By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 10 January 2008
Eomund said:
Final-Fan said:
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 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:

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

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.

 


You think every American is exceptional? Have you ever heard of the Bell Curve? Have you seen American education levels compared to many other 1st world countries. (and some third world.)

The Clinton and O'bama commenets are funny, but pointless for me. As I support John Mccain. Making more money =/= working harder then someone else. I believe that's the disconnect we're having here. Well that and you don't seem to understand that what you fail to understand is that some people don't support a progressive tax because they're "LOL SOCIALISM" but because it's the best system we have for maintaining balance when you think you can't make the poor people pay taxes and it's been demonstrably shown that a strong middle class is vital to the health of the nation.

I have many reasons why, but staying true to the 1 topic statement i will simply state this.

1) Your prebate tax IS socialism, and a socialist mechanic larger then ANY we currently have. It's a system where everyone registered gets a check from the government for exactly as much as the government deems is the correct amount people need for food, water and other essentials. It's one step away from actually giving every citizen this food, water and items. Peolpe arn't getting money based on what they spend on essentials, it's money based on what you THINK they should pay for essentials.

If you despise socialism so much, and think that pure captialism is the only way, why do you support this prebate? Why not just make "essential" goods untaxable, like the states already do? I already don't pay any tax whenever I buy food. Are you also for repealing the regulations that prevent monopolies and price fixing? (After all, capitalism states price fixing is a good thing, since the people who need the objects the most will pay the most for them.)

By your support of the prebate, and your likely stance against Monopolies and Price Fixing, (which if you don't have objections against you'd be in the minority) you support some forms and parts of socialism yourself. So knee jerk shouting "Communist!" is quie dishonest intellectually. Just about everyone in this country supports some level of socialism and rejects atleast some parts of a pure captialistic system.

Heck the fact that you even agree that some poor shouldn't pay taxes is socialism on some level. In a true capitalistic world, everyone would pay taxes, and those who could not pay for food or water would have to hope that those who do have the money would decide it was worth there time to make sure these people didn't starve.

So i'd perfer you didn't label people the favorite son of Karl Marx just because they disagree with you.  A true capitalist could accuse you of the very same.



Around the Network
Eomund on 10 January 2008
Kasz216 said:

You think every American is exceptional? Have you ever heard of the Bell Curve? Have you seen American education levels compared to many other 1st world countries. (and some third world.)

The opportunity that is in America is more what I am talking about. The educational system in America is government run which is a tenet of communism as well. The American government schools are not teaching like they should. They indoctrinating the kids to become good little tax payers. Education should be run by each state/community independently of the Federal Government.

The Clinton and O'bama commenets are funny, but pointless for me. As I support John Mccain. Making more money =/= working harder then someone else. I believe that's the disconnect we're having here. Well that and you don't seem to understand that what you fail to understand is that some people don't support a progressive tax because they're "LOL SOCIALISM" but because it's the best system we have for maintaining balance when you think you can't make the poor people pay taxes and it's been demonstrably shown that a strong middle class is vital to the health of the nation.

Making more money doesn't necessarily mean working harder then someone else, this is true. But when you get to that level of pay you tend to also have more responsibility. If something goes wrong you are held responsible for it. That is what a lot of people don't want, more responsibility.

I have many reasons why, but staying true to the 1 topic statement i will simply state this.

1) Your prebate tax IS socialism, and a socialist mechanic larger then ANY we currently have. It's a system where everyone registered gets a check from the government for exactly as much as the government deems is the correct amount people need for food, water and other essentials. It's one step away from actually giving every citizen this food, water and items. Peolpe arn't getting money based on what they spend on essentials, it's money based on what you THINK they should pay for essentials.

So if a tax refund is socialism, the current tax rebate is socialism? The government has an index for the poverty level. I agree that the idea of a poverty level isn't exactly perfect, but what other way of refunding the poor their tax dollars to ensure they have the money they need to survive? I do not believe that government giving money BACK to the people who pay their taxes is socialism. It is a refund. If the idea is unpalatable to you then lets come up with a new idea for indexing the poverty level.

If you despise socialism so much, and think that pure captialism is the only way, why do you support this prebate? Why not just make "essential" goods untaxable, like the states already do? I already don't pay any tax whenever I buy food. Are you also for repealing the regulations that prevent monopolies and price fixing? (After all, capitalism states price fixing is a good thing, since the people who need the objects the most will pay the most for them.)

