PDA

View Full Version : Fair Tax


Hydrae
04-12-2006, 03:28 PM
I have been reading an interesting book co-authored by Neil Boortz and John Linder (US Rep from Georgia). It is about the "Fair Tax Act of 2005."

Basically what they are proposing is an elimination of all income, corporate, death and gift taxes and replacing them with a 23% national "consumption" (read sales) tax. While I have not finished the book (not a big book either, just over 100 pages), I find the concept very interesting. I have felt for a long time that income taxes are not constitutional (regardless of the 16th amendment which is possibly the worst piece of legislation ever pawned off on the American public).

Anyway, I wanted to throw this out for discussion. What are the reasons why this wouldn't work? I have a lot of respect for the opinions of people on this sub-forum as well as how informed some of you are in governmental related matters. So please tell me, why this isn't something we should all be lobbying our congresspeople about? How much longer should we continue to be slaves to our own government?

*EDIT: Here is a link for more information about this proposal:

http://www.fairtax.org/

jiveturkey
04-12-2006, 03:44 PM
Is there any type of incentive for small businesses in this idea?

banyon
04-12-2006, 03:44 PM
Three initial thoughts:

1) I would like to note that the 16th amendment is part of the Constitution, therefore income tax is Constitutional. If we had a 28th amendment that repealed the 16th, then it would be Unconstitutional. Ask Scalia or patteeu, who are enamored with the amendment process. :)

2. Neal Boortz is quite possibly my least favorite person on the radio. I think I have mentioned this in other posts, but he is a smug, self-absorbed idiot. This being said, there are a few decent ideas in the plan.

3. No tax system will be fair without a system that eliminates offshore tax shelters and accounts for the wealthy to hide their assets.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 03:47 PM
Its a regressive tax. If there was a rebate for the first $5k or so of tax and the a rebate of 1/2 for next 10k might be workable.

Dave

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 03:47 PM
Is there any type of incentive for small businesses in this idea?


Yes collect the money and then steal it.

Dave

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 03:54 PM
Is there any type of incentive for small businesses in this idea?


How about simply no longer having to match employees Medicare and Social Security taxes? That alone will lower all business owners overhead.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 03:59 PM
Three initial thoughts:

1) I would like to note that the 16th amendment is part of the Constitution, therefore income tax is Constitutional. If we had a 28th amendment that repealed the 16th, then it would be Unconstitutional. Ask Scalia or patteeu, who are enamored with the amendment process. :)

2. Neal Boortz is quite possibly my least favorite person on the radio. I think I have mentioned this in other posts, but he is a smug, self-absorbed idiot. This being said, there are a few decent ideas in the plan.

3. No tax system will be fair without a system that eliminates offshore tax shelters and accounts for the wealthy to hide their assets.


1) Yes, I know technically it is part of the Constitution thanks to the amendment process. However I firmly believe it completely violates other portions of the Constitution, specifically dealing with the collection of direct taxes being tied to an enumeration of the citizens.

2) I agree, I have turned the station specifically because he is on the station. But with an issue like this I am willing to listen to any idea that will get the government out of the business of being involved in my personal business.

3) If there are no death or capital gains taxes, why would this money continue to move offshore? The only time you would pay taxes is when you decided to spend money. There would be no reason to hide assets from a nonexistant tax. This area is actually one of the selling points they are using, the amount of US dollars that are out of this country with little to no hope of it coming back. If we can encourage some of this to come back into the US, the economy would go wild.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 04:03 PM
Its a regressive tax. If there was a rebate for the first $5k or so of tax and the a rebate of 1/2 for next 10k might be workable.

Dave

This is a portion of the proposal I have some issue with and that I understand the least in some ways. They are propsing that the government will send out monthly checks to EVERY household in the country to "prebate" the amount of taxes expected for a base level of living. You are really only paying taxes on anything above this level. This will have no bearing on how rich or poor you are, everyone gets this. This was put in mostly to protect the poor I believe.

One of the contentions of this book is that although they are proposing adding a 23% tax to everything (including services such as medical and dental), prices will drop by close to that same amount due to the loss of all the embedded taxes we are paying without realizing they are in the price of goods and services. At the same time you are now getting 100% of your pay so your buying power should increase while business expenses are going down.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 04:04 PM
1) If there are no death or capital gains taxes, why would this money continue to move offshore? The only time you would pay taxes is when you decided to spend money. There would be no reason to hide assets from a nonexistant tax. This area is actually one of the selling points they are using, the amount of US dollars that are out of this country with little to no hope of it coming back. If we can encourage some of this to come back into the US, the economy would go wild.


There are ways around a VAT tax that I am confronted with all the time since I ship overseas regularly.

Actually a 5% VAT type tax to fund universal health care I would find quite acceptable.

Dave

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 04:15 PM
There are ways around a VAT tax that I am confronted with all the time since I ship overseas regularly.

Actually a 5% VAT type tax to fund universal health care I would find quite acceptable.

Dave


But it is not a VAT. It is a straight consumer tax on goods and services at the retail level. This keeps it all right in front of everybody instead of it getting hidden in the price of things like happens now. A VAT also hides the tax source as it is added at each level of manufacture (from my VERY limited knowledge). By having the amount of taxes paid more clear, people will become more aware of just how much is wasted of OUR money all the time. Right now, most of us don't realize just how much we are paying in taxes over and above our income taxes.

One of the questions put forth in the book is to ask people these questions:

1) How much did you pay in taxes last year?

2) How much money did you earn last pay period?

Typical answers:

1) I got a refund!

2) Well, my take home pay is...

Of course I realize the majority of people out there are not as smart as those posting here so I would expect most people here can answer these questions off the top of their head! (I have been an anti-income tax person for many years and I honestly could not answer #2).

banyon
04-12-2006, 04:27 PM
Hydrae. If there is one thing you can count on...

Any type of tax will ensure that wealthy people's accountants and lawyers will be trying to find a way around it.

2 things I am unclear on:

A) Why wouldn't people just buy the equivalent good overseas? We'd have to raise all of our import taxes to ensure that this doesn't happen and it might result in retaliation by other countries.

B)businesses will find ways to hide the true amounts of their sales receipts to undercut this tax. Plus they might incorporate overseas to be able to transfer sales accounts/records.

your point about decreasing the desire to shelter income, however, is a good one.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 04:36 PM
Hydrae. If there is one thing you can count on...

Any type of tax will ensure that wealthy people's accountants and lawyers will be trying to find a way around it.

2 things I am unclear on:

A) Why wouldn't people just buy the equivalent good overseas? We'd have to raise all of our import taxes to ensure that this doesn't happen and it might result in retaliation by other countries.

B)businesses will find ways to hide the true amounts of their sales receipts to undercut this tax. Plus they might incorporate overseas to be able to transfer sales accounts/records.

your point about decreasing the desire to shelter income, however, is a good one.


I will do my best to answer questions on this thread. Just remember, I haven't even finished the book and am a long way from an expert on these issues, jsut a concerned citizen.

A) They do address some of this in the book regarding impoirt tarrifs but off the top of my head, not sure how to answer this one.

B) How many businesses do this now in relation to state sales taxes? The proposal as it stands now would have the taxes collected by the states since they already have a mechanism in place. The states (and I believe the businesses involved in the collections such as the retail stores) will receive a small percentage of the amount collected to cover collection costs.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 04:40 PM
I'm a fan of the fair tax as I've heard it described (I haven't actually read the book), but here are a few difficulties that might arise. It's possible that some or all of them have been addressed in the book, and if so, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Most of these "criticisms" are related to the transition from our current tax scheme to the fair tax.

1) In the income tax, the home mortgage interest deduction and the charitable giving deduction are big incentives toward home ownership and charitable giving respectively. An immediate transition away from these incentives could be pretty disruptive to the home building and charity businesses.

2) Elderly people who have been responsible in terms of saving for their own retirement have not only paid taxes on that income one time, but in many cases have paid a second round of taxes on the growth of those savings (except for IRA-like savings). An immediate and complete transition to a sales tax would now lead to those people paying a third round of taxes on those funds as they were spent on retail goods.

3) A 23% tax on retail goods (in addition to any state and local sales taxes) would be a significant incentive for the creation of a black market to avoid the tax altogether either by selling off the books or by exchanging through barter. Of course, the flip side is that it would eliminate the black market pressure for such things as paid-in-cash labor and undeclared tips.

There are probably other significant criticisms, but on balance I think the pros outweigh any cons I can think of. One of the best things about a switch to the FAIR tax, IMO, would be the ability to apply that tax to imported goods and to strip that tax from exports which would make domestic products/services more competitive with foreign-made products/services both here and abroad. The income tax is embedded in our products and services (driving up their prices) and they can't be added to imports or stripped from exports under the current treaties governing global trade (GATT).

patteeu
04-12-2006, 04:42 PM
Hydrae. If there is one thing you can count on...

Any type of tax will ensure that wealthy people's accountants and lawyers will be trying to find a way around it.

2 things I am unclear on:

A) Why wouldn't people just buy the equivalent good overseas? We'd have to raise all of our import taxes to ensure that this doesn't happen and it might result in retaliation by other countries.

B)businesses will find ways to hide the true amounts of their sales receipts to undercut this tax. Plus they might incorporate overseas to be able to transfer sales accounts/records.

your point about decreasing the desire to shelter income, however, is a good one.

Goods imported for sale in the US would definitely have the FAIR tax applied to them at the retail point. I'm not sure what would happen for individuals who buy retail in foreign markets and then try to bring the products home, but I'd bet that US taxes would be applied at the border and I don't think that would cause any trade conflict concerns. I believe other countries are already doing these things to American products.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 05:10 PM
I'm a fan of the fair tax as I've heard it described (I haven't actually read the book), but here are a few difficulties that might arise. It's possible that some or all of them have been addressed in the book, and if so, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Most of these "criticisms" are related to the transition from our current tax scheme to the fair tax.

1) In the income tax, the home mortgage interest deduction and the charitable giving deduction are big incentives toward home ownership and charitable giving respectively. An immediate transition away from these incentives could be pretty disruptive to the home building and charity businesses.

2) Elderly people who have been responsible in terms of saving for their own retirement have not only paid taxes on that income one time, but in many cases have paid a second round of taxes on the growth of those savings (except for IRA-like savings). An immediate and complete transition to a sales tax would now lead to those people paying a third round of taxes on those funds as they were spent on retail goods.

3) A 23% tax on retail goods (in addition to any state and local sales taxes) would be a significant incentive for the creation of a black market to avoid the tax altogether either by selling off the books or by exchanging through barter. Of course, the flip side is that it would eliminate the black market pressure for such things as paid-in-cash labor and undeclared tips.

There are probably other significant criticisms, but on balance I think the pros outweigh any cons I can think of. One of the best things about a switch to the FAIR tax, IMO, would be the ability to apply that tax to imported goods and to strip that tax from exports which would make domestic products/services more competitive with foreign-made products/services both here and abroad. The income tax is embedded in our products and services (driving up their prices) and they can't be added to imports or stripped from exports under the current treaties governing global trade (GATT).

1) Interesting point. I agree charities would certainly be hurt by the loss of tax cut incentive to donate to them. It would be nice if our moral code would actually get us to do this on our own, wouldn't it? ;)

As to home building, I would hope that by effectively giving everyone a 20+% increase on take home pay, people would be in a much better position to afford to purchase a home regardless of tax/interest implications.

