Credit.I flat tax or a consuption tax would hurt the lowest to middle class because everyone would pay the same rate.There has been discussion about making the consumption tax progressive,but that would create another BIG buerocracy like the one we are tying to get rid of.I think it's humerous that some of the same people who complain about the current tax cut's "on the rich"(people forget that those uf us who have children of all income levels benifit from a higher child tax credit) are some of the same people who think the consumption tax would be a good idea.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 6, 2004)

Unbelievable.  Why do you insist on trying to convice me that I said something I didn't?  Just becuase some particular types of taxes are eliminated on certain things does not mean that I want to eliminate taxation.  I'm sorry, Mike, but your "logic" does not follow.  Your reasoning is one big logical fallacy.  I said that all tax cuts are good.  That is because it puts more money into the economy.  I never said that that we should eliminate all of them.  It's really quite simple.


"If you get rid of the name and the argument, the rate they are proposing is ZERO."  Wow.  If you get rid of the name and the argument?  If you do that, then you are completely manipulating the argument to make it seems like something it isn't.  Convenient.  The fact is, the dividend tax is on money that has already been taxed.  That's the point.  Why should I pay taxes once on what I earn and then have my children pay taxes on it again when I leave it to them in an inheritance.  What's funny is, with a consumption tax, it would all get taxed anyway when it is spent.  Same argument for the H2.  The guy that pays zero percent tax on the H2 would not be able to find any tax loopholes or writeoffs (lkike I've already said a few times); therefore, the people who are getting away with not paying certain taxes would not be able to do so.  It makes things fair.  With a consumption tax, there would be no rule 179 or even rule 1-178.  Everyong would pay their taxes as they consume goods and services.  It makes the system more efficient.  It cuts government costs for the IRS.  The only way a person could pay ZERO tax is if they don't buy anything at all.  Ever.  Won't happen.

"Everyone knows," including you, the the tax code won't go to zero because we need taxes to operate the government.  Simple.

"Now, to answer my question which you choose not to."  I did answer it.  Scroll up.  You are pointing out my exact reasons for the consumption tax!  If a person with dividends pays only 15% and another regular person pays 27% on their income, that is entirely not fair.  That's the point.  A consumption tax would equal the amount paid.  I'm talking about making the sytem fair and you are using the fact that it is unfair, favoring the rich, to argue against it.  Talk about logic.

And finally, the same argument still applies to you last math homework assignment.  Yes, $3000 is a higher percentage of the income of the little guy than the millionaire.  But do you think that this will be the only purchase either of them ever makes?  The millionaire will buy a 30K car and the little guy will buy one for 15K.  I've already explained this, but this thread is getting hard to follow.  Twice the car = twice the tax.  If that were the only purchase either person made, then I would agree with you, but the millionaire will probably buy a 2 million dollar house, while the other guy buys a 200K house.  On that item, the millionare pays ten times the tax.  This millionaire might eat at a super nice steak house for dinner and spend $100 on wine and desserts, while the little guy spends $10 on McDonald's.  Again, ten times the cost = ten times the tax.

The reason that this probably won't come to be is that the tax system is so complicated with rules.  It's easy for the government to tax you and you not even notice unless you pay close attention.  Death taxes, business taxes, etc...there's a bunch of taxes on money that's already been taxed.  It's a good idea, but the government seems to like things the way they are.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 6, 2004)

I don't propose to offer any figures or rational arguments, because mr. Edwards tried that, and they appear to be a waste of time. So...

1. Americans pay less of their income in taxes than the citizens of any other industrialized country.

2. There  seems to be no evidence whatsoever that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and their corporations, has any "trickle down," effect whatsoever...arguments for this are the same old thing that the first President Bush referred to, back in the 1980s, as, "voodoo economics."

3. The current President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy may very well have accelerated the pace of job export, the corporatization of family farms, etc., which is what's happening anyway.

4. People who claim to be, "in the middle," never are in the middle of any real political spectrum; they're simply trying to identify their positions with complete rationality and common sense, when in fact their positions reflect the ideological outlook of the upper middle class/WASPs.

5. The current tax cuts have left the country over 500 billion in debt--it's estimated that this will reach 1 trillion in the next four years (these, incidentally, are the Bush admin's own figures). Quite a swing, considering the balanced budget and paydown of the Debt under Clinton's last four years. Quite confusing, given the "financial conservatism," of the Republican Party. It seems likely that this debt will be used, soon enough, as an excuse to "privatize," (for which, read: "Turn over to groups like Enron and others in tight with me or my buddies") Social Security.

6. Mr. Edwards, I believe, was quite correct: consumption taxes such as a national VAT are regressive taxes (check England under Thatcher), and the logical end of the argument for them is to abolish all taxes on corporations.

7. The real point of what Bush is doing is to "liberate," corporations. It's advanced capitalism, Jake. That's what it does. It has nothing to do with--it has no interest in--helping the majority of people, or helping the American economy, or helping the country, or any of the other smoke-and-mirrors slogans often heard  in these regards. It's about setting capitalism free. Marx, in many ways if not all, knew exactly what he was talking about. 

8. Facts and reason and history and evidence will have no effect whatsoever on apologists for the development of advanced capitalism. Oh wait, there  is the one effect: they create anger and abuse.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I don't propose to offer any figures or rational arguments, because mr. Edwards tried that, and they appear to be a waste of time. So...


Robert, thank you.

Xequat ....  you have made up your mind concerning consumption tax and shut down your ability to reason about tax policy. This is sad. Please tell me what taxes should not be cut, so that the Government is still able to function?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

"I don't propose to offer any figures or rational arguments, because mr. Edwards tried that, and they appear to be a waste of time."

OK, class, pay attention while I quote myself:

'"Now, to answer my question which you choose not to." I did answer it. Scroll up. You are pointing out my exact reasons for the consumption tax! If a person with dividends pays only 15% and another regular person pays 27% on their income, that is entirely not fair. That's the point. A consumption tax would equal the amount paid. I'm talking about making the sytem fair and you are using the fact that it is unfair, favoring the rich, to argue against it. Talk about logic.

And finally, the same argument still applies to you last math homework assignment. Yes, $3000 is a higher percentage of the income of the little guy than the millionaire. But do you think that this will be the only purchase either of them ever makes? The millionaire will buy a 30K car and the little guy will buy one for 15K. I've already explained this, but this thread is getting hard to follow. Twice the car = twice the tax. If that were the only purchase either person made, then I would agree with you, but the millionaire will probably buy a 2 million dollar house, while the other guy buys a 200K house. On that item, the millionare pays ten times the tax. This millionaire might eat at a super nice steak house for dinner and spend $100 on wine and desserts, while the little guy spends $10 on McDonald's. Again, ten times the cost = ten times the tax.'

See that? I answered the figures and rational arguments with more figures and rational arguments. I guess that since you can't argue the point, you have to attack the way that I argue it. I win.

"1. Americans pay less of their income in taxes than the citizens of any other industrialized country." Good. That makes us better. Yay us; maybe they could learn a few things.

'2. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that cutting taxes on the wealthy, and their corporations, has any "trickle down," effect whatsoever...arguments for this are the same old thing that the first President Bush referred to, back in the 1980s, as, "voodoo economics."' Why do you need evidence for this? It's Economics 101. When people spend money, demand goes up. Therefore, supply must go up to meet it or prices go up to decrease the demand if a company can't get the supply up. How do they get supply up? By hiring more people. 
Now, there's more than just Econ101; it's a pretty complicated science. But, Bush41 had other problems with his "trickle-down economics" that, admittedly, made it not work. Maybe start another thread?