I never said that pure capitalism is the only way. I did say that less government interference in the marketplace and private lives would be better for everyone. If you made essential goods untaxable the FairTax rate would go through the roof. That is why the tax refund (AKA Prebate) is necessary. Your monopoly assertion is something that I believe is a valid function of government. That does not mean that I view that as socialist. Government breakup of monopolies is more of a service to the people. A monopoly is not capitalist, it is a form of totalitarian policy is the form of a business. A monopoly will undercut anybody that pops up in the market to compete with them. This is also not capitalist. Capitalism creates opportunities, monopolies suppress opportunies. Monopolies become only concerned with maintaining their power over the market. You claim, "After all, capitalism states price fixing is a good thing, since the people who need the objects the most will pay the most for them," which is not claimed by capitalism. It does state that in a capitalist economy, the person who needs the object the most will pay the most for it, but that does not mean that it is a good thing. Exploiting this is robbery and should be punished. Supply and Demand is one thing, holding goods for ransom is not. If you exploit the price of an item as you have suggested, you are nothing more than a pirate.

By your support of the prebate, and your likely stance against Monopolies and Price Fixing, (which if you don't have objections against you'd be in the minority) you support some forms and parts of socialism yourself. So knee jerk shouting "Communist!" is quie dishonest intellectually. Just about everyone in this country supports some level of socialism and rejects atleast some parts of a pure captialistic system.

I did not shout "Communist!" I shouted Marxist! Marxism has permeated the Democrat party and liberal thought. As I have said the Prebate and acting against monopolies and price fixing are not socialist in nature. They may have some similarities to socialism but are not. 

Heck the fact that you even agree that some poor shouldn't pay taxes is socialism on some level. In a true capitalistic world, everyone would pay taxes, and those who could not pay for food or water would have to hope that those who do have the money would decide it was worth there time to make sure these people didn't starve.

I never said that the poor should not pay taxes, I simply recognized that in any system this will have to be the case. What you describe as a "true capitalistic world" is infact an anarchy without codes of morals or conduct.

So i'd perfer you didn't label people the favorite son of Karl Marx just because they disagree with you. A true capitalist could accuse you of the very same.

I did not label anyone a Marxist because they disagree with me, I labeled them because if they think that way, they are. I hope the "true capitalist" is not from the "true capitalistic world" you described from above.


 Answered above.



I want my WHOLE paycheck! I support the Fair Tax!

http://www.fairtax.org/

Kasz216 on 10 January 2008

Your viewing it as not socialist doesn't mean it isn't. Monopolies are capitalist, it's the companies elimianting others so they can make money.

The problem you have is that your view of captialism isn't capitalism, it's some sort of psuedo optimistic moral capitalism.

A true captialist world is one where the Free Market decides everything and the government has NO controls in the market.

Captialism doesn't have morals. Capitalism is a system in which the means of production are owned for the purpose of generating profit.

Pure capitalism is economic Darwinism. There is no place in profit for charity.

Capitalism is a "get yours first" system. Then hope the "Invisible hand of the market" takes care of everyone else.

We can agree however that the department of education should be disbanded. I've even seen the head of the department of education admit that they couldn't really do anything to fix it, it was the states duty.

The federal government should just cut the states 50 checks if they want to help education and let the states deal with it.

Also, i still haven't seen what would stop the government from deficit spending whenever the expected tax revenue didn't meet what they  had originally budgeted for.

What i see from the fair tax is what happens now.  The government constantly inflating whenever the taxes outstripe the budget, and the government not deflating and deficit spending when the taxes are less then expected.  Considering how more unstable a tax like this would be, it seems like the effects of this will be worse...

 and THIS is what i consider the number 1 problem of taxes.  The governments abuse of them to inflate, and then just raise taxes if they keep spending in deficit.



Kasz216 on 10 January 2008

Looking over it, I think your problem is you are argueing from a more modern "modified" capitalist base.

Classical capitalism needs to be modified, that's the fact. Any modifying of that is a move to the socialist spectrum.

Neoclassic capitalism =/= Classical capitalism (AKA extreme capitalism.) 



Eomund on 10 January 2008

I completely agree with you on the education Kasz. Good to see we don't disagree on everything. Let us celebrate briefly. *cheering*

Capitalism doesn't have morals, but the people in it do. If people have morals they will help others through charity. Not everyone in a capitalist society needs to be making money. If people have extra money, why couldn't they donate it to a charity to take care of the poor. In truth the reality of the poor is we will always have them with us. Christ himself said that.

