Final-Fan said:
It's not a straw man or a slippery slope. It's applying your stated idea of what a "fair" tax system would be and me applying it 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. |
Senseinobaka was using logic and reason to explain his point on taxes. You took his argument to an extreme that was never intended or even remotely implied whether implicitly or explicitly. Stop applying your own views to ours, as they will never mix. We believe what a former President stated so well, yet is never remembered.
"The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. . . . The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful." (Calvin Coolidge inaugural address, March 4, 1925)
Senseinobaka never said such things Final. You are, as you said, "applying your stated idea of what a "fair" tax system would be and me applying it to a real-world model." Sensei never said that we should, "tax people based on how much of the government's services they use." What he said was that since everyone uses government services they should be taxed equally. He was basically saying that if you paid for something, you should have access to it whenever you want, but that doesn't mean that you are going to use it.
Socialism, fascism, and communism are all based on one philosophy, Marxism. Marx said this, "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need," did he not? This is what you seem to be saying as well.
Let me point to another person who said something very similar to this, Hillary Clinton. This is a quote from a speech she made to some donors in 2004, "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Obama has said similar things as well.
Here are 10 points from Marx's Communist Manifesto:
We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Note point number 2 (bolded for easy recognition). That is what we are currently under. This is anti-capitalistic rhetoric, and you are supporting it.
Let me outline a brief of what Conservatives believe about "the poor and less fortunate". We believe that in every American there is exceptional greatness. They have the potential to release that greatness if they are not held back. Rush Limbaugh calls this American Exceptionalism. Every person has the chance to become something more than they currently are. Everyone has the ability within them if they can muster the determination and perseverance to see your dreams come true. We believe that anyone can achieve greatness if government will simply get out of their way.
When there is no incentive to better yourself, that is holding you back. When you create incentive to better yourself, most people will take the opportunity. Our income tax system is removing the incentive to create opportunities for yourself. The FairTax removes the disincentive of our progressive income tax system.
Further we refuse to believe that people cannot make themselves better. This is why conservatives believe in smaller government, personal opportunity through a capitalist economy, and personal responsibility. We fail to see the "down-trodden" as hapless and helpless victims. We view them in the best light, their own possibility.
I do not presume that I have or even can change your mind with this post, but I must outline my personal world view as it applies to politics and policy. I can only talk about what I believe though. I believe the FairTax will help people. I believe that people will take the opportunity afforded to them when they have incentive to do so. I believe that less government regulation of the marketplace and intrusion in personal lives will lead to greater freedom and better lives for everyone willing to take part in the opportunities America can provide.
If this thread cannot get back on track soon I will abandon it and create another FairTax thread sometime in February.