'3. The current President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy may very well have accelerated the pace of job export, the corporatization of family farms, etc., which is what's happening anyway.'
How does cutting taxes here make companies go somewhere else? I'm not attacking you on this one, but I don't see how that makes sense. Please clarify and maybe we'll even agree. Secondly, what's wrong with the corporatization of family farms? Why are farmers different than everyone else in the US economy? To me, it's the same as when a Mom-and-Pop grocery store goes out of business because a Wal-Mart just moved into town. It's kind of sad, but it's the nature of capitalism.

'4. People who claim to be, "in the middle," never are in the middle of any real political spectrum; they're simply trying to identify their positions with complete rationality and common sense, when in fact their positions reflect the ideological outlook of the upper middle class/WASPs.'
I see your point. Sometimes, people who claim to be indepent or moderate seem to have this "Hey, look at me, I'm independent. I think for myself and therefore my opinion is better than yours." 
Yes, it seems pretentious, but here's the reality of it. Liberal is left. Conservative is right. And moderate is middle. It is possible to be in the middle and here's how I am. I don't agree with either side on abortion, gun control, and a host of other issues. This is only to illustrate that I am a moderate, not to start another topic. On gun control, extreme conservatives think that everyone should be allowed to have any weapon they want, extreme liberals think that nobody should have guns at all. I think that guns are OK, but we should have gun licenses and there is no need for an AK-47 or bazooka. Abortion. Liberals = for;conservatives = against. I think that it should be a legal issue, not a religious one. I think that since the law declares a person dead when their brain waves stop (not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops), the law should also declare life when the brain waves start. It's between 8 and twelve weeks, leberals say 12, conservatives say 8, so it's probably 10 weeks. That's what being a moderate means...it means staying in the middle but not playing both sides. It means finding a compromise. It means I am not a Bible-thumping fat cat who hates the poor and I am not a baby-killing socialist who wants to take away our rights. And I don't agree with either classification that I just gave, so don't get any ideas. 

'5. The current tax cuts have left the country over 500 billion in debt--it's estimated that this will reach 1 trillion in the next four years (these, incidentally, are the Bush admin's own figures). Quite a swing, considering the balanced budget and paydown of the Debt under Clinton's last four years. Quite confusing, given the "financial conservatism," of the Republican Party. It seems likely that this debt will be used, soon enough, as an excuse to "privatize," (for which, read: "Turn over to groups like Enron and others in tight with me or my buddies") Social Security.' Yep, I agree! I'm very disappointed with the reckless spending of our Administrarion. It's not very fiscally conservative. It's not just the tax cuts, though, it's the lack of spending cuts on top of it. To stay on topic, we could start by cutting the IRS through a consumption tax. And the privatization of Social Security just means that people can choose where their SS retirement money goes and how it's invested. It could go into a particular stock, a bond, a money market account, gold, foreign currency, whatever. We chhose how our money gets invested, so the government doesn't just put it into some general fund where it doesn't grow.

'6. Mr. Edwards, I believe, was quite correct: consumption taxes such as a national VAT are regressive taxes (check England under Thatcher), and the logical end of the argument for them is to abolish all taxes on corporations.' Yes, they probably are regressive taxes. But there are ways to make it work, such as not taxing necessities, as I've said before, or maybe a tax rebate for the poor. Of course, someone would have to process the reabtes, but we wouldn't need anywhere near the 98000 people that the IRS currently employs. Also, the consumption tax, by eliminating the IRS, could provide an actual tax cut for everyone because the IRS costs between 3 and 5 trillion dollars per year. Would that happen? Hard telling; it's kind of optimistic, but we are talking about a theoretical idea here anyway. Keep in mind that a consumption tax is not necessarily a flat tax.

'7. The real point of what Bush is doing is to "liberate," corporations. It's advanced capitalism, Jake. That's what it does. It has nothing to do with--it has no interest in--helping the majority of people, or helping the American economy, or helping the country, or any of the other smoke-and-mirrors slogans often heard in these regards. It's about setting capitalism free. Marx, in many ways if not all, knew exactly what he was talking about. '
What is the difference between regular capitalism and advanced capitalism? Sorry, I've never heard the term. Anyway, what's wrong with liberating corporations? What do so many people hate companies? I've said earlier that taxing corporations is double-taxation, just like the death tax. When you tax companies, you are taxing money before it gets into people's hands. Then, when it does make it to a paycheck, it gets taxed again through payroll taxes. As for the death tax, why should I pay taxes and build up some money to leave for my kids, only to have it taxed again? It's unconstitutional, but they get away with it because the tax code is a monster and it's hard to follow. Let's simplify it is all I'm saying.
As for Marx, was it Marx who said the in an ideal society, people would contribute what they could and take what they need? I think so, but I'm not 100%. Well, that's an excellent idea, but too idealistic. The Framers understood human nature anbd the simple fact that people like stuff. They created a system by which a person could hopefully work as hard as they want and get as much as they want. They understood competition and human greed. I honsetly wish that people cared more about everyone else that working enough overtime to get 65" TV. But that isn't the case because people like capital. Marxism would get abused by the people at the top because, capitalistic economy or no, people, including those at the top, will still like stuff. Idealistic, but not practical. I wish it were.

'8. Facts and reason and history and evidence will have no effect whatsoever on apologists for the development of advanced capitalism. Oh wait, there is the one effect: they create anger and abuse.' 
So you're saying that we shouldn't have capitalsim because it might bother the people that hate it? I'm not sure, did I read that right?

Mike, you're right. I have made up my mind so for, but I'm also willing to change it if someone gives me a reason that I can't argue. I don't know if a consumption tax is the ideal system or not, and neither do you. Actually, I'm willing to accept that it isn't if it's been tried before, but I couldn't find any info on other countries doing it. Does anyone know if it's been tried before? Because that would be some useful information. Oh, and which taxes shouldn't be cut? Consumption taxes.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2004)

Fairness according to Xequat

I'm Rich ... I pay *1/200th* of my income in taxes 
I'm Poor ... I pay *1/6th* of my income in taxes


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

Math according to michaeledward:


I'm rich...22% equals 1/200th
I'm poor...22% equals 1/6th.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2004)

First off and peripherally, corporate taxes have been cut and cut and cut over the last two decades; they have exported more and more and more jobs.

More importantly, the problem with capitalism--and why I have to explain this to Christians!--is that capitalism puts money, and things, and buying and selling, ahead of people. Way ahead.

Or to paraphrase Marx, capitalism enforces a reality in which people believe that they live only to work and pile up wealth in one form or another, and in which they come to believe that the "more they have, the more they are."

And that reality is driven by the endless, pointless pursuit of markets and profits.

At some point, it's probably a good idea to consider that companies like Enron, and Presidents like Bush, are not the results of an oopsie or two, or badmoral choices. They are the perfect, completely predictable, logical product of advanced capitalism--you know, multinational and transnational corporatism, the explosion of 19th-century industrial conunties such as the US as their jobs get shipped away, all coupled with what Guy debord called, "the society of the spectacle."

radix malorum est cupiditas, duder.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

Corporate taxes and job exportation are unrelated.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?  This is a world economy now.  I'll try to find exact numbers, but the number of American jobs overseas is way under the number of jobs created in the US by foreign companies.  I think it's like 6.5 million jobs here compared to 2 million American jobs in other countries.  I'll try to verify, though.  And you didn't answer the question.  How does cutting taxes here inspire companies to go somewhere else?  I really want to know, because I can't follow the logic there.  Please enlighten me, seriously.

