The FairTax, Join in!

[Final-Fan]

senseinobaka said:

Final-Fan said:

I have to completely object to your skewed version of "fairness." A person's income, earnings, and property doesnt matter when it comes to paying for his/her fair share. Taxes are levied for the express purpose of each paying their share for the cost of running a government. ([side note]Atleast thats how it should be, under the last 100 years of liberal tyranny, taxes have been used in gross ways such as buying votes, punishing unwanted activities, rewarding special interest groups, rewarding cronnies, etc[/side note]) So here's an example of how taxes would be levied in a fair system. Lets say that the population is 2 people and the cost for government is $5000 per year. Thats means Person A pays his share of $2500 and person B pays his share of $2500. That is fair. Wheter person A works harder and earns more money doent matter. It is unfair to say that person A would have to pay $4500 because he makes more money, that is not his problem nor is it his concern, and it is definately NOT the government's business. That is why fair taxation is good. The governemnt gets their greddy noses out of our paychecks, wallets, and bank accounts and we citizens pay our fair share buy simply buying goods.

AHAHAHAHAHA.

So your idea of a "flat tax" would be "every U.S. citizen owes Uncle Sam $10,000 per year". Doesn't matter if you work like a dog ten hours a day and only make minimum wage. Doesn't matter if you're a trust fund baby. Doesn't matter if you're a LITERAL baby ... you can just owe the gov't until working age. Of course a lot of people don't make $10,000 more per year than food and shelter costs, and since starving/homeless citizens aren't working citizens I guess we'll have to raise the taxes on the people who are able to pay ... oh wait.

That's the worst idea I've heard from anyone so far on the subject of taxation ... and that includes the people who think it's a good idea for the government to deliberately destroy itself with deficit spending. At least they REALIZE what they're proposing.

Thanks for the comic relief.

This is a typical strawman and slipery slope argument. That is not what I'm saying at all. I was simply showing you what a fair tax system would be. Think about what you are saying and what I am saying. You say that if there's a pie it is "fair" give most of it to one person and a small sliver to another. I am saying that fair would be to give an equal piece to everyone. Everyone uses government services, and owes the government for thier services. And every person should only pay up to what their part of the pie is and no more. If someone cannot pay their share, it is not the government's business to find some one who can and rob them to cover the deficient person's debt. That is wrong, and thats not from an opinion stand point, all forms of marxism including socialism, facism, and communism have historical proff of being fallacious theories.

I'm not saying that consideration shouldnt be made to the poor, if a situation arises that a poor person can pay their fair share of the tax, i think the person and the government need to work something out. I do not think the solution is to steal money from another, unrelated person.

Just imagine if some other entity used that kind of tactic. How pissed off would you be if your credit card company started charging you money you do not owe them because another customer was not able pay? That notion is crazy, but you are trying to preach that it is perfectly sane for the government to do. That's pretty loony, but then again you seem to love loony things like the facist democratic congress passing facist legislation like a min wage increase.

It's not a straw man or a slippery slope. It's applying your stated idea of what a "fair" tax system would be to a real-world model (the US) to show you how utterly ridiculous it is.

So you want to tax people based on how much of the government's services they use? Do you have any idea at all how completely impossible it would be to apply such a tax? We would have to know how much road you use, how much you benefit from other people using the roads, how much you benefit from the fruits of government research (the Internet), etc. ad nauseam. Would we also need to consider how much you benefit from being in a nation instead of unconnected states or cities or total anarchy?

"Socialism, fascism, and communism" are totally different and the mere fact that you try to lump them all together in some pathetic attempt to label me with that lump is just pathetic.

"I'm not saying that consideration shouldnt be made to the poor" Actually, that's exactly what you said and it's not my fault if you 'didn't really mean it'.

The credit card company analogy is pretty weak. I'm not going to bother destroying it because "fascist, fascist" at this point you're just completely foaming at the mouth, spewing anything that happens to cross your mind.

Goodbye.