2) Again, this is not a point that they have addressed in the book (at least so far, I will probably finish it tonight or tomorrow night). I would expect though that as the market relevels itself at a reduced price point (they estimate 20-25% drop in the cost of producing products due to the elimination of the embedded taxes. These numbers are cited from the Professor Emeritus of Harvards' Economic school), the out of pocket cost for goods and services should come back to around the level they are now. So although they would technically be taxed yet again on the money, it should have little to no affect on their buying power.

3) Certainly a potential issue with the creation of a new black market. However it would end the whole tax evasion market we have currently. Whether those would balance out or anything, I have no idea.

Cochise
04-12-2006, 05:34 PM
Do it without applying the tax to essentials. Food, toiletries, cars priced under a certain amount. That would mitigate the effect on lower incomes.

banyon
04-12-2006, 05:50 PM
Do it without applying the tax to essentials. Food, toiletries, cars priced under a certain amount. That would mitigate the effect on lower incomes.

IIRC, the plan gives a "rebate" for $$ spent on necessities for those with qualifying incomes.

2 problems with this:

1) poor people probably can't keep track of their spending/receipts well enough to qualify for the rebate.

2) Just means the tax burden really shifts to the middle class, and will help reduce its numbers even further than the last 20 years has.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 05:54 PM
Do it without applying the tax to essentials. Food, toiletries, cars priced under a certain amount. That would mitigate the effect on lower incomes.


That would be covered by the "prebate" each month sent to every single head of household in the country regardless of income level: (I can not figure out how to get this not to leave a huge space in the middle of the post before the table, sorry)

How does the rebate work?
All valid Social Security cardholders who are U.S. residents receive a monthly rebate equivalent to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services, also known as the poverty level expenditures. The rebate is paid in advance, in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate is determined by the Department of Health & Human Services’ poverty level guideline multiplied by the tax rate. This is a well-accepted, long-used poverty-level calculation that includes food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, etc. See chart in Figure 1 below.
<table border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=647>
<tr>
<td width=647 colspan=8 valign=top><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>Figure
1: 2004 Rebate calculation</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width=55 valign=top style='width:41.4pt;border:solid windowtext .5pt;
border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'><center>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Family<br>
size</font>
</center></td>
<td width=72 style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:
solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">HHS
annual poverty level</font></p></td>
<td width=112 valign=top ><center>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> FairTax annual<br>
consumption<br>
allowance <br>
(single person)</font>
</center></td>
<td width=80 valign=top><center>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> Annual rebate (single
person) </font>
</center></td>
<td width=72 valign=top style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Monthly
rebate (single person)</font></p></td>
<td width=112 valign=top><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">FairTax
annual consumption allowance <br>
(married couple)</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Annual
rebate (married couple)</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Monthly
rebate (married couple)</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr style='height:107.5pt'>
<td width=55 valign=top style='width:41.4pt;border:solid windowtext .5pt;
border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">1</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">2</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">3</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">4</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">5</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">6</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">7</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">8</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$9,310</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$12,490</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$15,670</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$18,850</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$22,030</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$25,210</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$28,390</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$31,570</font></p></td>
<td width=112 valign=top style='width:84.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:
none;border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$9,310</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$12,490</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$15,670</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$18,850</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$22,030</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$25,210</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$28,390</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$31,570</font></p></td>
<td width=80 valign=top style='width:60.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$2,141</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$2,873</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$3,604</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$4,336</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$5,067</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$5,798</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$6,530</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$7,261</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$178</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$239</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$300</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$361</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$422</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$483</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$544</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$605</font></p></td>
<td width=112 valign=top style='width:84.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:
none;border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">N/A</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$18,620</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$21,800</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$24,980</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$28,160</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$31,340</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$34,520</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$37,700</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">N/A</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$4,283</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$5,014</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$5,745</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$6,477</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$7,208</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$7,940</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$8,671</font></p></td>
<td width=72 valign=top style='width:.75in;border-top:none;border-left:none;
border-bottom:solid windowtext .5pt;border-right:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:107.5pt'><p class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-top:.5gd;text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">N/A</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$357</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$418</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$479</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$540</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$601</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$662</font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">$723</font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>

Logical
04-12-2006, 06:05 PM
Besided the cons patteeu mentioned, I think that my life experience has shown that removal of taxes does not result in lower prices it just turns into larger profits. I very much doubt that the offset would be significant. People tend to forget that these Fair Tax schemes typically do not eliminate SS, Medicare and State and local taxes. Very few people actually pay 23% on their gross income in Federal Tax.

Hydrae
04-12-2006, 06:25 PM
Besided the cons patteeu mentioned, I think that my life experience has shown that removal of taxes does not result in lower prices it just turns into larger profits. I very much doubt that the offset would be significant. People tend to forget that these Fair Tax schemes typically do not eliminate SS, Medicare and State and local taxes. Very few people actually pay 23% on their gross income in Federal Tax.

If you actually looked into this I think you might be surprised. It does call for the elimination of SS and Medicare not to mention inheritance and gift taxes. No, it would do nothing to state and local taxes, that has nothing to do with Federal taxes. Also, don't forget this would also eliminate the matching amounts employers have to throw in the tax kitty.

As to the cost of goods and services, they cite what occurred when the airline ticket tax was eliminated in 1995. At first, prices remained where they were and the airlines just upped their (almost non-existant at that point) profits. However, then the smaller airlines started dropping prices to be more competitive. This caused the major players to follow suit. Unfortunately, this tax was reinstated at which point prices went back up. So these "hidden" taxes on goods and services have a definate impact on our cost at the register and market pressures certainly should cause prices to drop significantly over a fairly short period of time.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 06:45 PM
If you actually looked into this I think you might be surprised. It does call for the elimination of SS and Medicare not to mention inheritance and gift taxes. No, it would do nothing to state and local taxes, that has nothing to do with Federal taxes. Also, don't forget this would also eliminate the matching amounts employers have to throw in the tax kitty.

As to the cost of goods and services, they cite what occurred when the airline ticket tax was eliminated in 1995. At first, prices remained where they were and the airlines just upped their (almost non-existant at that point) profits. However, then the smaller airlines started dropping prices to be more competitive. This caused the major players to follow suit. Unfortunately, this tax was reinstated at which point prices went back up. So these "hidden" taxes on goods and services have a definate impact on our cost at the register and market pressures certainly should cause prices to drop significantly over a fairly short period of time.

I think prices would drop although it might not happen overnight. Aren't the sponsors of this plan also calling for elimination of the income tax and a repeal of the 16th Amendment as part of the deal?

FWIW, the cons I listed earlier are not showstoppers as far as I'm concerned. Any major tax reform will have some transition difficulties. I think charities and the housing market will both be fine after the transition. Ideally, transition rules can be adopted to soften the initial impact and facilitate a smooth shift to the new equilibrium.

Cochise
04-12-2006, 07:20 PM
1) poor people probably can't keep track of their spending/receipts well enough to qualify for the rebate.


Sorry if this has already been covered, but why not just not charge the tax at the register if it's say, diapers or milk or something?

banyon
04-13-2006, 08:16 AM
Sorry if this has already been covered, but why not just not charge the tax at the register if it's say, diapers or milk or something?

My guess is that it would provide a convenient alibi for cheaters.

Suddenly "necessities" would be coming up a lot more on the register.

just a guess though

Cochise
04-13-2006, 08:22 AM
My guess is that it would provide a convenient alibi for cheaters.

Suddenly "necessities" would be coming up a lot more on the register.

just a guess though

Well, to me claiming that the poor can't keep receipts is not really a good excuse, they probably already don't keep receipts for tax deductions, so it applies to the current system to some extent. And the poorer workers don't pay any federal income taxes anyway.

Plus, having to hand in receipts would probably not provide any savings in the cost structure of the IRS itself. I'm not sure who administrates the Missouri state sales tax, but I'm pretty sure they don't have an office of tens of thousands in Jefferson City. A sales tax that is automatically charged at the point of purchase would provide the added benefit of letting us drastically slash spending on the IRS itself.

patteeu
04-13-2006, 09:07 AM
It's a lot simpler and less intrusive if the same tax rate is applied to all goods (both luxuries and necessities alike) and a rebate check in an amount that covers the taxes paid on poverty-level necessities to all taxpayers which is what the FAIR tax people are proposing. No need to save reciepts, no need to define what constitutes a necessity as opposed to a luxury, and no need to provide income documentation to prove that you are poor.

If I were dictator, there wouldn't even be a rebate (which would allow the tax rate to be significantly lower, which in turn would reduce black market pressures), but that wouldn't be politically popular since most people seem to think that poor people can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

Mr. Kotter
04-13-2006, 09:13 AM
It's a lot simpler and less intrusive if the same tax rate is applied to all goods (both luxuries and necessities alike) and a rebate check in an amount that covers the taxes paid on poverty-level necessities to all taxpayers which is what the FAIR tax people are proposing. No need to save reciepts, no need to define what constitutes a necessity as opposed to a luxury, and no need to provide income documentation to prove that you are poor.

If I were dictator, there wouldn't even be a rebate (which would allow the tax rate to be significantly lower, which in turn would reduce black market pressures), but that wouldn't be politically popular since most people seem to think that poor people can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

I would support that. 100%....including the no-rebates portion. :clap:

Cochise
04-13-2006, 09:16 AM
...but that wouldn't be politically popular since most people seem to think that poor people can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

Well, technically on the poorest of the poor this would be a tax increase, since they aren't currently paying jack.

Mr. Kotter
04-13-2006, 09:16 AM
Do it without applying the tax to essentials. Food, toiletries, cars priced under a certain amount. That would mitigate the effect on lower incomes.

I could live with this too.

banyon
04-13-2006, 09:24 AM
It's a lot simpler and less intrusive if the same tax rate is applied to all goods (both luxuries and necessities alike) and a rebate check in an amount that covers the taxes paid on poverty-level necessities to all taxpayers which is what the FAIR tax people are proposing. No need to save reciepts, no need to define what constitutes a necessity as opposed to a luxury, and no need to provide income documentation to prove that you are poor.

If I were dictator, there wouldn't even be a rebate (which would allow the tax rate to be significantly lower, which in turn would reduce black market pressures), but that wouldn't be politically popular since most people seem to think that poor people can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

Amnesty pat,

The poor are certainly living it up right now, what with their cocktail weenies and their Mountain Dew. The only reason they haven't revolted and been rioting in the streets (and why the relgious ones vote republican IMO) is that they are allowed to shift their burdens to the future by maxing out their debt. That's why the national savings rate has gone negative for the first time since the 1930's.

Hydrae
04-13-2006, 11:27 AM
Well, to me claiming that the poor can't keep receipts is not really a good excuse, they probably already don't keep receipts for tax deductions, so it applies to the current system to some extent. And the poorer workers don't pay any federal income taxes anyway.

Plus, having to hand in receipts would probably not provide any savings in the cost structure of the IRS itself. I'm not sure who administrates the Missouri state sales tax, but I'm pretty sure they don't have an office of tens of thousands in Jefferson City. A sales tax that is automatically charged at the point of purchase would provide the added benefit of letting us drastically slash spending on the IRS itself.