No, people put things ahead of people; capitalism is a result of desire for things.  I would give up my house, car, computer, etc if it meant saving my family;s life.  It is entirely possible to be a Christian and a capitalist.  Multinational corporatism is good.  Competition is good.  If there weren't competition, then there would be no incentive to come up with new ideas or more efficient ways of doing things.  Look at the communist countries.  The government people live in palaces while the little guy lives in a shed or a cave.  This is because of what I just explained...people (even government types) like stuff.  And if they can get it running a communist country and keeping everyone else down, then they will.  People make those choices, so capitalism is a cause AND a result because it also makes it possible.  But it also makes it possible for anyone to succeed, depending on haw much they are willing to woirk.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> How does cutting taxes here inspire companies to go somewhere else? I really want to know, because I can't follow the logic there. Please enlighten me, seriously.


The best I can do with this is to offer the following hypothesis.  Is it possible that by cutting corporate taxes in the US, a company can still offshore it's labour (at a cheaper wage) and outsource their materials (at a cheaper price) yet still remain in a favorable tax haven, thus increasing their profit on services rendered, whilst remaining exposed to the world's largest and most stable capital market, thereby retaining or increasing subsequent share value, which, of course, is the primary goal of any public company?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2004)

Hey, I hear that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but what do I know?

Sure, correlation doesn't prove causation. However, corporations are exporting jobs like crazy--and if you think that has no effect on lives and families, well, look again.

It's all very well to say that we'd choose our loved ones over material things. Problem is, we've ALREADY chosen the material things: we choose them by working and working and working to buy things rather than working to stay home and hang with the family and the friends; we choose things when we participate in an economy built around endless, lunatic expansion at other people's cost; we choose things when we live and act and vote in ways that privilege money and "the economy," over the water, the air, the earth, and human lives.

Thanks for the capitalist cliches. Problem is, there are lots of, "little guys," living in hovels in capitalist societies--like our own. There are lots--billions, in point of fact--of people living in abject, inhuman conditions because the "first world," countries like America suck up their resources, use them as cheap labor pools, block democratic change (yes, Virginia: ever heard of United Fruit? ITT and the Chilean coup? Nike and China? sweatshops in Vietnam?), and then push fantasies of the "good life," and notions of, "self-reliance," so we have alibis for everything. 

Check on something basic in this regard: what's happened to world fisheries, and the economies/societies that depend on them. People, families, values, etc? Screw THAT: up the Almighty God of Wealth.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 8, 2004)

Robert,

 This is doubtless the point when some people will point out that some poor people have DVD players, so poverty really isn't a problem.  Some others may throw some cute icons around or some other throwaway phrases indicating that you're a loon.  Some may even spout standard modern capitalist phrases about how "anyone can succeed in our society".

 Few, I fear, will actually look at the facts, and the history.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 8, 2004)

Uh-oh, a fellow Commie rat.

"The world won't be happy until the last capitalist is hung with the guts of the last bureaucrat."--the Situationists.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Few, I fear, will actually look at the facts, and the history.


-You going to provide any or just try to take cheap shots and miss?


-You should have doubted it. I wasn't going to bring up anything about DVD players, but I will ask you this? When did the last American starve to death? I'm guessing it's been at least a few decades. Poverty is a problem; I never even suggested otherwise; and no, not everyone can succeed in America. But almost everyone can.
-You really think my icons are cute? Thanks, pal! 
-What did I say about anyone being a loon? I don't remember that one; all I do is fend off personal attacks and destroy arguments against what I'm saying with more facts and logic.

Robert,

I never indicated in any way that job exportation is good, but why do you care about about jobs being exported? We should care more about the environment than money, right Sparky? Like how crazy are the companies exporting jobs? I agree that it is happening too much, but that is obviously not because of a flat tax. It is because of NAFTA and economic globalization. But it might not be all bad. Foreign companies build plants in the US because it is cheaper/more efficient to hire local workers than to produce things at home and ship them all over the world. That's part of the reason US companies build overseas as well. What do you want, Pat Buchanan, isolationism?  The jobs I worry about are the customer call centers in India, for example, and the cheap child labor you mentioned before. As for the other cheap labor you mention,though, just think how poor those people would be if they didn't have those jobs. Just because a company happens to amke out on something doesn't mean that it's inherently evil. I used to know two guys from Mexico that worked at a race track for really cheap. But to them it was enough money to live here and send some back home to their family. I hardly think that that is abuse or extortion because both parties benefitted from the deal.

If you actually spent any time with an open mind thinking about the issue of a flat tax, you might have come up with this probelm which I see in it: If US companies buy products here, they might have to pay that huge tax at purchase time, but if they buy supplies from other countries, the sales tax might be tons less, so it might be better to buy foreign components to build the US products. Not that it's a hard problem to fix; you just have an exemption for corporations, since the corporate profit will be taxed after it goes to payroll and is spent on goods and services anyway.

World fisheries? I have a better idea...why don't you do your own research and bring it to the table. I am not going to spend time looking up the history of world fisheries. If you have some info that applies, then please post it, because I don't see how it applies to a consumption tax. And, I admit it, you got me. I dont know jack about fishing.

So someone please explain to me why "cliches" are bad. And why is it OK to quote Marx but not realists? Besides, remember that camel cliche? Yeah, that one's a couple thousand years old...New Testament, I believe. Even the pathetic attempt to challenge my method of argument instead of the actual argument itself is a double standard and therefore irrelevant. Are you still mad because I answered your Latin "cliche" with another Latin cliche?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 8, 2004)

It always amazes me that in the Land of the Free, there is always someone out there who thinks they know better what to do with my money than I do.

Generally it is someone who thinks it belongs more to the undeserving while they themselves would hand out nothing from their own pockets.

I'd like to see just how many of these tax and spend liberals would give from their own pockets.

I'd also like to see just how many people would pay back their income taxes if they received a full check every week. I bet it would feel a whole lot different writing that check to Uncle Sam every week.

Imagine no posessions.....


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It always amazes me that in the Land of the Free, there is always someone out there who thinks they know better what to do with my money than I do.
> Generally it is someone who thinks it belongs more to the undeserving while they themselves would hand out nothing from their own pockets.
> I'd like to see just how many of these tax and spend liberals would give from their own pockets.
> I'd also like to see just how many people would pay back their income taxes if they received a full check every week. I bet it would feel a whole lot different writing that check to Uncle Sam every week.


Michael, I was self-employed for the first 13 years of my working career. This means that there was no withholding going on in my paycheck, and I was responsible for both halfs of the Social Security payment, the employee and the employer. So, I have had to write that check to Uncle Sam every quarter.

What is really amazing that those who proclaim the Land of the Free, don't seem to get that in order for there to be the freedom they describe, a system of laws needs to be in place first, which requires government, which requires taxes; else we would exist in the 'Land of the Anarchy'. I will, again, recommend the book 'The Myth of Ownership'.

