Copycon said: 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.

 Nice troll. You fail. Try again. Bring something useable to the argument.

But if you can count on chairty why do you need to have tax breaks on essential life products?

If you leave it to the charities you save the administration costs, and get more tax revenue and therefore can make the fair tax an even lower amount, giving everyone more money.

Then the charities can "make it up" to the poor. 

If it could work like that I would love to support it. Simply put charity does not and cannot replace government.

Government does several necessary functions. First, protect its citizens. Second, protect its borders (Current administration fails at this). There are a few others, but those two are the most important and primary functions of government. They should do this all the while keeping intrusive government fingers out of both our lives and out pocketbooks [edit: as much as possible.]

 [Second EDIT:

If we left it up to the charities to "make it up" to the poor:

First the charities would essentially be a function of the government.

Second it would not be perceived as fair.] 

Eomund said: If it could work like that I would love to support it. Simply put charity does not and cannot replace government. Government does several necessary functions. First, protect its citizens. Second, protect its borders (Current administration fails at this). There are a few others, but those two are the most important and primary functions of government. They should do this all the while keeping intrusive government fingers out of both our lives and out pocketbooks [edit: as much as possible.] [Second EDIT: If we left it up to the charities to "make it up" to the poor: First the charities would essentially be a function of the government. Second it would not be perceived as fair.]

1. I would argue that anytime we get rid of something the government does it's replacement becomes a function of the government.   

2.  I would argue that the fair tax is not perceived as fair by most people now.  I beleive most people see a progressive tax as fair, part of the reason being, most people arn't rich.  All the complaints I do hear about the progressive tax is about how people have to pay for the lazy who do nothing but sit around and wait for governtment checks for welfare.  Is it not conceivable that the same thing could happen under the fair tax? Those who do not work at all receive prebate checks or cards.  Being refunded money they don't even make? 

Now that is an honest concern which I also have. The only way I can answer that is to say that removing the income tax (along with corporate, capital gains, etc.) will also remove the disincentive to work. There will always be lazy bums leeching off the system, but that isn't an issue the FairTax addresses and therefore isn't an argument the FairTax should be attacked on.

This is a seperate issue of Welfare Reform. I want welfare reform to wean people off of government assistance. This is another debate, but as a quick aside since the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" under Johnson, the percentage of poor to our population has remained the same. We haven't solved it after throwing about $6 trillion at it. Before those programs the percentage would fluctuate with the economy.

senseinobaka 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 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.

1) The second paragraph of my second response was based on an apparent misunderstanding; it can be deleted/ignored without affecting any of my other statements. 

2) Your entire post was laced with namecalling, including "loon", "Marxist", "socialist", "fascist", and "communist" (this may not be a complete list, I didn't bother to check thoroughly for this purpose).  Trying to deny it just means that you weren't namecalling but foaming at the (metaphorical) mouth. 

3) If you think that's what I desire you haven't understood my posts.  Or perhaps we have wildly different definitions of what constitutes maltreatment, yours being "taxes". 

4) No, it really doesn't. 

5) I see.  [edit: How very black-and-white your world is.]  And anyone who wants to regulate any little thing is for total government control of everything.  Your understanding of this subject is sadly twisted, but I know that any educational effort would be wasted. 

You're an idiot who's been fed twisted ideology until he can't tell the difference between progressivism and communism.  I'd say "be a man and embrace your beliefs", but you'd probably agree with the second half of that last sentence. 

 

HIS EXACT WORDS were to say that "a fair system" would be a flat fee applied 'equally' to all citizens. That is exactly the system that I derided. In what way did I misrepresent his argument? If he meant that it would be fair in Fantasyland but totally bad for the United States, then ... okay.

I only applied logic to his views, but the two certainly did not mix, judging by his response.

As for your views, I had thought you were for the rich paying more because they had more money, but not more relative to their own wealth than the less wealthy do relative to theirs. This is very different from senseinobaka's "flat fee" ideal. Perhaps I had you confused with shams or one of the others. Could you clarify your position here?

You're right that he didn't make the "tax according to use of gov't services" argument. He said, and I misinterpreted it.

Nevertheless, he undeniably did make the flat-fee argument, which is nearly as laughable. That is the argument that I applied to the model of the U.S.

I could pick a statement Hitler or Stalin or somebody said that your views could be shoehorned into fitting. Would that mean I could compare your views to theirs? I expected better from you, Eomund, I really did.

First of all, I haven't been arguing at all for a heavily progressive tax system, but I'll let that slide.

OH WOW I AGREE WITH ONE THING KARL MARX SAID!!1!eleven

Make that two or three, because I'm in favor of public education and putting a stop to 1800s-style child labor (forced labor, really) in factories. Are those bad ideas too?

A short sampling of the others:
1. Abolition of private property? Um, no.
3. Abolition of inheritances? As much as you may think that the estate tax is this, it's not. So no.
4. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly? As abusive as I think credit card companies are, the thought of supporting this has never entered my head.
Et cetera.

Stopping child labor is anticapitalistic as well. Don't chain the free market!
etc. etc. [edit: You know what? Never mind my response to all of the rest of this. I stand by what I said, but I was just opening up new avenues of disputation. Only one thing will I keep: Don't call people Marxists and call them out for agreeing with stuff from the Communist Manifesto unless you want to tie them to communism.]

Eomund said: Now that is an honest concern which I also have. The only way I can answer that is to say that removing the income tax (along with corporate, capital gains, etc.) will also remove the disincentive to work. There will always be lazy bums leeching off the system, but that isn't an issue the FairTax addresses and therefore isn't an argument the FairTax should be attacked on. This is a seperate issue of Welfare Reform. I want welfare reform to wean people off of government assistance. This is another debate, but as a quick aside since the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty" under Johnson, the percentage of poor to our population has remained the same. We haven't solved it after throwing about $6 trillion at it. Before those programs the percentage would fluctuate with the economy.

 It creates an even bigger welfare problem however, that's how it addresses it.  As everyone who meets the requirments have a right to the check, and none of the requirmenets for the prebate is that one of your family members work or have worked in the past.  The government is more or less providing everyone with food, water and other life essentials by taking money more so from those who spend more.

Also, there is a secondary problem in that to sign up for the prebate tax you need an address.  Many hardworking people live out of motels in the winter months and their cars in the summer months.  Many of these people at or below the poverty level would not be eligable for the prebate

Get rid of the address requirement and EVERYONE will sign up for the prebate, including the homeless and the like, which while great would once again lead to that "extending welfare" thing as the amount of money that would go to them each month as a prebate would likely be way more then our government spends per person on the homeless now when you consider howmuch more it would cost in infrastructure and that we'd likely keep a number of our welfare and other such programs..  Which would seem to indicate costs would be much much higher then expected.

Eomund said: Copycon said: 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. Nice troll. You fail. Try again. Bring something useable to the argument

 

Well,

My argument is that the fair tax is about as fair as: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."

The state favours in general the higher socioeconomic classes and this to an even greaten extent in the "liberal state", just think about property rights.

Those most favoured by the state can (and shall IMO) pay a higher tax than the minimum wage-earner.

 

And about bums; do you think those "lazy guys" will have a better life than you have, just because they "just want to take it easy all the time". They will in general live 20 years shorter than you will, have as a group several 100 percent bigger risk than average Joes to get murdered or robbed.

 

Copycon said: Eomund said: Copycon said: 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. Nice troll. You fail. Try again. Bring something useable to the argument Well, My argument is that the fair tax is about as fair as: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread." The state favours in general the higher socioeconomic classes and this to an even greaten extent in the "liberal state", just think about property rights. Those most favoured by the state can (and shall IMO) pay a higher tax than the minimum wage-earner.   And about bums; do you think those "lazy guys" will have a better life than you have, just because they "just want to take it easy all the time". They will in general live 20 years shorter than you will, have as a group several 100 percent bigger risk than average Joes to get murdered or robbed.

 Ok, first as a non-point I would like to know if you are a citizen of the US? That holds no bearing over your ability to contribute or question the FairTax, I am just curious.

Secondly, I do not understand what you are getting at when you say:

When you say that I think of the government giving preference to those groups. I do not think that is what you are saying. Please clarify if you want an answer.

As for those "lazy bums" if they want to work, I know a McD's down the street looking to hire people.

I believe that there is more merit to work than simply earning money. It teaches you responsibility and equity. It gives you a purpose to get up everyday. I have heard of experiments where a man lived alone without much if any contact with other people. After several months he found that he was obsessing over his daily work. He also found that when he did not work, he was going a little loony (crazy, cooky, cabin fever, etc.). Work allows people to live longer in my opinion. It helps give men and women purpose in their lives. It should not define them unless it is their life's work. When people do not put their hands to a good purpose, like work, they tend to do idle things and "evil" things like rob and kill. Show me a man with a solid work ethic and I will show you a man, who for the most part, will stay out of trouble.