I don't have a lot of time to reply today but figured I should touch on some of this.

Yes, the IRS would basically be eliminated since tax collection would be done through the states the same way sales taxes are created now. I don't think it would go away completely as you still need an agency that collects from the states and distributes in whatever manner. Also there is the matter of the prebates.

Speaking of the prebates, this is based (as shown in the chart from yesterday) on the national poverty level. This is done so that NOONE (regardless of income level) has to pay for the basic necessities of life.

There are a couple of reasons to do a prebate instead of having exempt items. One is to help kill off the tax lobbyists on K Street. By having no items exempted from taxes, they no longer have any special interests to lobby for. This is a very good thing! The other example given in the book is that if you exempt food then when Mr Millionaire spends $20,000 on food for a party, he doesn't get it all tax free, only the portion that falls into the prebate amount. Thus it helps to level the playing field again.

Another result of this tax structure is that it pulls money out of the underground economy that is not taxed now. When drug dealers make their money selling drugs, they are not paying taxes on this income. However, when they take those illicit earnings and buy that pimpin' Beamer, they pay the same amount of taxes as anyone else. There is anywhere from 1-1.5 Trillion dollars estimated as being the underground economy that is untaxed currently. A good portion of this potential revenue will become accessible under the Fair Tax.

Logical
04-13-2006, 11:40 AM
It's a lot simpler and less intrusive if the same tax rate is applied to all goods (both luxuries and necessities alike) and a rebate check in an amount that covers the taxes paid on poverty-level necessities to all taxpayers which is what the FAIR tax people are proposing. No need to save reciepts, no need to define what constitutes a necessity as opposed to a luxury, and no need to provide income documentation to prove that you are poor.

If I were dictator, there wouldn't even be a rebate (which would allow the tax rate to be significantly lower, which in turn would reduce black market pressures), but that wouldn't be politically popular since most people seem to think that poor people can't afford to pay their fair share of taxes.

I am kind of in favor of just not taxing housing (think about a 23% tax on a 500K (Avg CA) home, food, medicine and medical care. I sure don't want to have to apply for rebates or keep receipts for proof for recovery.

This tax plans biggest limitation is it is going to absolutely crash the property values across the country.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 02:50 PM
I have always loved the fairtax idea (I believe Logical and I have discussed it in depth in the past). The only things I would want to ensure are:

1) An exemption for property as Jim mentioned, and

2) ALL other products are equally taxed regardless of value, and

3) The IRS is (other than a shell for accounting purposes) permanently disbanded along with a repeal of the 16th.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 03:11 PM
I have always loved the fairtax idea (I believe Logical and I have discussed it in depth in the past). The only things I would want to ensure are:

1) An exemption for property as Jim mentioned, and

2) ALL other products are equally taxed regardless of value, and

3) The IRS is (other than a shell for accounting purposes) permanently disbanded along with a repeal of the 16th.


Sorry but as soon as you provide an exemption in one area, everyone else will start yammering to get themselves an exemption as well. This leads to the mess we have on K Street already.

Bottom line concept, ALL goods and services are taxed, without exception, ONE TIME ONLY. This means used goods (including houses) are not taxed in any form. It also means used cars, things in your garage sale, etc.

And yes, repeal of the 16th is inherent in this. It would have to be, this is an act to revamp the manner in which we collect taxes. It has nothing to do with Social Security reform or elimination of various entitlement programs. It is simply a different manner to collect the revenues used to run the country. All those other areas may need addressed but we need to start somewhere and giving people back their money they earn is a good place.

jAZ
04-14-2006, 03:57 PM
Read the following:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/23/21750/2475
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/15/135951/261

The Fair Tax, Post #2: What Effect Will It Have on the Middle Class?
By Chris Fonzone | bio

A week or two ago, we introduced the “Fair Tax” as a topic of interest here at the Warren Reports. That post concerned the "Fair Tax" generally; we promised three follow-up points to discuss specific points of interest about the Tax. This is the first of those follow-up posts - an analysis of the regressive nature of the "Fair Tax."

* * * * *

Chapter 12 of Neal Boortz and John Linder’s “The Fair Tax Book” is titled “The Opposition. Where Will it Come From?” The chapter anticipates three “main arguments” against the “Fair Tax” plan – 1) it would lead to new forms of evasion, 2) there would be high transaction costs, and 3) the tax would be regressive.

The authors promise to address “these arguments one by one.” First, they discuss how the “Fair Tax” will limit tax evasion; next, they minimize the impact of the transitions costs of switching to the “Fair Tax.” And then the chapter ends. That’s right - the authors raise the issue of regression and then don’t address it. But we shouldn’t be surprised by this fact; the authors do not try to convince us that the “Fair Tax” is not regressive because they can’t.

Sales taxes, such as the “Fair Tax,” are the paradigmatic regressive tax. There is a set of essentials that everyone needs to buy and these things take a proportionately larger share of your income as you make less money. So the burden of taxing these items obviously falls dis-proportionately on the poor and Middle Class. But don’t take my word for it – check out links here, here, here, and here for more information on the regressive nature of sales/consumption taxes.

Let’s break this down simply. Apparently, the total taxes collected aren’t going to change under Boortz and Linder’s “Fair Tax.” So the same amount of money has to be collected. Today, the top quintile of U.S. households in terms of income pays an effective tax rate of roughly 27%. This rate rises to about 30% and 33% for the top 5% and top 1% of all incomes, respectively. Under the “Fair Tax,” the absolute highest tax rate ANYONE could pay is 23% - and this would be if they spend every last penny they earned! Clearly, the effective rate that these high income earners pay will be much lower than 23%, as they save some of their incomes. (In fact, the effective rate will go down as income rises.) Who do you think is going to make up the difference between what the wealthy currently pays and what the wealthy would pay under the “Fair Tax” system? That’s right – everyone else.

Advocates of the “Fair Tax” aren’t silly – they know these concerns exist. Thus, they’ve developed two main arguments that cloud the issue and attempt to counter the notion that the “Fair Tax” is regressive through a series of misdirections:

1. “Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses and expensive jewelry.” That’s straight from a "Fair Tax" website. And it’s so overly simplistic that it’s laughable. In and of itself, the fact that the wealthy spend more does not prevent a tax from being regressive; THE ISSUE IS NOT THE AMOUNT SOMEONE SPENDS, IT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME THEY SPEND. And as demonstrated above, the share of the wealthy’s income that is taxed will go down and the share of total taxes that the wealthy pay will – by definition – go down. That’s the very definition of a regressive tax shift.

2. We’re going to give everyone a “prebate.” This, of course, makes sense – everyone gets back the cost of a basket of essentials, so that, ostensibly, they are not taxed on things they need to survive. This is a humane gesture, but it’s not superior to the current tax structure, where a large proportion of households are exempted from paying taxes (in addition to their being an ostensibly progressive tax structure). And it adds in all sorts of administrative problems. For instance: How do you calculate the size of this basket of essentials? How do you make certain that everyone gets their “prebate” check? The bottom line is simple – this is just the barest of gestures to make the notion of the “Fair Tax” politically palatable. The “Fair Tax” is shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to those further down the income ladder, with the burden falling the hardest on the people directly above the arbitrary poverty line that is established by the amount of this “prebate.” (Another question to ponder: Do you want the administration that developed the “Fair Tax” to determine what constitutes a basket of essentials?)

So, it’s pretty clear that the “Fair Tax” WOULD BE regressive, despite Boortz and Linder’s empty assertions that it is not. That’s the dirty little secret that they don’t want out of the bag – beneath all the bluster about “busting” the IRS and abandoning the income tax, the “Fair Tax” will be affecting a substantial tax burden shift from the wealthy to the not wealthy. But that’s not surprising, given who developed and who is supporting the plan. Again, Boortz and Linder are right to point the finger at the tax system as being unwieldy and in need of reform. But they use the stated goal of simplicity to urge a revision of the tax code that leaves poorer people stuck paying more.

Finally, one note of interest to readers: I know in my column I said the “Fair Tax” would be 23%. This is a little misleading; 23% is a “tax-inclusive” number. Purchases would actually be taxed 30% - i.e. if you bought a $100 item, it would cost $130. The 23% number is $30/$130. This is all explained here (check out Question #47).

jAZ
04-14-2006, 04:13 PM
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/wb/xp-57711

FairTaxers pitch a fiscal fantasy
By Christian Trejbal


Christian TrejbalAs tax day approaches, anguish over the monolithic federal tax code swells, creating fertile ground for crackpot ideas like the FairyTax.

No, it's not a tax on fairies. Technically, its supporters call their plan to replace current federal taxes with a national sales tax "the FairTax," but one would have to be the sort who believes in elves repairing shoes, gnomes managing Zurich banks and pixies dancing under the full moon to buy into it.

Besides, calling it the unFairTax is too easy.

The FairyTax's two chief prophets are Neal Boortz and Rep. John Linder, R-Ga., who coauthored "The FairTax Book" published last year. Boortz also spreads the bad word on his syndicated conservative radio talk show, while Linder has introduced it into Congress as HR 25, which has 52 gullible cosponsors.

The idea is deceptively simple.

The federal government would first eliminate its existing taxes. Goodbye income, corporate, payroll, capital gains, estate and all the other taxes. No more 1040s, paycheck deductions, accountants or IRS.

Then it would levy a 23 percent tax-inclusive sales tax on all retail purchases and services. That rate, Fairy-Taxers say, would provide the federal government with the same funding it now receives.

Finally, a monthly "prebate" check sent to every household would offset any disproportionate effect on the poor.

Once in place, the new system would eliminate tax season headaches, boost the economy, bring jobs back to America, end tax evasion, reduce the costs of goods, give everyone a virtual raise in the absence of payroll taxes and probably cure cancer.

OK, maybe not cure cancer, but Boortz and Linder could have included that in their book, and it would have fit right in with the rest of the litany.

It sounds sweet, at least until anti-tax exultation gives way to rational analysis.

For starters, the prebate system would be a dismayingly large welfare program. Every household would depend on monthly federal payments. Sure, the IRS might be gone, but some comparable agency would have to handle the prebates, not to mention enforcement.

Moreover, the national poverty measure is hopelessly outdated and does not reflect regional variations. Prepare for a flood of poor families moving to rural, low-cost communities.

Then there's that misleading 23 percent rate.

Say you buy a $100 iPod shuffle. Under the FairyTax plan, you'd pay $130 for it. The retailer would get $100 and the government $30.

FairyTaxers count that as a 23 percent "tax inclusive" rate because $30 is 23 percent of $130.

But that's not how people usually talk about sales taxes. Thirty dollars on top of $100 is a 30 percent tax.

FairyTaxers prefer the tax-inclusive formula because it lets them directly compare their tax to income taxes, which people do think about tax inclusively. Fair enough. It's probably just a coincidence that the smaller number makes selling their plan easier.

Not that 30 percent -- 23 percent tax inclusive -- would be revenue neutral anyway.

The same dislike of taxes that sparked the FairyTax will lead to black markets and shopping in Canada to avoid the tax. Tax cheats, despite what Linder and Boortz claim, will not disappear. They will find new ways to cheat.

Even more unlikely, FairyTaxers believe Congress could resist the temptation to use tax breaks for social engineering. The tax would apply to every service and new good, including health care and homes. Americans would give up mortgage deductions, religious exemptions and family bonuses.