Xequat .... to think that you have 'destroyed' arguments against what you are saying is, almost, funny. You are arguing that the 'COST OF LIVING' is higher for those who have more wealth. Because one has more money, it does not follow that one will spend more money. Further, the proposed shift to a consumption tax, would create behavior in those that have to minimize what they would acquire. In the world you are describing, I would put all my wealth in to dividend paying stocks, and actually purchase very little. You have not drawn upon facts, or logic for your arguments. You have stubbornly refused to understand the regressive nature of the consuption tax, and even gone so far as to admit that your mind is made up about the topic. You're beliefs are unfounded, no matter how strongly you cling to them.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Michael, I was self-employed for the first 13 years of my working career. This means that there was no withholding going on in my paycheck, and I was responsible for both halfs of the Social Security payment, the employee and the employer. So, I have had to write that check to Uncle Sam every quarter.
> 
> What is really amazing that those who proclaim the Land of the Free, don't seem to get that in order for there to be the freedom they describe, a system of laws needs to be in place first, which requires government, which requires taxes; else we would exist in the 'Land of the Anarchy'. I will, again, recommend the book 'The Myth of Ownership'.
> 
> Mike



Well you know Mike, I'd be curious to know who those are and what impact they are making on all of this. It's a nice soundbite, but nobody's really buying it.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Mike, you're right. I have made up my mind so for, but I'm also willing to change it if someone gives me a reason that I can't argue. I don't know if a consumption tax is the ideal system or not, and neither do you. Actually, I'm willing to accept that it isn't if it's been tried before, but I couldn't find any info on other countries doing it. Does anyone know if it's been tried before? Because that would be some useful information. Oh, and which taxes shouldn't be cut? Consumption taxes.


 
Maybe you skipped the post where I wrote the above.  I do understand the regressive nature of the consumption tax, which is why I said we should have exemptions for the poor and buying necessities.  If you would put all of your money into dividend-paying stocks and not spend it on goods and services, then you would be the only person in history to do so.  I have pretty much laughed off most of the recent arguments, but your last post just makes me cry laughing.  Again, asking for proof of common sense.  It's really very simple...the more you have, the more you spend.  If you don't believe that, then I want some of whatever you're smoking because it must be good.  You complain the MY mind is already made up and then tell me that my beliefs are unfounded, when I just wrote that I could be wrong and asked for any input about whether it's been tried before.  Every time I've been accused of not using facts or figures or logic, I've referred you to where I did exactly that.  But when I accuse you of it or challenge you to provide something logical or factual, you ignore it.  

OK, let's talk logic.  You never answered my earlier questin of what people do with their money if they don't spend it.  Apparently, you think that people will just bury it in a box in their back yard and not invest it or spend it.  Why have a job then?  The lack of common sense in your argument and the fact that you need me to actually provide evidence for something that could not possibly be more obvious really takes away any semblance of credibility you might have otherwise had.  Now, if you want to bring this back on topic and beck to being civil, we can stop with the name-calling and insults because the more you attack me personally, the more I'm going to fight back.  We apparently both want what's best for the American people and neither of us is in a position to write any legislation as far as I know, so if you want to make it civil again, I'm willing to, but until then...

Here's another fact for you.  In our $50K example, you listed a person who collected trash as having to pay 27% in taxes.  The number expected for a consumption tax is 22-23%.  Therefore, everyone in the US will get a tax cut.  Unless, we include the people who write off their business expenses because they would actually have to pay their fair share.  See how it's fair now?  See, the rich, whom you seem to despise, would not be able to dodge taxes through loopholes, as I've stated repeatedly.  The reason that will happen, in theory, is that the cost of the IRS will be eliminated from the tax burden and the cost of hiring tax lawyers and accountants will be lifted from corporations.  Is that factual and logical enough for you or do you need an even simpler explanation, because I can't get down to any lower of a level to explain it.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 8, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Maybe you skipped the post where I wrote the above. I do understand the regressive nature of the consumption tax, which is why I said we should have exemptions for the poor and buying necessities. If you would put all of your money into dividend-paying stocks and not spend it on goods and services, then you would be the only person in history to do so. I have pretty much laughed off most of the recent arguments, but your last post just makes me cry laughing. Again, asking for proof of common sense. It's really very simple...the more you have, the more you spend. If you don't believe that, then I want some of whatever you're smoking because it must be good. You complain the MY mind is already made up and then tell me that my beliefs are unfounded, when I just wrote that I could be wrong and asked for any input about whether it's been tried before. Every time I've been accused of not using facts or figures or logic, I've referred you to where I did exactly that. But when I accuse you of it or challenge you to provide something logical or factual, you ignore it.
> 
> OK, let's talk logic. You never answered my earlier questin of what people do with their money if they don't spend it. Apparently, you think that people will just bury it in a box in their back yard and not invest it or spend it. Why have a job then? The lack of common sense in your argument and the fact that you need me to actually provide evidence for something that could not possibly be more obvious really takes away any semblance of credibility you might have otherwise had. Now, if you want to bring this back on topic and beck to being civil, we can stop with the name-calling and insults because the more you attack me personally, the more I'm going to fight back. We apparently both want what's best for the American people and neither of us is in a position to write any legislation as far as I know, so if you want to make it civil again, I'm willing to, but until then...
> 
> Here's another fact for you. In our $50K example, you listed a person who collected trash as having to pay 27% in taxes. The number expected for a consumption tax is 22-23%. Therefore, everyone in the US will get a tax cut. Unless, we include the people who write off their business expenses because they would actually have to pay their fair share. See how it's fair now? See, the rich, whom you seem to despise, would not be able to dodge taxes through loopholes, as I've stated repeatedly. The reason that will happen, in theory, is that the cost of the IRS will be eliminated from the tax burden and the cost of hiring tax lawyers and accountants will be lifted from corporations. Is that factual and logical enough for you or do you need an even simpler explanation, because I can't get down to any lower of a level to explain it.


I don't believe I have engaged in any name calling ... yet.

You posit that "the more you have, the more you spend". Please validate that statement? Please show me that as the measure of wealth increases, the measure of consumption increases by the same factor.

Further, that the cost of collecting and processing a 'Consumption Tax' would be a significant reduction from the 'Income Tax' has been shown to be an untrue statement. The only savings available to switching the American tax system would be the 'man-hours' invested by tax payers; a significant savings overall, but not one that would show up on the Government's balance sheet.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 8, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You posit that "the more you have, the more you spend". Please validate that statement? Please show me that as the measure of wealth increases, the measure of consumption increases by the same factor.
> 
> Further, that the cost of collecting and processing a 'Consumption Tax' would be a significant reduction from the 'Income Tax' has been shown to be an untrue statement. The only savings available to switching the American tax system would be the 'man-hours' invested by tax payers; a significant savings overall, but not one that would show up on the Government's balance sheet.


I'll validate it with common sense.  Nobody puts their money under a mattress or buries it in holes anymore.  People invest or spend it.  That's what it's for.  I don't understand why you think that people don't spend their money.  Sure, sometimes it sits in the bank for a rainy day, but even then, the bank is investing it in stuff and making money off of our money while it just site there for us to get later.  Money grows or at least circulates as long as it is spent legally, of course.  I mean, if I go buy a pound of coke, then that money isn't contributing to society in any way, heh.  But any legitiamte purchase or investment keeps the economy rolling.

"Further, that the cost of collecting and processing a 'Consumption Tax' would be a significant reduction from the 'Income Tax' has been shown to be an untrue statement."  Where?  Not in this thread.  Please validate that statement.  I'VE explained why a consumption tax WOULD be cheaper than income taxes, but I don't see anywhere that anyone has even argued otherwise, much less proven it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 8, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> It always amazes me that in the Land of the Free, there is always someone out there who thinks they know better what to do with my money than I do.
> 
> Generally it is someone who thinks it belongs more to the undeserving while they themselves would hand out nothing from their own pockets.