Monopolies suppress the market and that isn't capitalism. Oil companies in the early 1900s would pay the employees of a competitor to keep them from doing the job they were hired to do. That is not capitalism, that is false capitalism. When you suppress the market similar to that you are enforcing totalitarian ideas, and I submit totalitarianism isn't free capitalism.

If a market is under the boot of a monopoly, that monopoly will stop any attempt to challenge its authority in that market. That isn't capitalism in its purest form of idealism. If monopolies were to restrain themselves from strong arm tactics, that would allow for more competition and more capitalism.

 PS. Thanks for getting the debate back on track Kasz. The FairTax has its merits and its faults, but I believe that the merits far outweigh the faults.



I want my WHOLE paycheck! I support the Fair Tax!

http://www.fairtax.org/

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 10 January 2008

If people can rely on the charity of others, then why have this prebate? I don't understand why you can't just have a lower "Fair tax" get rid of the prebate system, and let the charities pick up all of the slack for those who can't afford to pay the consumption tax? 

The prebate system is my biggest problem with this tax other then the fact that we don't know what would happen until it did, because it seems it would put many more americans at the mercy of a welfare like system where they are dependant on a monthly government check.



senseinobaka on 10 January 2008
Final-Fan said:
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.

 Just some corrections:

1) Your second paragraph argues a position I never expressed. You then use the tenants of that made up position to prove me incorrect. This is a straw man argument by definition. 

2) I never intended to label you as anything, except maybe a loon. My mention of Marxist ideology and its historical failure was to prove the idea of taxing someone else to cover another’s deficit is completely full of fail. You probably can tell me the differences between Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, but none of those matters since all three have the similarity I was referring to, taxing unfairly.

3) I never said the poor should not be considered. I don’t understand why you so strongly believe that the only way to show consideration to the poor is to maltreat another citizen.

4) The credit card company analogy may have weaknesses but it perfectly illustrates the situation and attitudes that surround income taxation.

5) If fascist is an offensive word to you, then you may need to research liberal philosophy. Fascism is simply an ideology in which government has control over privately owned and operated business. Minimal wage is an outstanding example of fascist legislation. It does offend me greatly, but it should not offend you so. Be a man and embrace your beliefs. 



_____________________________________________________

Check out the VGC Crunch this Podcast and Blog at www.tsnetcast.com

Eomund on 10 January 2008

That is something worthy of looking into. I think I know why there is a Prebate though. The Prebate un-taxes the poor. Since it is not fair to only give this to one group of people, you have to give it to everyone. To not include a rebate/refund of excess taxes to any group (but one) is suicide for any tax policy. The Prebate makes the FairTax equitable and even handed since everyone gets it back every month. The government doesn't use charities to perform any function of the tax system. That is why people can't rely on the charity of others and get rid of the Prebate.

Think of the Prebate as an advanced refund for the taxes on the goods and services required to live.

That is all the Prebate does, un-tax the essentials of life. If we were to exclude all life essentials from the FairTax at the outset, the rate would be very high indeed and would not be fair or even handed. The Prebate removes the need to raise the rate on everything other than life essentials.



I want my WHOLE paycheck! I support the Fair Tax!

http://www.fairtax.org/

Copycon on 10 January 2008

Eomund said:

Think of the Prebate as an advanced refund for the taxes on the goods and services required to live.


Oh how nice of them! Can't we just skip the minimum wage at the same time? I mean so the parasite employees won't steal too much of the employers money. 



Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!

 

 

 At least 62 million Wii sold by the end of 09 or my mario avatar will get sad
Eomund on 10 January 2008
sieanr said:
I'd just like to ask one thing of Eomund; Are you part one of the wealthy people that would benefit from the fair tax?

 No, and if you must know I expect my combined income (my wife's and my own) in 2008 to be at $35,000. This is beyond the poverty level. Some of the graphs suggest that I would pay more in taxes. I do not believe that to be the case, but even if it were I am willing to trade that for the FairTax.

 BTW, what business is it of yours to be asking me if I would be a beneficiary of the FairTax plan? You are implying a question of how much I make, which doesn't concern you at all. My income is my business. I provided the info to prove my point.



I want my WHOLE paycheck! I support the Fair Tax!

http://www.fairtax.org/