Right. That would happen.

The Treasury Department calculates that with modest black market evasion and tax breaks comparable to those available in most states, the sales tax would need to be 64 percent to replace just the income tax -- not even all of the other lost taxes under the FairyTax.

Other economists who have looked at the idea share the Treasury Department's pessimism and predict similarly high rates.

So how has such an inane idea gained traction? It helps that wealthy donors are pumping millions of dollars into a group called Americans for Fair Taxation to pay for research and propaganda. Their money will be well spent if the FairyTax becomes reality because it would represent a massive shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.

Households earning $30,000 to $200,000 would all pay more under the FairyTax, while those earning more than $200,000 would pay less, turning the spirit of a progressive tax system on its head.

Even President Bush's advisory panel on federal tax reform, a group hardly averse to lightening the tax load on the rich, could not stomach moving so much tax burden from the rich to the rest.

The current tax system has problems, headaches and annoyances, but the FairyTax would replace them with something far worse.

jAZ
04-14-2006, 04:16 PM
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04074/285058.stm
http://www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/whys/lp/IWT3L2lp.jsp
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax

patteeu
04-14-2006, 04:28 PM
Sorry but as soon as you provide an exemption in one area, everyone else will start yammering to get themselves an exemption as well. This leads to the mess we have on K Street already.

Yep. No tax breaks for housing. Maybe there is reason to phase out the current breaks to smooth the transition, but in the end, all exemptions/deductions need to be eliminated or we will eventually end up back where we are. :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 04:33 PM
Yep. No tax breaks for housing. Maybe there is reason to phase out the current breaks to smooth the transition, but in the end, all exemptions/deductions need to be eliminated or we will eventually end up back where we are. :thumb:

The only thing I have against that is the fact that I already pay PPT to Missouri for my farm. Every year. Why should I pay tax on my land at time of purchase? What, then, is the incentive to buy rather than rent? One also has to think of the economic ramifications of that nationwide IMHO. Other than Real Estate, I am all for no further exemptions.

Logical
04-14-2006, 04:35 PM
Sorry but as soon as you provide an exemption in one area, everyone else will start yammering to get themselves an exemption as well. This leads to the mess we have on K Street already.

Bottom line concept, ALL goods and services are taxed, without exception, ONE TIME ONLY. This means used goods (including houses) are not taxed in any form. It also means used cars, things in your garage sale, etc.

And yes, repeal of the 16th is inherent in this. It would have to be, this is an act to revamp the manner in which we collect taxes. It has nothing to do with Social Security reform or elimination of various entitlement programs. It is simply a different manner to collect the revenues used to run the country. All those other areas may need addressed but we need to start somewhere and giving people back their money they earn is a good place.

Someone is not thinking this through. If used items resold are never taxed it will basically shut down industry. Why buy new when you can buy used with no tax. No new, virtually no production, no production, .... well I think you can see where this is leading.

patteeu
04-14-2006, 04:53 PM
The only thing I have against that is the fact that I already pay PPT to Missouri for my farm. Every year. Why should I pay tax on my land at time of purchase? What, then, is the incentive to buy rather than rent? One also has to think of the economic ramifications of that nationwide IMHO. Other than Real Estate, I am all for no further exemptions.

You pay taxes on the money you use to buy your real estate already. Paying it on the purchase price instead of paying it on the income used to make the purchase doesn't make it more of a tax. The only tax benefit you get now is a mortgage interest deduction (unless there are special farm tax breaks that I'm not personally familiar with). That means you don't get any tax break if you buy real estate for cash under the current system. Either way, you still have to pay PPT.

What's more, once you buy the land, you don't have to pay tax on the income generated by that land under the FAIR tax, but under the income tax you do.

Whether you buy or rent, you are going to be paying PPT (either directly or as a part of the rent you pay the landlord). The incentive to buy is so that you are the owner. The only thing you lose if the home mortgage interest deduction is lost is the unnatural incentive to home ownership that the government created.

patteeu
04-14-2006, 04:54 PM
Someone is not thinking this through. If used items resold are never taxed it will basically shut down industry. Why buy new when you can buy used with no tax. No new, virtually no production, no production, .... well I think you can see where this is leading.

We already have that situation. How often do people pay state sales tax on used goods (besides big ticket items like cars)? There might be a marginal increase in the incentive to squeeze a little more use out of an item rather than buy a new one, but it wouldn't shut down industry.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 05:21 PM
The only thing you lose if the home mortgage interest deduction is lost is the unnatural incentive to home ownership that the government created.

I don't know man. I currently write off my Mortgage Interest and since I am self employed and my wife runs the farm, we file long form. We are allowed to write off depreciation on equipment, building materials, feed, new buildings, fuel, office space, and any other reasonable and normal expenses involved with running a farm. Just playing da debbils advocate for a moment - if I buy fencing materials, feed, fuel, building materials for additional storage, parts for machinery etc.....am I not getting at least some of the money back under the current program? Under the current tax laws, I have to try to find any legal writeoffs to avoid being azzraped by the fed. How is the fair tax saving me money in this instance and not letting me be responsible for more of the tax burden? Again, I like fair tax but would like to see an exemption for Real Estate.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 05:41 PM
I don't know man. I currently write off my Mortgage Interest and since I am self employed and my wife runs the farm, we file long form. We are allowed to write off depreciation on equipment, building materials, feed, new buildings, fuel, office space, and any other reasonable and normal expenses involved with running a farm. Just playing da debbils advocate for a moment - if I buy fencing materials, feed, fuel, building materials for additional storage, parts for machinery etc.....am I not getting at least some of the money back under the current program? Under the current tax laws, I have to try to find any legal writeoffs to avoid being azzraped by the fed. How is the fair tax saving me money in this instance and not letting me be responsible for more of the tax burden? Again, I like fair tax but would like to see an exemption for Real Estate.


How much time and money do you spend every year tracking those deductions? Are you paying an accountant to file that long form or just spending many hours doing it yourself? Those costs all go out the window with a consumption tax.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 05:44 PM
Someone is not thinking this through. If used items resold are never taxed it will basically shut down industry. Why buy new when you can buy used with no tax. No new, virtually no production, no production, .... well I think you can see where this is leading.


Why do we buy new now? It is cheaper to buy used but we buy the new items. I don't see how this would change especially if the numbers are right that they cite regarding the amount of embedded taxes we currently pay. If those numbers are right, the final cost at the register will be little to no more than they are now.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 05:47 PM
Just wanted to say thank you to those participating in this thread. I am not totally sold on this being the answer for us taxwise. That is why I put this up here, to get input and discussion.

My bottom line is that I feel that our current mode of taxation is horrible for the economy and for each individual working in this country. A consumption tax is certainly my preference although other ideas would be worth reviewing as well. I just want to get away from having my government treat me as a slave by determining how much of my earned income they will allow me to keep.

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 05:53 PM
How much time and money do you spend every year tracking those deductions? Are you paying an accountant to file that long form or just spending many hours doing it yourself? Those costs all go out the window with a consumption tax.

I have an accountant. I pay 5 dollars per week and then 50 dollars per quarter to prepare the estimates and the return respectively.

jAZ
04-14-2006, 05:58 PM
Fair Tax and Flat Tax schemes are generally a result of wealthy and corporate lobbying efforts to help shift the tax burden away from them.

The general public like ourselves tend to latch onto the the simplified aspects of the proposals and our anti-IRS juices kick in and we say "hallelujah
brother, bring it on!"

That's the point of the lobbying.

What gets overlooked is the shifting tax burden, which is the ultimate goal and the primary outcome of this solution over other very similar solutions.

With any "revenue neutral" system, a lowering of the top end tax rate shifts the burden to the lower income levels. The flat tax lowers the rates at the high end, and raises the rates at the low end. The same thing effectively happens with a "fair tax" scheme. The upper income brackets will end up reducing their tax burden and the lower & middle class will have their increased.

There are ways to dramatically simplify the taxation process without messing with the progressive nature of the system (eliminate loop holes, deductions, etc).

There are ways to lower lower the tax burden across the board (reduce spending and cut the tax rates).

The progressive nature of our modern tax system isn't a point of major objection by the general public (voters). The issue is complexity and burden.

The higher end (ie, wealthier and those with greater access to the lobbying institution) are framing the discussion in ways that pretend to be about the hot button issues (lowering taxes and simplifying the tax code), but they build in a trojan horse that if better understood would be seen as a poison pill. It helps them, but hurts most people in the long run... offsetting any cost savings you might encounter by simplying the process with increased taxes.


If you want lower taxes, then lower taxes.
If you want simpler taxes, then simply taxes.
If you want to increase your own tax burder in an effort to increase shareholder profits, then implement the "fair" or "flat" tax models.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 06:24 PM
I hear what you are saying JAz but have another couple of questions (becoming my modus operandi I think).

Yes, this will reduce the tax rate to the wealthy as opposed to the manner we collect those taxes now. However, is this not almost a punishment for success? The more you earn, the larger portion of this is taken from you. It is also a way for politician to buy votes (raise the tax on the rich, lower it to the masses, get the votes).

By going to a consumption type tax (flat tax does nothing for me, I want all income taxes eliminated), you have a choice on how much tax to pay. It is not dictated by the faceless bureaucrats in Washington. This is freedom and power.

If you are correct in saying that the wealthy will simply not spend their money (and thus avoid paying taxes), will this money not be invested in some manner? Will this not create jobs and increase the economy? Will it not drive interest rates down (naturally, not through the Feds rates) freeing up more money for everyone, rich and poor alike?

Yes, the government spends waaaaaaaaaaaa(not enough "a"s on my keyboard)aaaaaay too much of my money. That is another discussion though, this is simply about how to collect the revenue they do spend.

jAZ
04-14-2006, 06:36 PM
I hear what you are saying JAz but have another couple of questions (becoming my modus operandi I think).

Yes, this will reduce the tax rate to the wealthy as opposed to the manner we collect those taxes now. However, is this not almost a punishment for success? The more you earn, the larger portion of this is taken from you. It is also a way for politician to buy votes (raise the tax on the rich, lower it to the masses, get the votes).

By going to a consumption type tax (flat tax does nothing for me, I want all income taxes eliminated), you have a choice on how much tax to pay. It is not dictated by the faceless bureaucrats in Washington. This is freedom and power.

If you are correct in saying that the wealthy will simply not spend their money (and thus avoid paying taxes), will this money not be invested in some manner? Will this not create jobs and increase the economy? Will it not drive interest rates down (naturally, not through the Feds rates) freeing up more money for everyone, rich and poor alike?

Yes, the government spends waaaaaaaaaaaa(not enough "a"s on my keyboard)aaaaaay too much of my money. That is another discussion though, this is simply about how to collect the revenue they do spend.
I've got a little bit to say in response, but have to run. I just want to say that I'll follow up later this weekend hopefully. Hold me to this.