 More class-warfare rhetoric.

 "My money is MINE, earned entirely on my own without any benefit from the society around me.  I shouldn't have to share any of it with anyone, regardless of what the long-term benefits to myself in particular and society as a whole are."



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'd like to see just how many of these tax and spend liberals would give from their own pockets.


 Ah, "tax-and-spend liberals"... glad to see the language of the capitalists isn't changing.  This particular bleeding-heart pinko nutbag gives lots of money from his own pocket to charity, volunteers time, and also pays quite a bit of tax in my day job and in my self-employed consultant positions.  And I think I should be paying more, even though I usually grumble when I write those checks to the IRS.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 8, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> You going to provide any or just try to take cheap shots and miss?


 I'm not sure at what point you started reading this thread, or this forum, but I (and others, on both sides) have provided quite a few.  Just go back.  It might provide you with some more arguments to "destroy" with your powerful rays of logic.

 Also, please recognize that not every comment made on the thread refers to you.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> When did the last American starve to death?


 So if no American is starving to death, it's okay to continue to exacerbate the divisions between the rich and poor?



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> not everyone can succeed in America. But almost everyone can.


 Fewer and fewer people with each passing decade.  And fewer people than in most industrialized nations.

 Now, to discuss some of your mind-blowing arguments:

 1) Why is it better for us to pay lower taxes than any other industrialized country?  Could this at all be related to the facts that we have more homeless people, fewer insured people, more poor people, more poor children, and the worst educated people in the industrialized world?  Along with the greatest disparity in income between wealthy and poor in the industrialized world?

 2) While you were studying Econ 101, you apparently missed history.  Trickle-down economics was a *Reaganomics* policy, referred to by George HW Bush even as "voodoo economics".  Supply-side economics were never intended to do anything other than provide more capital to the wealthy.  I refer you to some more complex analyses than those available in whatever "Econ 101" class you studied, such as:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/trickle_down.htm
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2548/is_2001_Jan/ai_70396224

 As you can see, supply-side economics is not only a bad theory, it's been proven in practice to be a failure.  Not for lack of trying.

 3) In the midst of "destroying" arguments, you claim to not know "100%" what Marx said, then go into a long discussion of the "problems" with Marxism.

 4) Taxing corporations is perfectly appropriate.  Corporate charters are granted *by the state* to provide certain benefits.  Corporations are allowed to exist, as distinct entities, separate from their owners, because doing so was believed to help foster economic growth and prosperity.  In return for many benefits normally reserved for individual human beings, corporations are also expected to carry similar responsibilities, including taxation on their income.  Corporations benefit from society, just like people, so why shouldn't they contribute to society?  (By the way, this is Economics 101-level stuff).

 5) "Death tax" is capitalist class-warfare doublespeak.  Estate taxes were designed because this whole democratic experiment was supposedly based on the idea that everyone would have an equal chance at success, and that simply having been "old money" wouldn't grant you the ability to have more power than others.

 By the way, how are taxes unconstitutional?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> More class-warfare rhetoric.
> 
> "My money is MINE, earned entirely on my own without any benefit from the society around me.  I shouldn't have to share any of it with anyone, regardless of what the long-term benefits to myself in particular and society as a whole are."


 
Baseless and irrational, but I've come to expect no less from the left at this point.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Ah, "tax-and-spend liberals"... glad to see the language of the capitalists isn't changing.  This particular bleeding-heart pinko nutbag gives lots of money from his own pocket to charity, volunteers time, and also pays quite a bit of tax in my day job and in my self-employed consultant positions.  And I think I should be paying more, even though I usually grumble when I write those checks to the IRS.



Aw, well good for you. Glad to see the language of the communists isn't changing either. So happens I pay as much in taxes as some earn in a year without much compaining either. I'll tell you what, when I care to actually start counting how many lefties love to give everything they have I'll put your name first on the list. 

I wonder when it became fashionable to give with someone else's money...Of course it is easier when you have the IRS behind you, or in front, when they take if from your check before you ever see it.

Maybe they have a nice cushy desk job there for you since you're so inclined, or maybe you'd like to be part of their door kicking team.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> More class-warfare rhetoric.
> 
> "My money is MINE, earned entirely on my own without any benefit from the society around me. I shouldn't have to share any of it with anyone, regardless of what the long-term benefits to myself in particular and society as a whole are."


So in respect to this obligation to let society dictate what each individual does with his or her money, where do you propose we draw the line?  Allow government to determine exactly how each should spend their cash?  Simply raise taxes until each has repayed their debt to society?  I ask because, while it's true that people make money in society and therefore society has an influence on individual's spending, this argument could be used to justify a number of positions, with the extreme being complete economic determination.  So I'm curious where the line is drawn.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 9, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So in respect to this obligation to let society dictate what each individual does with his or her money, where do you propose we draw the line?


 Phantom,

 Our system has the potential to allow us to draw the line quite well.  "Government", you'll recall, is supposed to be composed of fellow citizens, elected to carry out our interests.  

 People fear "government" as a massless entity that will consume all of our money unless choked to death.  The key is to elect individuals who will wisely balance the benefits and needs of a society as a whole, providing justness and fairness while not eradicating those benefits of capitalism and ownership that can propel a society forward.

 Clearly the autarchies of the so-called "Communists" (Stalin, Mao, et al) were no way to go, but neither is the path down which our society is headed, where power is held by the wealthy and used to control the politicians who are supposed to represent all classes and stratas.

 To paraphrase Bill Moyers, I think that the rich still have a right to have more cars, more houses, more vacations, and more toys than the poor, but they don't have the right to more justice and more government.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 9, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Baseless and irrational, but I've come to expect no less from the left at this point.


 Mike, you were the guy who accused the left of "knowing better than you what to do with your money".  This is a piece of rhetoric used by conservatives to attack the underpinnings of just society for decades -- I'm always going to point the finger at class-warfare when I see it.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Aw, well good for you. Glad to see the language of the communists isn't changing either. So happens I pay as much in taxes as some earn in a year without much compaining either. I'll tell you what, when I care to actually start counting how many lefties love to give everything they have I'll put your name first on the list.


 I'm not sure where this sarcasm comes from; you were the one who claimed that leftists don't want to contribute their fair share to a society with higher taxes.  

 Of course, people on the right often accuse the left of being made up of wealthy eliitists who are out of touch with the common people, but I won't blame you for wanting to have it both ways.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Maybe they have a nice cushy desk job there for you since you're so inclined, or maybe you'd like to be part of their door kicking team.


 Ah, more class-warfare imagery... the jack-booted thugs of "Big Gubbament" coming to take away the hard-earned scraps of the working man and distribute them to The Machine.  

 This sort of image has worked so well for so long because it frightens and angers people while distracting from the real issues involved in making a better world.


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Mike, you were the guy who accused the left of "knowing better than you what to do with your money".  This is a piece of rhetoric used by conservatives to attack the underpinnings of just society for decades -- I'm always going to point the finger at class-warfare when I see it.



But aren't they? I don't see any other ideologies out there that want to tax me so they can put it in programs that do not necessarily help me. Rhetoric? I do not think so sir. You may choose to believe in something else but let's not run from the hard realities here.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where this sarcasm comes from; you were the one who claimed that leftists don't want to contribute their fair share to a society with higher taxes.



Read up above. You came in with the same stuff about Capitalists and how you still happily give out of your own time and money. 



