Xequat
Black Belt
"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.
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.