Logical
04-14-2006, 07:43 PM
I do know one thing someone in the IRS is doing some serious lobbying for their job. You would have to be taking some serious drugs to believe that the tax would need to be 64% to replace only the income tax.:rolleyes:

CHIEF4EVER
04-14-2006, 08:15 PM
I do know one thing someone in the IRS is doing some serious lobbying for their job. You would have to be taking some serious drugs to believe that the tax would need to be 64% to replace only the income tax.:rolleyes:

No doubt. ROFL

BucEyedPea
04-14-2006, 08:18 PM
I support it as a compromise.
I prefer to abolish income taxes and replace them with nothing. :)

I know the ED of the Fair Tax and have spoken with him a lot about it.
His kid goes to my kid's school.

Hydrae
04-14-2006, 09:43 PM
I do know one thing someone in the IRS is doing some serious lobbying for their job. You would have to be taking some serious drugs to believe that the tax would need to be 64% to replace only the income tax.:rolleyes:

I agree that number sounds way too high but it is not just income tax that this is supposed to replace. Also SS, Medicare, inheritance and gift taxes.

But on the other side, it is supposed to tax EVERYTHING without exception so the tax base becomes much broader and thus makes up the revenue needs of those other taxes.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 09:15 AM
Fair Tax and Flat Tax schemes are generally a result of wealthy and corporate lobbying efforts to help shift the tax burden away from them.

The general public like ourselves tend to latch onto the the simplified aspects of the proposals and our anti-IRS juices kick in and we say "hallelujah
brother, bring it on!"

That's the point of the lobbying.

What gets overlooked is the shifting tax burden, which is the ultimate goal and the primary outcome of this solution over other very similar solutions.

With any "revenue neutral" system, a lowering of the top end tax rate shifts the burden to the lower income levels. The flat tax lowers the rates at the high end, and raises the rates at the low end. The same thing effectively happens with a "fair tax" scheme. The upper income brackets will end up reducing their tax burden and the lower & middle class will have their increased.

There are ways to dramatically simplify the taxation process without messing with the progressive nature of the system (eliminate loop holes, deductions, etc).

There are ways to lower lower the tax burden across the board (reduce spending and cut the tax rates).

The progressive nature of our modern tax system isn't a point of major objection by the general public (voters). The issue is complexity and burden.

The higher end (ie, wealthier and those with greater access to the lobbying institution) are framing the discussion in ways that pretend to be about the hot button issues (lowering taxes and simplifying the tax code), but they build in a trojan horse that if better understood would be seen as a poison pill. It helps them, but hurts most people in the long run... offsetting any cost savings you might encounter by simplying the process with increased taxes.


If you want lower taxes, then lower taxes.
If you want simpler taxes, then simply taxes.
If you want to increase your own tax burder in an effort to increase shareholder profits, then implement the "fair" or "flat" tax models.



Did you get your talking points from http://www.cpusa.org ? ;)

Jerry Brown, former liberal democrat governor of California and apparent shill for wealthy and corporate interests, ran for president on a tax program that featured a flat tax combined with a flat rate sales tax. His stated goal was to reduce political corruption and reduce the power of lobbyists who get fat under our current tax scheme by selling and buying favorable tax treatment. A single rate tax would also put ALL of the American people in the same political boat when it came time to debate tax increases or tax cuts instead of pitting one group against the other.

The very wealthy don't have to pay an effective tax rate that is higher than the FAIR tax rate today. They can afford to put their money into tax free savings vehicles (e.g. municipal bonds) or move their money offshore. I don't deny that there would be some shifts in the tax burden, but those shifts are toward fairness not away from it. For example, right now, people who have mortgages on their homes are getting government subsidies that people who rent and people who own their homes outright don't get. Typically, the wealthy mortgagors get bigger subsidies than the working class mortgagors under this program. The FAIR tax would do away with this subsidy and start treating renters, mortgagors, and home owners equally regardless of their socioeconomic status.

Americans have become brainwashed into thinking that a progressive tax code is inherently fair. I reject that idea. The whole concept isn't much different than the taxation portion of Karl Marx' famous statement "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" By contrast, progressive income taxation is a concept that our founding fathers made unconstitutional. So who was right? Karl Marx or Madison, Hamilton, et al?

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 12:51 PM
I reject that idea. The whole concept isn't much different than the taxation portion of Karl Marx' famous statement "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" By contrast, progressive income taxation is a concept that our founding fathers made unconstitutional. So who was right? Karl Marx or Madison, Hamilton, et al?

Because, as we all know George Bush's achievements in life have been matched by his abilities. Did you ever stop to think that a flat tax places the highest burden on the lowest income bracket. It's class war. Do they pay the same amount of tax? Yes, from a percentage of tax standpoint it is fair. But from a practical and realistic standpoint, it is anything but. The people w/ the lowest incomes spend the highest amount of their wages on necessities for survival, a fact that is inversely true for the highest earners. Furthermore you misread the f*cking Marx quote, look at the second half--he's arguing for a shift in the tax system to a system where people are taxed ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS, not their inherent abilities (which are of course different), and not the same rate across the board which places none of the burden upon the people who have benefitted the most from the system.

While we're in the business of tossing around quotes, here's one you and your RWNJ ideologues might like. It's from your favorite book:

"Of those who have been given much, much will be required."

That sounds like the exact opposite of an endorsement for a flat tax system to me.

patteeu
04-15-2006, 01:22 PM
Because, as we all know George Bush's achievements in life have been matched by his abilities. Did you ever stop to think that a flat tax places the highest burden on the lowest income bracket. It's class war. Do they pay the same amount of tax? Yes, from a percentage of tax standpoint it is fair. But from a practical and realistic standpoint, it is anything but. The people w/ the lowest incomes spend the highest amount of their wages on necessities for survival, a fact that is inversely true for the highest earners. Furthermore you misread the f*cking Marx quote, look at the second half--he's arguing for a shift in the tax system to a system where people are taxed ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS, not their inherent abilities (which are of course different), and not the same rate across the board which places none of the burden upon the people who have benefitted the most from the system.

1) Progressive taxation is class war. By allowing one class to raise the taxes on another class without impacting their own rate, you are facilitating/exploiting class warfare impulses. A flat rate tax drives a stake in the heart of class warfare (with regard to the tax system at least).

2) If you are worried about the people with the lowest incomes not being able to make it, then help them out on the other side of the budget ledger through spending/welfare programs. The tax code's sole purpose should be to raise revenue in as unobtrusive, apolitical, and transparent a manner as possible. The reason socialists/marxists are so gung ho about social engineering through the tax code is because the true costs of social programs can be hidden that way. It's underhanded. I'm in favor of a social safety net, but I think it should be exposed to scrutiny instead of buried in an overly complex tax system.

3) I got the Marx' quote right. The second half of the quote is about how the state's (for lack of a better word) resources should be allocated (i.e. spending). The first half is about how much of a contribution each individual should be making to the state.

While we're in the business of tossing around quotes, here's one you and your RWNJ ideologues might like. It's from your favorite book:

"Of those who have been given much, much will be required."

That sounds like the exact opposite of an endorsement for a flat tax system to me.

Ha! You're quoting the bible to a nonbeliever? Not a very persuasive technique if you ask me. But since you did it, I'll just go on record as saying that Jesus was more Marx than Madison, IMO (at least in this narrow sense). And as long as Christianity is a voluntary pursuit, I'm OK with that. Are you suggesting that we draft our legislation on the basis of what the Bible says?

Hydrae
04-15-2006, 01:31 PM
Basic tenants from the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) :

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.

I actually have never looked into the manifesto before these discussions started. I was especially surprised by the ones I bolded as they are a part of our current society.

Hamas, once again, this is not a flat tax, it is a consumption or sales tax. If you look at this, with the prebates they have built in, the poorest of the poor will not be taxed at all as their spending, by definition, will be under the poverty limit. This poverty limit is what will be used to determine that amount of prebate will be sent to each head of household each month.

My wife was adamant in our talks last night that food not be included in this taxing. I pointed out that as soon as you say food is too fundamental for inclusion you will once more have lobbyists in Washington trying to push that envelope of definition. Should we also exclude toilet paper and diapers from this tax? What about medical services? This is part of the problem today and the reason I support including EVERYTHING.

Another point on this issue which is used as an example in the book; when Mr Millionaire throws a party and spends $20,000 on food (random numbers of course), he will pay taxes on the portion of this that is above the poverty level amount of tax prebate he received. If you exclude food in general, this party will be completely tax free!

banyon
04-15-2006, 03:15 PM
1) Progressive taxation is class war. By allowing one class to raise the taxes on another class without impacting their own rate, you are facilitating/exploiting class warfare impulses. A flat rate tax drives a stake in the heart of class warfare (with regard to the tax system at least).

I didn't realize the poor and homeless had acquired a powerful lobbying agency to force Congress to do their bidding.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 03:20 PM
1) Progressive taxation is class war. By allowing one class to raise the taxes on another class without impacting their own rate, you are facilitating/exploiting class warfare impulses. A flat rate tax drives a stake in the heart of class warfare (with regard to the tax system at least).

2) If you are worried about the people with the lowest incomes not being able to make it, then help them out on the other side of the budget ledger through spending/welfare programs. The tax code's sole purpose should be to raise revenue in as unobtrusive, apolitical, and transparent a manner as possible. The reason socialists/marxists are so gung ho about social engineering through the tax code is because the true costs of social programs can be hidden that way. It's underhanded. I'm in favor of a social safety net, but I think it should be exposed to scrutiny instead of buried in an overly complex tax system.

3) I got the Marx' quote right. The second half of the quote is about how the state's (for lack of a better word) resources should be allocated (i.e. spending). The first half is about how much of a contribution each individual should be making to the state.



Ha! You're quoting the bible to a nonbeliever? Not a very persuasive technique if you ask me. But since you did it, I'll just go on record as saying that Jesus was more Marx than Madison, IMO (at least in this narrow sense). And as long as Christianity is a voluntary pursuit, I'm OK with that. Are you suggesting that we draft our legislation on the basis of what the Bible says?


Considering that you lump your political persuasion in with a party run by a bunch of theocrats, perhaps you should question your own beliefs. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your foundation. Furthermore, you butchered the rat piss out of that Marx quote. According to your interpretation in point 3), that completely undermines any argument for a flat tax, it in no way supports it, and you say as much. IT was only earlier that you disagreed.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 03:28 PM
Basic tenants from the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) :

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.

I actually have never looked into the manifesto before these discussions started. I was especially surprised by the ones I bolded as they are a part of our current society.


Good for you!!!!
Good to see there are other's noticing.

Few additions though:

You forgot #5 Centralization of credit = Federal Reserve

#1 is gradually being implemented by the whacko-strain of environmentalism Yes I can proved it with a UN document too.

#6 ( and part of #7) seems to be happening in the "Long War"... aka a new "Hundred's Year War"... aka "War on Terror":hmmm:

#8 industrial armies Clinton's "School to Work" aka "Goals 2000" education reform :hmmm:

#9 industrial armies open borders under immigration could also apply :hmmm:

I think I've studied almost e/g about Socialism and Marx's writings.

...just my .02¢ :)

banyon
04-15-2006, 04:18 PM
Basic tenants from the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html) :

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.

How alarming. :spock:

Basic tenants of Mein Kampf/fascism

1. Massively increase government surveillance of citizens. Create secret police forces.

2. Conduct as much of government in possible in secrecy, in closed non-transparent proceedings.

3. Repeal laws protecting criminal defendants. Restrict laws protecting citizens from search/seizures.

4. Torture and experiment on/kill dissidents and critics.

5. Consolidate and control major news media. Develop sophisticated propaganda apparatus.

6. Achieve rigidity in party discipline. Marginialize political opposition.

7. Institute corporations as preeminent dominant economic force.
Dissolve corporate/governmental distinctions by giving corporations traditional governent functions.