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Of course, people on the right often accuse the left of being made up of wealthy eliitists who are out of touch with the common people, but I won't blame you for wanting to have it both ways.



Wasn't saying that here, but if you feel like more of a man debating the other voices, by all means.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Ah, more class-warfare imagery... the jack-booted thugs of "Big Gubbament" coming to take away the hard-earned scraps of the working man and distribute them to The Machine.



Big Gubbament? I'm having a hard time placing the speach impediment with any sterotypes here. But while you're on it, I have seen the raids on restaurant owners over dispute of a few thousand dollars.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> This sort of image has worked so well for so long because it frightens and angers people while distracting from the real issues involved in making a better world.



A better world? I'd rather keep our tax money right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. thanks. The fate of the world should not lie on the shoulders of American workers.

We're obviously coming from two directions here. I feel governemt has gotten too big and we need only be paying a fraction of the taxes we pay now.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm about done I think. I spent a half hour I think last night on this and the site went down, so I might repeat myself or leave soething out, thinking I said it...I apologize it I do. I'm going to try to keep it short, but I'm sure i won't succeed, heh.



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> People fear "government" as a massless entity that will consume all of our money unless choked to death. The key is to elect individuals who will wisely balance the benefits and needs of a society as a whole, providing justness and fairness while not eradicating those benefits of capitalism and ownership that can propel a society forward.


Justness and fairness mean paying the same percentage as everyone else.

Do you think rhetoric is a bad word? Pretty much everything you have said is rhetoric, too. Calling realistic arguments "class-warfare" and this particular bit of exaggeration : "My money is MINE, earned entirely on my own without any benefit from the society around me. I shouldn't have to share any of it with anyone, regardless of what the long-term benefits to myself in particular and society as a whole are." Typical, it's OK for you but not for us.

Obviously the rich don't have the right to more justice or government. Talk about rhetoric. Nobody has suggested that in the least. Are you trying to point out the obvious? Because that's what I've been trying to do most of this thread. Uh-oh look at that, it's more rhetoric.

Hey, if you can afford to give more to the government, go right ahead. Get out your "Checkbook for the Self-Righteous" and send the government an extra little something, since you think you should. The fact that you think you should and you don't shouldn't make you proud and it definitely doesn't make you seem consistent; it makes you seem hypocritical. When you actually send the government some extra and not talk about it, you can bring that up as an argument.

"1) Why is it better for us to pay lower taxes than any other industrialized country? Could this at all be related to the facts that we have more homeless people, fewer insured people, more poor people, more poor children, and the worst educated people in the industrialized world? Along with the greatest disparity in income between wealthy and poor in the industrialized world?"
I'd love to see your research on that. Get back to me when you have some useful numbers like percentage of population instead of totals. I'm sure that the $9310 that is defined as poverty in the US would be enough to feed an entire family in Somalia for a long time. Why is it better that we pay less? Because we can spend the money on more stuff like ice cubes and air conditiong that most other countries, even civilized ones, don't have. Our quality of life is among the highest in the world, if not the highest.

2) I already said that "trickle-down"" economics is another subject on another thread. I read your sites, though, the second two had some good points. The first one was oversimplified and didn't really mean much. Start another thread...I've already said that in an earlier post becuase it's too complicated an issue to have going with the consumption tax at the same time.

"3) In the midst of "destroying" arguments, you claim to not know "100%" what Marx said, then go into a long discussion of the "problems" with Marxism."
Look, ma...it's a bird, it's a plane, no,no, it's rhetoric!
Do you know 100% percent of what Marx said? I didn't think so. But I do know some of what he said and that's what I challenged. I also know the gist of Marxism, like I know the gist of what a consumption tax is. We know enough to have a discussion and you have something useful, like what he DID say that counters what I have said to discredit what I do know he said, then bring it up.

"4) Taxing corporations is perfectly appropriate. Corporate charters are granted *by the state* to provide certain benefits. Corporations are allowed to exist, as distinct entities, separate from their owners, because doing so was believed to help foster economic growth and prosperity. In return for many benefits normally reserved for individual human beings, corporations are also expected to carry similar responsibilities, including taxation on their income. Corporations benefit from society, just like people, so why shouldn't they contribute to society? (By the way, this is Economics 101-level stuff)."

Ah, see. Here, even though your argument is full of rhetoric, I see where you're coming from. My only argument against taxing companis is that it's double taxation. Corporations benefit from society like people because corporations ARE people. OK, I own a business (actually the wife does, heh, she does all the work there.) Our source of income is memberships and to a very small degree, concessions. We are the only employees. People pay us their dues, then we pay the business taxes. Then we pay our bills. What's left, we are allowed to take home. Ah, but there's a catch. Even thought the money has already been taxed as business income, it now has to get taxed again as personal income. See what I mean? I'm just against double-taxation and hidden taxes.

"5) "Death tax" is capitalist class-warfare doublespeak. Estate taxes were designed because this whole democratic experiment was supposedly based on the idea that everyone would have an equal chance at success, and that simply having been "old money" wouldn't grant you the ability to have more power than others."

Hmm...more rhetoric from the rhetoric hater. Typical. No, death tax is not doublespeak, it is double tax. I see your point on this one too, but we might just have to call a stalemate on this one. You think it's OK to tax a person's income after they die and leave it to their kids because you don't want the kids to get an unfair monetary advantage from someone else's work, even if it is their parents. I think that's fine because the money has already been taxed and I don't care who spends it. 
Besides, if I leave my business to my kids, then they would have to pay an estate tax on the value of the business to keep it. Well, what if the business isn't making much money? That means that they'll have to sell the business and that simply isn't fair. A consumption tax would alleviate that problem because there would be no double taxation.

Nobody in this entire thread has ever said that taxes are unconstitutional. Pay attention to what is there and stop looking fior things that you hope are there. Because they aren't. Double taxation is unconstitutional. I could not be any clearer. I can't believe I just wasted 30 secnds responding to such an ignorant question.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

What never fails to amaze me is the extent to which the folks pushing capitalism have absolutely no idea what it is, how it works, or what its historical record is.

Communist? Basically, bubbas, I've been echoing the "Wall Street Journal." Econ 101, kids.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What never fails to amaze me is the extent to which the folks pushing capitalism have absolutely no idea what it is, how it works, or what its historical record is.
> 
> Communist? Basically, bubbas, I've been echoing the "Wall Street Journal." Econ 101, kids.


Capitalsim means, quite simplt that people like stuff.  It's historical record is pretty good...can you show otherwise?  What are you talking about with teh Wall Street Journal?  Econ101 is supply and demand stuff, not Marxism.  Studying communism might be in history or political science or something.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 9, 2004)

Amongst all of this, everyone seems to be missing an important mathmatical concept.  The government requires "X" number of dollars in order to function.  (what "X" should equal is another matter).  However, "X" must remain constant, irrespective of the particular way or from which entity it is collected.  Ultimately, where will it come from?  The citizenry.  If it comes out of corporate income, this gets passed along to the consumer.  If it comes out of income, wage amounts must correspond, ergo prices for goods and services go up.  Money is conserved.  It all must come from somewhere.  Ultimately, the real question should be upon whom ought the burden lie?  

The key points should be:

a) eliminate all loopholes - keep it simple.
b) ensure that those earning less (society requires these jobs be done) can support their families.
c) encourage investment in the economy (this is capitalism, no?)
d) facilitate governmental efficiency.

