Fair Tax?

[PeachMonkey]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.