8. Maintain and reinforce class structures.

9. Promote nationalistic fervor, denounce critics as unpatriotic. Encourage wearing of nationalistic symbols.

10. Engage in pre-emptive military hostilities (like against Czech/Poland).

patteeu
04-15-2006, 04:50 PM
Considering that you lump your political persuasion in with a party run by a bunch of theocrats, perhaps you should question your own beliefs. I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness of your foundation.

Whatever you were doing, it should be obvious to you now that it isn't my foundation.

Furthermore, you butchered the rat piss out of that Marx quote. According to your interpretation in point 3), that completely undermines any argument for a flat tax, it in no way supports it, and you say as much. IT was only earlier that you disagreed.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying because it sounds to me like you don't understand why I offered the Marx quote in the first place. The whole point of the Marx quote was that Marx' words argue against a flat tax concept and in favor of a progressive tax concept. IOW, I'm criticizing the progressive income tax as a Marxist concept.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 04:53 PM
Well that doesn't surprise me either, Banyon, since fascism and socialist are brother and sister ideologies. Remember? Nazi's were the Nationalist Socialist Party...it was just national socialism whereas as communists were international socialists. They share a lot.

banyon
04-15-2006, 05:04 PM
Well that doesn't surprise me either, Banyon, since fascism and socialist are brother and sister ideologies. Remember? Nazi's were the Nationalist Socialist Party...it was just national socialism whereas as communists were international socialists. They share a lot.

I do not agree with this assessment.

Soviet-style communism has much in common with Nazi-style fascism in terms of its totalitarian nature, but to different ends. But other than that National Socialism contains the word "socialism", it is essentially diametrically opposed to communism.


"Marxism is a fight against culture and the idea of freedom, a war against tradition and honour. It is an attack upon all the foundations of our community-life and thus an attack upon the bases of our life as a whole. Towards the world without pacifist, in the domestic sphere terrorist - such is the world outlook of the destructive Marxist doctrine."


"I regard it as my task before posterity to destroy Marxism, and that is no empty phrase but a solemn oath which I shall perform as long as I live. . . This is for us no fight which can be finished by a compromise. We see in Marxism the enemy of our people which we shall root out and destroy without mercy."

patteeu
04-15-2006, 05:17 PM
I do not agree with this assessment.

Soviet-style communism has much in common with Nazi-style fascism in terms of its totalitarian nature, but to different ends. But other than that National Socialism contains the word "socialism", it is essentially diametrically opposed to communism.

That may be somewhat true of state-less Marxism, but Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the democrat party are all cousins seeking total control of all resources by the state. The political movement that is really diametrically opposed to Marxism is libertarianism.

Ok, I was partially kidding about the democrat party. :p

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 05:25 PM
Sorry but that's a commonly held fallacy, banyon.

It's true they fought and hated each other but they were just different strains of collectivism.

But Hitler was impressed by some socialist meetings he attended and only openly criticized it. He nationalized the major larger industries. The only difference is that in a facism industry is regulated extensively for the public good as in a collectivist purpose, even though the owner still holds title on paper...it's not real ownership though in practice, as that word means the right to control and manage it. It shares 6 points of socialism.

Same is true of Mussolini. He liked socialism but could not take a public stand on it due to the RCC's views on communism. RCC was powerful in Italy. So he called it something else...but is the same in it's basic intents. That's why the mutiple bundle of rods as a fascist symbol are used....these reprsent the group as a whole as in collectivism...heavy regulation of industry for the common good as opposed to outright ownership...only in practice is not genuine ownership.


There are multitude of different strains of socialism. I have a book on it written by Ludwig Von Mises an economist.

banyon
04-15-2006, 05:37 PM
That may be somewhat true of state-less Marxism, but Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the democrat party are all cousins seeking total control of all resources by the state. The political movement that is really diametrically opposed to Marxism is libertarianism.

Ok, I was partially kidding about the democrat party. :p

I think you forgot to add W to your list.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 05:44 PM
Stateless Marxism has never existed anywhere. It's just a theoretical phase after a socialist dictatorship....but no govt with that much power gives it up to a stateless society. It has never happened....except in religious orders where it is voluntary. Therefore only socialism has existed.

What has confused people is that there are different ways to implement socialism: through the vote as in current day socialist democracies in a creeping socialism or through violent revolution. This is called Marxism-Leninism or Bolshevikism due to Lenin believing in violent overthrow. It is this group that most people have associated communism with...but they are really only implementing a socialist dictatorship.

As for creeping or Fabian socialism ( British ) ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? Marx said the democracy was the road to socialism. It's true as democracies tend to be contentious, vote themselves largesse and have short lives. It did not last long in Greece and Rome suffered the same fate when it implement similar policies: devalued currency (Fed inflates currency, bread and circuses (welfare and entertainment) and endless war ( Bush's war on terror that will never end) etc.

Democracy is the worst form of gov't. America is a Republic with some democratic features but our Constitution checks the people as well as the gov't in order to protect the rights of the minority. Today that would have to include private property owners.

Logical
04-15-2006, 06:05 PM
I agree that number sounds way too high but it is not just income tax that this is supposed to replace. Also SS, Medicare, inheritance and gift taxes.

But on the other side, it is supposed to tax EVERYTHING without exception so the tax base becomes much broader and thus makes up the revenue needs of those other taxes.

I shouldn't have been lazy. I got that number and for only the income tax from the article jAZ posted.

The Treasury Department calculates that with modest black market evasion and tax breaks comparable to those available in most states, the sales tax would need to be 64 percent to replace just the income tax -- not even all of the other lost taxes under the FairyTax.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 07:03 PM
Democracy is the worst form of gov't. America is a Republic with some democratic features but our Constitution checks the people as well as the gov't in order to protect the rights of the minority. Today that would have to include private property owners.

This is truish. Democracy is most definitely the least efficient form of gov't, and the worst according to Aristotle's forms of gov't (according to the best-case scenario).

Best to worst:

1. Monarchy (w/ a philosopher-king)
2. Aristocracy
3. Democracy (nothing will happen--tyrrany of minority)
4. Democracy (tyrrany of majority)
5. Oligarchy (dynastic effect, definitely trending towards this in US)
6. Monarchy (tyrant leader, a la hitler, stalin)

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-15-2006, 07:06 PM
Whatever you were doing, it should be obvious to you now that it isn't my foundation.



Maybe I don't understand what you are saying because it sounds to me like you don't understand why I offered the Marx quote in the first place. The whole point of the Marx quote was that Marx' words argue against a flat tax concept and in favor of a progressive tax concept. IOW, I'm criticizing the progressive income tax as a Marxist concept.


You call yourself a libertarian, but I doubt anyone here really believes that. The fact that you want to criticize the Marx quote only shows how narrow minded you've allowed yourself to become because socialism has been a pejorative term in this country for years (despite the fact that largely socialist measures saved the country from sure ruin). Continue to bite the hand that nursed you from death. It's very noble.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2006, 09:59 PM
This is truish. Democracy is most definitely the least efficient form of gov't, and the worst according to Aristotle's forms of gov't (according to the best-case scenario).

Best to worst:

1. Monarchy (w/ a philosopher-king)
2. Aristocracy
3. Democracy (nothing will happen--tyrrany of minority)
4. Democracy (tyrrany of majority)
5. Oligarchy (dynastic effect, definitely trending towards this in US)
6. Monarchy (tyrant leader, a la hitler, stalin)

No philospher king for this girl....that's the Platonic model, which is the one the Soviet Union was based on. I'd say a benevolent monarchy instead BUT you can't guarantee succession with any monarchy (monarchy as you noted could be a tyrant too). So the next best form of govt is a Republic...(ours) and it depends on what kind of republic....I'd say the original American formula comes the closest to being the best....one that restrains and diffuses gov't power. I'd also protect property rights a bit more and outlaw a progressive tax too.

Our system today has leaned toward too much concentration of power at the Federal level and way too much socialism. Wilson, FDR & LBJ worst offenders here.

Hamas Jenkins,
Those socialist fixes you're ravin' about actually kept us in the Great Depression longer and have actually hurt us more than you'd think. Lots of studies on that now that we know more about economics. Those socialist fixes distorted markets and led to sky rocketing health care costs too.

Also, Poverty levels were dropping in this country until a lot of LBJ's Great Society programs and his War on Poverty...then the numbers stopped dropping. We need to concentrate on wealth creation so that there is enough to go around with lots left over for charity. Someone's poverty is not caused by another's wealth.

We American's love war: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror but these things usually don't deliver the results they promise.

tiptap
04-16-2006, 05:33 AM
No philospher king for this girl....that's the Platonic model, which is the one the Soviet Union was based on. I'd say a benevolent monarchy instead BUT you can't guarantee succession with any monarchy (monarchy as you noted could be a tyrant too). So the next best form of govt is a Republic...(ours) and it depends on what kind of republic....I'd say the original American formula comes the closest to being the best....one that restrains and diffuses gov't power. I'd also protect property rights a bit more and outlaw a progressive tax too.

Our system today has leaned toward too much concentration of power at the Federal level and way too much socialism. Wilson, FDR & LBJ worst offenders here.

Hamas Jenkins,
Those socialist fixes you're ravin' about actually kept us in the Great Depression longer and have actually hurt us more than you'd think. Lots of studies on that now that we know more about economics. Those socialist fixes distorted markets and led to sky rocketing health care costs too.

Also, Poverty levels were dropping in this country until a lot of LBJ's Great Society programs and his War on Poverty...then the numbers stopped dropping. We need to concentrate on wealth creation so that there is enough to go around with lots left over for charity. Someone's poverty is not caused by another's wealth.

We American's love war: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror but these things usually don't deliver the results they promise.


I'm sure you have references for these conditions. Just a question though, how is power concentrated in a government that much different than power concentrated in large corporations. Fascism is the notion that industry should run the resources. If you let the power concentrate in a few business hands how is that different?

The reason for inheritance tax and income tax is because it does take resources away from very productive people and forces them to win in the next economic cycle again. It is a balance though between taxing too much and too little. It gives them incentive to continue being productive to win back those resources. In the process the general good is served. If you allow the wealth to collect in a small pool of people they will not have incentive to really put them selves out there to create new wealth. If you want the best of the brightest of people looking to make money you want to make use of that again and again.

banyon
04-16-2006, 09:30 AM
Stateless Marxism has never existed anywhere. It's just a theoretical phase after a socialist dictatorship....but no govt with that much power gives it up to a stateless society. It has never happened....except in religious orders where it is voluntary. Therefore only socialism has existed..

About the stateless society envisioned in Marx's early, humanist works...

Perhaps many of the pre-Westernized Native American societies would qualify...(of course Engels thought that they were pre-feudal, but as far as their governmental structure, distribution of goods, and decision making go, I see some similarities).

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 09:44 AM
I'm sure you have references for these conditions.

I know this from earlier study and reading on forms of gov't as well as giving seminars on our own Constitution including it's underlying philosophy, the reasons for it and the Framer's thinking. So I have no reference to hand immediately. I wrote that from the top of my head.