Let those who contribute to society benefit from that contribution.  Help those who cannot.  Forget about those who choose not to contribute.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 9, 2004)

Xequat,

   Thanks for more "argument destruction".

 I'm not sure how to address your focus on my use (overuse?) of the word "rhetoric", other than to clarify: I'm not against rhetoric, but I will not hesitate to point out when someone simply spouts doublespeak.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Justness and fairness mean paying the same percentage as everyone else.


 No, it doesn't. For a society to truly provide the chances for success that you claim to support, the wealthy need to pay more.

 You refer to your arguments as "realistic", which is entirely a value judgement. Many of them are part of the language of class-warfare which has been designed to pull apart our society and help the wealthy retain more capital and resources at the expense of society and the world as a whole.

 No one has suggested that the rich have the right to more justice or power, specificlaly,  but a number of people continue to argue for a taxation structure which provides exactly that.

 Your hypocrisy argument is childish. The only reason I brought up how I pay taxes was in response to a claim by MisterMike that liberals think *other* people should pay more taxes.



			
				XEQUAT said:
			
		

> I'd love to see your research on that. Get back to me when you have some useful numbers like percentage of population instead of totals.


   This is easy.  See:

http://www.inequality.org/facts.html

 In particular, I refer you to table 4, about income inequality among *developed nations*. You'll also note that this table is based on percentage of population instead of totals.

   Other references:

   Insured percentages in the developed world:
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Stu/rkreier/internathealth.042201.doc



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> I'm sure that the $9310 that is defined as poverty in the US would be enough to feed an entire family in Somalia for a long time.


 So it's okay that things are worse here than anywhere in the developed world as long as things are better here than in undeveloped nations like Somalia?



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Do you know 100% percent of what Marx said? I didn't think so. But I do know some of what he said and that's what I challenged. I also know the gist of Marxism, like I know the gist of what a consumption tax is.


 The problem is that you claim to "sum up" what Marx said without, clearly, having read his work, or that of scholars in the field. Later in the thread, you claim that Marxism has nothing to do with economics. This makes it patently clear that you're not equipped to discuss Marx, his writings, beliefs, or influence.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Even thought the money has already been taxed as business income, it now has to get taxed again as personal income. See what I mean? I'm just against double-taxation and hidden taxes.


 That's because you have chosen to incorporate, and receive the benefits therein. The corporation pays taxes on its income. You, as employees, pay taxes on your incomes. This is not double-taxation; each entity is paying income tax on its income.



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> That means that they'll have to sell the business and that simply isn't fair.


   This example is touted often; can you show me research showing how often this happens?



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> Double taxation is unconstitutional. I could not be any clearer. I can't believe I just wasted 30 secnds responding to such an ignorant question.


 First, I dispute your notion that this taxation is "double taxation". But, for the sake of argument, can you point out where in the US Constitution "double taxation" is prohibited? Is that an ignorant question that will take 30 seconds to destroy?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 9, 2004)

> No, it doesn't. For a society to truly provide the chances for success that you claim to support, the wealthy need to pay more.



Um, I'll keep this simple.  Why do you say this?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 9, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Um, I'll keep this simple.  Why do you say this?


 Because a truly just society is one that provides services to help the ill and indigent, restrain the worst impulses of amoral capitalism, assist people struggling with unforseen circumstance, provide for the common defence, and the like.

 These services, not surprisingly, cost money.

 Regressive taxes will reduce the amount of income going to the government, and make it impossible to pay for such programs.

 Now, granted, you may well be able to reduce government expenditures in some areas (such as defence) and increase revenues (by elminating loopholes).  In the end, though, if the wealthy pay less of their fair share in tax, less revenue is generated.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

Axly, Sparky, "capitalism," is an economic system that focuses upon the production, exchange of "capital," or money in all its forms. That's Econ 101, dude. Check the "Wall Street Journal," which, I suspect, is not a Marxist journal.

Part of the ideological justiciation for capitalism is that "man," is inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we might as well set up our economy to take advantage of this fact--for which there is not good anthropolological evidence, but wotthell.

You might also try and learn something about the history of the economic system you espouse. Or at least its present state. But hey, no real chance of that, is there?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 9, 2004)

Sorry, my quote button doesn't seem to work right, so

"No, it doesn't. For a society to truly provide the chances for success that you claim to support, the wealthy need to pay more."-PeachMonkey

Actually the truly fair way to do things is for everyone to pay the same amount total.  That's fair.  Right now, everyone pays the same for a gallon of milk or whatever and nobody says that the rich should spend $10 while the poor should only pay a quarter.  But that's not practical.  So we meet in the middle with a consumption tax.  The government will get enough money to function without punishing anyone for their success and/or luck.

Wow, I really said that Marxism had nothing to do with economics?  I can't find that anywhere in the postings, but please direct me to where I said that.  I see why you think I don't know anything about Marx if I actually said that, so I don't know what I was thinking and I apologize.  I really don't remember writing that, though.  That aside, just because I don't agree with Marx doesn't mean I don't know anything about him.  I even stated one of his major beliefs immediately after someone talked about him.  

"You might also try and learn something about the history of the economic system you espouse. Or at least its present state. But hey, no real chance of that, is there?"
As for reasearch, I'm looking at successful capitalism right now.  So are you.  Do you own anything?  Well then, you are a capitalsit.  I've asked you before and I'll do so again, why do you think capitalism is a failure?  Please back that up because it's patently ridiculous.

"Because a truly just society is one that provides services to help the ill and indigent, restrain the worst impulses of amoral capitalism, assist people struggling with unforseen circumstance, provide for the common defence, and the like."
Amoral capitalism?  What is that, stealing capital?  Because regular capitalism is human nature as, since I've said so many times before, people like stuff.  The other stuff, sure.

"Part of the ideological justiciation for capitalism is that "man," is inherently greedy and acquisitive, so we might as well set up our economy to take advantage of this fact--for which there is not good anthropolological evidence, but wotthell."
You're telling me that there is no anthropolgical evidence that people like capital?  Again, do you own anything you don't need to survive?  There's your evidence.

"Now, granted, you may well be able to reduce government expenditures in some areas (such as defence) and increase revenues (by elminating loopholes). In the end, though, if the wealthy pay less of their fair share in tax, less revenue is generated."

Exactly.  The problem is that you define a fair share as disproportionately more than the fair share of everyone else.  Fair is sysnonymous with equal.


"You refer to your arguments as "realistic", which is entirely a value judgement. Many of them are part of the language of class-warfare which has been designed to pull apart our society and help the wealthy retain more capital and resources at the expense of society and the world as a whole."
No, it's a definition.  When you dela with facts, such as people like to buy things, you are a realist.  When you deal with pie-in-the-sky theories and the waay things SHOULD be, you are an idealist.  Neither is more correct than the other, but when talking theory, we need to incorporate the fact that we know, such as people want capital.

"Axly, Sparky, "capitalism," is an economic system that focuses upon the production, exchange of "capital," or money in all its forms. That's Econ 101, dude. Check the "Wall Street Journal," which, I suspect, is not a Marxist journal."
Pay attention.  I've said almost exactly that for most of this thread.  In fact, a few times in this post.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey:

To clarify, are we talking about a flat tax amount or a flat tax percentage?  I think the latter would be fair to apply to all individuals, but not a flat tax amount, obviously.  I just wanted to make sure before continuing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

"Capitalsim means, quite simplt that people like stuff. It's historical record is pretty good...can you show otherwise? What are you talking about with teh Wall Street Journal? Econ101 is supply and demand stuff, not Marxism. Studying communism might be in history or political science or something."

