Final-Fan said:
Eomund said:
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.
senseinobaka said:
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 [...]
Final-Fan said:
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. [...]
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.
Eomund said:
Stop applying your own views to ours, as they will never mix.
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? I agree with senseinobaka's flat fee ideal. However, I understand this won't be realized in the US. I believe others have said as much. So there should be a flat rate at which people are taxed. The FairTax is the best way to do this in my opinion, especially since it taxes a person's wealth, not earnings. quote]Eomund said:
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.[/quote]
You're right that he didn't make the "tax according to use of gov't services" argument. He said, "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." 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. He was using a reasonable argument. He did not say to apply the fee to "everyone." He even used an example where the two people paid taxes from their earnings. I happen to agree with him, but even so realize that can never be the case. Eomund said:
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.
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. I have also expected better of you, yet been let down recently. Let's return to civility. Karl Marx said:
--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.
First of all, I haven't been arguing at all for a heavily progressive tax system, but I'll let that slide. It certainly sounds like you are promoting a heavily progressive tax system. I would argue this current system is very progressive (on both individuals and businesses) and hampers growth of the economy and therefore better lives for the people participating in the economy. 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? Federal government run education is a bad thing. They hardly teach kids math and science. So yes I would say that is a bad idea for several reasons. For what I want to happen with the education system see my posts with Kasz. 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. I merely brought those 10 tenets up to prove my point about the income tax and to give it context. Eomund said:
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.
Stopping child labor is anticapitalistic as well. Don't chain the free market! Stopping child labor is not anticapitalistic, it is civilized. Child labor is more slave labor than paid labor. Kids hardly get paid properly and can't do many of the jobs older people can. Eomund said:
Let me outline a brief of what Conservatives believe about "the poor and less fortunate". 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.] | 
; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for 
, let me know!