Just a question though, how is power concentrated in a government that much different than power concentrated in large corporations. Fascism is the notion that industry should run the resources. If you let the power concentrate in a few business hands how is that different?

This claim is too vague and general for me to give the right comment.
First you have not defined your terms. You have to prove to me that corp's are true "power" in themselves before taking on the rest too. By that I mean, and very specifically: the same type of power that gov't has: force backed by guns, the ability to fine you, or to jail you if you do not do what it wants. Having large market share or being big in itself is not "force."

You do not have to buy or work for any corporation.They have no power over you unless you agree to it.

Now, I think I know what you're trying to say and am not saying there is no truth in it either....the devil is in the details though. So far this sounds like a leftist take on corporations as a whole being bad... instead of where I feel the problem lies with them.

It is only when corps get advantages, they otherwise would not get from free markets, that corps have undue leverage. That's when they get market protection from gov't or too close an alliance with the gov't via politics. ( This is where I feel your statement has truth.) It isn't suprising to me, that so many of the large ones hate free-markets, freedom and love big gov't fascism and socialism. Why? Because it prevents smaller start ups from competing against them; allows them to consolidate their markets.

Our system today, particularly our economy, is a mix of fascism, socialism( Keyenesian economics), free-markets and mercantilism ( cartel capitalism as in corporatism). It is a fake and politicized economy in large part...it should NOT be. That latter in parentheses is what I believe you are observing.

The reason for inheritance tax and income tax is because it does take resources away from very productive people and forces them to win in the next economic cycle again.

So you're saying taking resources (as in confiscating their own private property which includes their hard earned income) away from "very productive" people is good? That's penalizing production. There's only one word for that: suppression. You get more of what you reward, rewarding production creates wealth for all. Penalizing it creates poverty.

It is a balance though between taxing too much and too little. It gives them incentive to continue being productive to win back those resources. In the process the general good is served.
Fallacy. You're penalizing producton. Again, it depends on the kind of taxes. A heavy progressive tax hurts the economy and punishes production. That's Marxism. Sorry too little time to explain in detail.

If you allow the wealth to collect in a small pool of people they will not have incentive to really put them selves out there to create new wealth.
It's not the gov'ts problem to direct the distribution of wealth...that's socialism, facism and communism. It stems from Marx.

Wealth collects in small pools of people when their is too much taxation of If you want the best of the brightest of people looking to make money you want to make use of that again and again.
No. That's "control of the major means of production" (Marx) which is also "you and me." You want the gov't to stop engineering the process so that we can be free to do what we want. America became the economic juggernaut it is because we had more freedom than any other nation. No other nation has done this as fast as America. Freedom a condition that allows for a more efficient use of resources, until the Marxist progressives got into the education system and lied to everybody about the cause and effects. Again too general.

I say what worked once before will work again.

The left is afraid of freedom especially with regard to markets, which regulate themselves for the most part.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 09:46 AM
About the stateless society envisioned in Marx's early, humanist works...

Perhaps many of the pre-Westernized Native American societies would qualify...(of course Engels thought that they were pre-feudal, but as far as their governmental structure, distribution of goods, and decision making go, I see some similarities).

I agree, primitive societies come the closest but even they had some private ownership so they are not an absolute...but they are the closest to this.

Notice how they never advanced too. Later were even wiped out.
So that's not a sustainable system.

In fact some economists refer to the Marxists wanting us to live like one big tribe with nature. Hence the wanting to return to society living in nature, with captialism destroyed which underlies much of the environmental actvists thinking.

banyon
04-16-2006, 09:46 AM
Those socialist fixes you're ravin' about actually kept us in the Great Depression longer and have actually hurt us more than you'd think. Lots of studies on that now that we know more about economics. Those socialist fixes distorted markets and led to sky rocketing health care costs too.

Also, Poverty levels were dropping in this country until a lot of LBJ's Great Society programs and his War on Poverty...then the numbers stopped dropping.

First off, the federal government didn't officially start measuring poverty until 1963. Then afterwards I'm not sure the data is as you portray.

Progress has been uneven, with some clear early successes followed by backsliding and then another period of progress, which has so far stalled under the Bush administration. The official poverty rate fell from 19.5 percent in 1963 to 11.1 percent in 1973. Since 1973 it has remained stubbornly stable, rising in the 1970's and 1980's and falling in the 1990's. By 2000, the poverty rate returned to 11.3 percent; last year, it inched up to 12.1 percentDr. Alan Kreuger-Princeton economist (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/3058.html)

Additionally, historical economic data has shown exactly the opposite of what you contend. Pure communism is wasteful, true enough; but pure capitalism is inefficient as well. We saw that occur in America in the late 19th century, with great concentrations of wealth that wound up with the very few elites. This can be seen today in Less Developed Countries (LDC's) where severe free market conventions have been imposed with IMF/World Bank constraints. Typically, these restraints have served to exacerbate the gap between rich and poor.




We need to concentrate on wealth creation so that there is enough to go around with lots left over for charity. Someone's poverty is not caused by another's wealth.

We have been doing this...Reagan trickle-down style. Here are the trickling results:

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

That's not the highest ever. In 2001, the ratio of CEO-to-worker pay hit a peak of 525-to-1.
Still, it's quite a leap year over year, and it ranks on the high end historically. In 1990, for instance, CEOs made about 107 times more than the average worker, while in 1982, the average CEO made only 42 times more.http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/news/economy/ceo_pay/

We American's love war: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror but these things usually don't deliver the results they promise.

You are correct on this point. When we declare War on something, it usually sux. That being said, welcome to D.C! Keep up the interesting posting! :thumb:

banyon
04-16-2006, 09:52 AM
I agree, primitive societies come the closest but even they had some private ownership so they are not an absolute...but they are the closest to this.

Notice how they never advanced too. Later were even wiped out.
So that's not a sustainable system.

In fact some economists refer to the Marxists wanting us to live like one big tribe with nature. Hence the wanting to return to society living in nature, with captialism destroyed which underlies much of the environmental actvists thinking.

:spock: That's not due to how their society was organized. It's because they ran across a society with vastly superior technology and immunity from disease (I'd recommed the book Guns,Germs, and Steel on that point).

If aliens landed like they do in War of the Worlds and wiped us out, even though they were organized as a monarchy, would that convince you that monarchy was superior to republican democracy? I would hope not.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 09:56 AM
Princeton?
I would never rely in such an Establishment source. Universities are loaded with Big-Gov't thinking Keynesian economists that treat economics as mathematics.

I'm a libertarian when it comes to economics and largely in foreignpolicy but not totally. I am from the Austrian school of Economics, founded by Ludwig Von Mises, the one who found the flaws in Marxist-orientated economics as our universities teach.

Economics is more a branch of Ethics and deals with human action and choices. It's actually a lot simpler to understand than what they teach in college. In fact the word stems from the mistress of household managing affairs. See...we woman have it right again!

Yes there ARE numbers before 1963.

Read "Losing Ground" written by a liberal who supported the Great Society programs and later denounced them in his book with lots of charts, graphs and statistics. They did not work. Even if they did, our Constitution does not allow for such practices. We are supposed to be free.

Then again it comes down to what you think is good and bad which are subjective value judgements.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 10:01 AM
:spock: That's not due to how their society was organized. It's because they ran across a society with vastly superior technology and immunity from disease (I'd recommed the book Guns,Germs, and Steel on that point).

That's precisely part of my point...at least on the part of being wiped out.

You only took one part of my post and did not included the fact that they barely changed for thousands of years...they did not grow and advance improving their conditions in life.

Had they done so...the likelihood of being wiped out may not have happened or been more difficult by having a better chance standing up to the Indo-European race. Not to speak of the fact that were not united and suffered from their own internecine warfare. Even a small group that is organized is harder to beat than a larger more advanced group that is not.

banyon
04-16-2006, 10:12 AM
Princeton?
I would never rely in such an Establishment source. Universities are loaded with Big-Gov't thinking Keynesian economists that treat economics as mathematics.

pretty weak IMO to blast my source and then tell me to "go read a book"
It's not like he pulled these figures out of his a**. They are Census Bureau figures, so they can be gained there too.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov98/pov98.jpg
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty98/pov98.html


I'm a libertarian when it comes to economics and largely in foreignpolicy but not totally. I am from the Austrian school of Economics, founded by Ludwig Von Mises, the one who found the flaws in Marxist-orientated economics as our universities teach.

Great. Does that mean we all have to be acolytes of Dr. Mises?
Marx, being six feet under, of course does not get a chance to respond to Dr. Mises criticisms, although I don't doubt that he has Marxist critics nonetheless.

Economics is more a branch of Ethics and deals with human action and choices. It's actually a lot simpler to understand than what they teach in college. In fact the word stems from the mistress of household managing affairs. See...we woman have it right again!

We agree on what economics is about. We do not agree on its complexity/simplicity. I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I thought all of their economic idea sounded great. And they all do, on the surface. But one I studied the economic assumptions that they were based on, I lost my faith in neoconservative economic models.


Yes there ARE numbers before 1963.

Read "Losing Ground" written by a liberal who supported the Great Society programs and later denounced them in his book with lots of charts, graphs and statistics. They did not work. Even if they did, our Constitution does not allow for such practices. We are supposed to be free.

No numbers from the census Bureau. Only extrapolations/best guesses. Does sound like an interesting book though.

Then again it comes down to what you think is good and bad which are subjective value judgements.

Agree with the first part, but let's not make economics into cultural relativism.

banyon
04-16-2006, 10:16 AM
That's precisely part of my point...at least on the part of being wiped out.

You only took one part of my post and did not included the fact that they barely changed for thousands of years...they did not grow and advance improving their conditions in life.

Had they done so...the likelihood of being wiped out may not have happened or been more difficult by having a better chance standing up to the Indo-European race. Not to speak of the fact that were not united and suffered from their own internecine warfare. Even a small group that is organized is harder to beat than a larger more advanced group that is not.

Their non-development is likely from a European point of view. The alien invaders might view our rate of change as too slow for their taste as well.

Native Americans had a couple of other large disadvantages which inhibited their development too. While Europe had many domesticable animals, te Western Hemisphere only had 1: the Llama. Also there was a severe lack of grain crops, Maize (corn) being one of the few.

I suspect if we had more than an oral history of the Native Americans starting with the pre-Millenial Indians, we could see development.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 10:46 AM
Their non-development is likely from a European point of view.

Yes it is. But it's obvious it was unsustainable as they'd still be here.

The alien invaders might view our rate of change as too slow for their taste as well.

I'm sure this is true as well.
And if they got here via space travel then they are more advanced than us and most likely could take over too.
:hmmm:

Overall, cultures are frail things....they do not endure.
Democracies have the shortest life-spans of all and all empires set in the sun...as went Egypt, Greece, Rome, the British Empire...as America will go eventually too...unless we wise up and learn from past lessons. Don't think it's gonna happen though. Then the same games will be played all over again.

banyon
04-16-2006, 10:51 AM
Yes it is. But it's obvious it was unsustainable as they'd still be here.

It's unsustainable because they'd still be here? :hmmm:

You must mean something entirely different from what I mean by sustainable. The fact that they'd still be here IMO, means their society was at least internally sustainable, though external forces wiped it out.