Your words, right? I recommend you try reading, say, Thompson's, "History of the English Working Class." Then get back to me on the subject of this enormous historical boon of capitalist society, which has ALWAYS rewarded a few and screwed the majority. 

As for the supposed common sense of claiming that we're looking at successful capitalism right now--now that's comedy.


We're 500 bil in debt. Our Social Security system is a mess. We're engaged in two wars, we have upwards of 80 million people without health insurance, the economy sucks, many of our states are more or less bankrupt, we have at least six major scandals working through courts involving the country's biggest corporations and accounting firms, we can't figure out how to pay for decent schools, the Presidentaial candidates are going to spend enough to feed every kid in Africa decently for five years, our work-week is going up and up and up, and oh--by the way--the latest studies show that the productivity of the American worker is down below that of French workers.

This is success?


----------



## Xequat (Sep 9, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Amongst all of this, everyone seems to be missing an important mathmatical concept. The government requires "X" number of dollars in order to function. (what "X" should equal is another matter). However, "X" must remain constant, irrespective of the particular way or from which entity it is collected. Ultimately, where will it come from? The citizenry. If it comes out of corporate income, this gets passed along to the consumer. If it comes out of income, wage amounts must correspond, ergo prices for goods and services go up. Money is conserved. It all must come from somewhere. Ultimately, the real question should be upon whom ought the burden lie?
> 
> The key points should be:
> 
> ...


Well said, flatlander.  That's a good idea.  Let's stop talking about Marx and capitalsim and talk about what we originally came to discuss...the consumption tax, or "fair tax," as the proponents have cleverly called it.

Here are my opinions on how the consumption tax would fit flatlander's qualifications:
a)  The consumption tax would eliminate loopholes, simplifying the sytem to the point where we would not even need the multitrillion-dollar monster that is the IRS.  Most of the 98000 Government workers would lose their jobs, plus CPA's, so maybe there's a way to do it gradually?  Any suggestions?
b)  We could have rebates for the poorer.  They could keep receipts and send them in (which might save a few IRS jobs, but there wouldn't be nearly the requirement that the current IRS needs.  And the form would be simple.  Include a copy of your last paycheck stub to show that you make a certain amount of money, stuff a bunch of receipts into the envelope, and voila!  OK, it's not quite that simple, but you get the idea.  Also, by not taxing necessities like food and some clothing, etc., you would be lessening the burden on the lower classes because they would almost definitely be spending a greater percentage of their income on such things.
c)  It would encourage investment in the economy becuase some people would buy stocks, which invest in companies, and most people would buy goods and services, maintaining jobs.
d)  It would hopefully make the government more efficient because when they decide to raise taxes, everyone will know it.  Many won't be happy, so this might force the government to operate better with what they have coming in already.  Plus, one less bureaucracy with the IRS gone.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 9, 2004)

"Fair is sysnonymous with equal."

No, no it's not.  Fair means getting what you deserve, equal just means equal.  For example, if two people were working on a class project, with one student doing all the work and the other doing little more than show up, the fair thing is not to give them equal grades or equal credit for the finished product.  Concerning the wealthy, well, they have more that they can give and can handle the burden of taxation, so a larger amount of taxes (in dollars, not percentage) from them would be fair.  Besides, as flatlander said, there's a constant X amount of taxes needed, and if we charged the rich and the poor (as well as the middle-class, excuse me) the same amount, the burden would be much bigger on the poorer citizens.


----------



## Xequat (Sep 9, 2004)

I'm done...I just wrote a freaking novel and when I ewnt to post it, my Internet explorer shut down.  I'm taking a break.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

Ah. A libertarian view, arguing for laissez-faire capitalism. 

Capitalism is indeed the issue, however, reluctant you are to admit it. Not, "common sense," not, "fair tax," none of that smokescreen. 

You want to eliminate the IRS, to cut taxes on corporations and the rich in the belief that this will somehow, "liberate," the economy.

It's laissez-faire capitalism, especially since dollars to douighnuts you also feel that organizations like the SEC and the Fed are just more gov'mint bureaucracies that continue to obstruct corporations that, left alone, would make everything better for everybody.

One would think that recent developments with Enron, with big accounting firms, with Bechtel and Halliburton and Tyco, would give you pause, even if the reality of the history of corporations didn't.

But then, I remain fascinated by the spectacle of the screwees in our society rooting for the screwers.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 9, 2004)

Have you anything constructive to add from the peanut gallery, or are you content in sitting there tossing peanuts at the people who would actually attempt to deal with the issues?


----------



## someguy (Sep 9, 2004)

Alot has been said here and I don't really feel like commenting on alot of it.  This fair tax doesn't seem to fair to me. 
Lets say I make $50,000 but because I am single I don't need to spend as much as John Doe who has a family of 5 and makes the same amount.
It would kind of discourage having a family.
I'm more for the whole gradation in taxes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

Peanuts. 

Amongst other things, it preserves me from beginning sentences with words like, "amongst," and then going on to declare stentoriously that the fact that government needs money is, "an important mathematical concept."

Here's an important economic and ideological concept, which I believe I mentioned a while back:

All this about "flat tax," is really just a way of declaring one's faith in laissez-faire capitalism, the abolition of all government regulation of wealthy individuals and their corporations, and the rise of a libertarian society. Same thing with the VAT: look at who's pushing this stuff, and look at what the iravowed agendas are.

Problem is, you don't like the way I see the issue. By all means, attack that.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Peanuts.
> 
> Amongst other things, it preserves me from beginning sentences with words like, "amongst," and then going on to declare stentoriously that the fact that government needs money is, "an important mathematical concept."
> 
> ...


1) That was funny. I like your sense of humour. It's quite dry.

2) The mathmatical concept to which I referred was the idea that irrespective of how the government gets paid, it comes from the citzenry. Ergo, the only meaningful way to discuss fairness in taxation is to talk about where the tax burden ought lie, which you must admit, is not where the discussion was going at all.

3) Actually, I quite like the way you see the issue. As a Canadian, I live in a society much more geared toward socialist ideology than you, which has influenced my ideas of economic responsibility. What I dislike,(as a Moderator) however, is the perpetual obfuscation of meaning, subtle insults toward the intellectual abilities of your fellow board members, and general unwillingness to remain on topic. Rather, there is a proclivity toward derogatory commentary, which generally tends to get under the skin of a lot of people, myself included. But, I shall endeavour to try to take it all with a grain of salt, for I am young, and don't know you, and for all I know you may be typing all of this with a smile upon your face and a Ronald McDonald wig upon your head. Nonetheless, I am merely trying to reign in the wild horse that is thread drift, that we may all keep things just a little more organized. Sometimes I mix up my MT poster hat and my Mod hat. Please accept my apologies, but I needed to get all that out there.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 9, 2004)

Hate to tell you this, but I very seldom even consider the intellectual abilities of my fellow posters, feeling that they are none of my business, and I also don't go in for subtle insults. Nor can I control the projections and assumptions of others, especially when they find direct attacks a helluva lot easier than simply discussing the issues, or trying to think through what I might be saying.

I don't typically digress. In this case, I try to get to the root of the issue; elsewhere, I try and discuss little things like the history of an issue. 

For example: hidden under the fantasy of this, "fair," tax, there is in fact a network of assumptions about the economy and about society--even about morality. I believe them to be erroneous assumptions.


----------