To the contrary, our unlimited growth, short-term profit maximization, rapid resource depletion model is unsustainable.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 11:08 AM
pretty weak IMO to blast my source and then tell me to "go read a book" It's not like he pulled these figures out of his a**. They are Census Bureau figures, so they can be gained there too.

I'm not "blasting" it....sorry it came across that way. I am just saying I distrust those sources and was explaining that as something not likely to convince someone of my leanings. I'd have to get my references and don't have time to do that now as it is a holiday for one. But there is other data.

Great. Does that mean we all have to be acolytes of Dr. Mises?

Not at all....I was just letting you know what school of thought I came from.

Marx, being six feet under, of course does not get a chance to respond to Dr. Mises criticisms, although I don't doubt that he has Marxist critics nonetheless.

Of course he has his Marxist critics. But he also refuted Adam Smith too. It was one of Smith's errors, the "labor theory of value," that allowed Marx to get in the door. It was Mises who sorted it out. He is brilliant. It is really just cultural lag that has prevented widespread acceptance at this point. But is has more professors now in the schools...it just takes time for ideas to grab hold at another level.New ideas begin with intellectuals and then trickle on down through society.

Marx certainly is 6 feet under. When I was in London I visited his grave purposely. Have you ever studied his personal life? If ever a set of corrupt personal values of man could influence his political-economic system beliefs have it would be Marx. Yet, the world seized his idea. He was a bum, a thief and spied/turned on his own revolutionaries for pay. He plundered his wife's inheritance, some of his kids died of malnutrition, was an abuser and yet he was a member of the middle-class. He was a hated man...very mean to others.

We agree on what economics is about. We do not agree on its complexity/simplicity.

I dunno what you mean exactly.

I used to be a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. I thought all of their economic idea sounded great. And they all do, on the surface. But one I studied the economic assumptions that they were based on, I lost my faith in neoconservative economic models.

Well a neo-conservative and a conservative are not the same thing. NeoConservatives are another breed of Marxist who believe in the welfare state. I used to be a Democract and moderately liberal...until I worked for myself, even had my own business for a period of time. So I really related to Mises as I could see in real life what he was discussing. I've lost faith in gov't solutions and market manipulations on an empirical basis. This stuff is not "theory" it's what actually happens.

I also do not believe in economic models again because they cannot predict Human Action. This is why it is more than math. This is Mises underlying point. There is no "labor theory" of value. Value is subjective. This is where choices of consumers and people come in.

This school of thought is classified as "classical liberalism" more form the "Enlightenment" and the strain of thought of our Framers.


Agree with the first part, but let's not make economics into cultural relativism.

That's just it,it is relative and it is not relative at the same time. But it is not cultural.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 11:16 AM
It's unsustainable because they'd still be here? :hmmm:

You must mean something entirely different from what I mean by sustainable. The fact that they'd still be here IMO, means their society was at least internally sustainable, though external forces wiped it out.

To the contrary, our unlimited growth, short-term profit maximization, rapid resource depletion model is unsustainable.

It would be only be sustainable if left alone, isolated and had no contact with another group of people especially a group whose system allowed for more technological advancement is what I meant. Sustainibility includes both.

The ones with the curiousity to advance, including developing the means and tools to explore beyond their native land are the ones that advance and improve their living conditions internally as well as can conquer others. That's what I meant.

We can't go back to living like one big primitive tribe as a solution to resource depletion. That's regressive. The answer lies in more advancement and technology which is what has improved our living conditions: extended life by allowing us to no longer live in filth, with disease, dying young and in childbirth or wearing the same clothes all year and which put into the hands of the common people things only kings could afford like soap and a daily change of clothes . ( mass production)

banyon
04-16-2006, 11:31 AM
It would be only be sustainable if left alone, isolated and had no contact with another group of people especially a group whose system allowed for more technological advancement is what I meant. Sustainibility includes both.

Their sustainable system only became unsustainable when exposed an commingled with an unsustainable one (viz. ours).


We can't go back to living like one big primitive tribe as a solution to resource depletion. That's regressive. The answer lies in more advancement and technology which is what has improved our living conditions: extended life by allowing us to no longer live in filth, with disease, dying young and in childbirth or wearing the same clothes all year and which put into the hands of the common people things only kings could afford like soap and a daily change of clothes . ( mass production)

I don't want to live in tribal societies either, but that's just one form of sustainable government. Others could easily allow for prudent, technological advancement with a similar communitarian government. If you are a real libertarian, your endpoint is very similar to the Marxist stateless society anyway. Just the route for getting there is different.

banyon
04-16-2006, 11:35 AM
I'm not "blasting" it....sorry it came across that way. I am just saying I distrust those sources and was explaining that as something not likely to convince someone of my leanings. I'd have to get my references and don't have time to do that now as it is a holiday for one. But there is other data.



Not at all....I was just letting you know what school of thought I came from.



Of course he has his Marxist critics. But he also refuted Adam Smith too. It was one of Smith's errors, the "labor theory of value," that allowed Marx to get in the door. It was Mises who sorted it out. He is brilliant. It is really just cultural lag that has prevented widespread acceptance at this point. But is has more professors now in the schools...it just takes time for ideas to grab hold at another level.New ideas begin with intellectuals and then trickle on down through society.

Marx certainly is 6 feet under. When I was in London I visited his grave purposely. Have you ever studied his personal life? If ever a set of corrupt personal values of man could influence his political-economic system beliefs have it would be Marx. Yet, the world seized his idea. He was a bum, a thief and spied/turned on his own revolutionaries for pay. He plundered his wife's inheritance, some of his kids died of malnutrition, was an abuser and yet he was a member of the middle-class. He was a hated man...very mean to others.



I dunno what you mean exactly.



Well a neo-conservative and a conservative are not the same thing. NeoConservatives are another breed of Marxist who believe in the welfare state. I used to be a Democract and moderately liberal...until I worked for myself, even had my own business for a period of time. So I really related to Mises as I could see in real life what he was discussing. I've lost faith in gov't solutions and market manipulations on an empirical basis. This stuff is not "theory" it's what actually happens.

I also do not believe in economic models again because they cannot predict Human Action. This is why it is more than math. This is Mises underlying point. There is no "labor theory" of value. Value is subjective. This is where choices of consumers and people come in.

This school of thought is classified as "classical liberalism" more form the "Enlightenment" and the strain of thought of our Framers.




That's just it,it is relative and it is not relative at the same time. But it is not cultural.

Back to the original point. About the effectiveness of "socialist" remedies. Povery did decrease under LBJ. Our Census Bureau says so.

Moreover, Marx did accurately predict what would happen in this country through te late 19th century. It was only when mixed-economy regulations through the Two Roosevelts were implemented did we finally acheive a more stable, constant society (which is what I believe you originally objected to).

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 11:40 AM
Their sustainable system only became unsustainable when exposed an commingled with an unsustainable one (viz. ours).
Respectfully I disagree.

I don't want to live in tribal societies either, but that's just one form of sustainable government. Others could easily allow for prudent, technological advancement with a similar communitarian government. If you are a real libertarian, your endpoint is very similar to the Marxist stateless society anyway. Just the route for getting there is different.

communitarian=communism

As for the "Marxist stateless society":
This is a common misconception with left-wingers I meet on the net I have noticed. There is left-libertarianism and there is right-libertarianism which is very close to anarchy but not really true anarchy. I am right libertarian. Ayn Rand-style in favor or free-market capitalism ( not what we have today which is a mix). Left libertarianism is also communism too.

Even at that, I said I am libertarian "on economics" and "on foreign-policy" somewhat but not an absolute one. Only if human beings had no dark side and were perfect could we ever have a stateless society or a utopia.

My views span from center to right...but using a spectrum that includes an absence of gov't on the right...not the false model used today of right-wing dictatorship on the right. There is no such thing as a right-wing dictatorship.
And what I call the "center" is the original center of the Framers which was a balance between individual rights and the rights of the group. That center is non-existent as years of progressivism has shifted what was once the center to the left. Bush is left of center to me as well.

banyon
04-16-2006, 11:53 AM
Ayn Rand-style in favor or free-market capitalism ( not what we have today which is a mix).

Ayn Rand?

:Lin:

And you were doing so well too... :)

patteeu
04-16-2006, 11:59 AM
You call yourself a libertarian, but I doubt anyone here really believes that. The fact that you want to criticize the Marx quote only shows how narrow minded you've allowed yourself to become because socialism has been a pejorative term in this country for years (despite the fact that largely socialist measures saved the country from sure ruin). Continue to bite the hand that nursed you from death. It's very noble.

LMAO at the thought that you think I care what you believe about my political beliefs. Doubling over in regard to the fact that you would include that comment in the same post that you take issue with me for criticizing socialism.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2006, 04:48 PM
I am bumping this for patteeu as I know he'd be interested in the progress of this tax. I just came from parent orientation for start of school for my kid. I told you earlier, when I first came here, that I knew the ED of this tax movement. I saw him late this afternoon. So thought I'd ask whatever happened to it as he told me a few years ago that Bush promised to sign it.

Now, bear in mind this guy goes around the country speaking to all kinds of groups: businesses, agricultural as well as politicians, so he tends to speak glowingly positive about how well it is going. I was skeptical, feeling it had gotten lost in the WoT. He told me this tax initiative actually got lost in the whole Katrina debacle actually.

Anyhow, I asked how it was going? He said they just had a meeting with Bush very recently with two other important people ( sorry I can't recall their titles) and that it was being revived. He said it was supposed to be just a 15 min meeting but it went an hour...and that it went real well.

Thought it was interesting that he mentioned Bush starts a meeting exactly on time and is known for being very punctual.

Also, I asked him for his take on the Lieberman loss and he felt Lieberman would still take Connecticut...and that Lieberman was also with them on the Fair Tax too. Plus some incumbent was defeated in Michigan, a Republican even, who opposes the Fair Tax...didn't catch the name on that either.

Just thought you might be interested patteeu.

patteeu
08-24-2006, 05:44 PM
I am bumping this for patteeu as I know he'd be interested in the progress of this tax. I just came from parent orientation for start of school for my kid. I told you earlier, when I first came here, that I knew the ED of this tax movement. I saw him late this afternoon. So thought I'd ask whatever happened to it as he told me a few years ago that Bush promised to sign it.

Now, bear in mind this guy goes around the country speaking to all kinds of groups: businesses, agricultural as well as politicians, so he tends to speak glowingly positive about how well it is going. I was skeptical, feeling it had gotten lost in the WoT. He told me this tax initiative actually got lost in the whole Katrina debacle actually.

Anyhow, I asked how it was going? He said they just had a meeting with Bush very recently with two other important people ( sorry I can't recall their titles) and that it was being revived. He said it was supposed to be just a 15 min meeting but it went an hour...and that it went real well.

Thought it was interesting that he mentioned Bush starts a meeting exactly on time and is known for being very punctual.

Also, I asked him for his take on the Lieberman loss and he felt Lieberman would still take Connecticut...and that Lieberman was also with them on the Fair Tax too. Plus some incumbent was defeated in Michigan, a Republican even, who opposes the Fair Tax...didn't catch the name on that either.

Just thought you might be interested patteeu.

Thanks for the info, BEP. Very interesting. :thumb: