[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Foxfyre]

And I simply don't understand this mentality that a flat tax somehow 'subsidizes' the wealthy. A true flat tax on ALL earned income whether that income is generated via piece work, commissions, hourly wage, salary, business profits, capital gains, interest, royalties, profit on property when it is sold, or whatever, applies equally to the rich as it does to the poor wage earner. And the rich have a lot more of those types of income to tax.

It would fix the problem Warren Buffet complained about with his secretary paying a higher percentage on her income than he does. It would tax the investment income that Mitt Romney lives on at the same rate that wage earners pay--right now he benefits from a lower rate on capital gains.

The rate needs to be low across the board to keep from hurting the poor and also to prevent slowing economic growth by excessively taxes investment income.

But with say a 10% flat tax, the guy making $10,000 will pay $1,000 in taxes. The guy making $1 million will pay $100,000 in taxes. And both will feel the pinch if they vote to raise those taxes so both would need a really good reason to do that. It wouldn't any more be the lower income wanting the rich to pay more and more while they enjoy paying much less.

It really is not a matter of reality. Those that demand a flat tax as described somehow subsidizes the wealthy say this because that has been the mime for a very long time. It is essentially a trained response as the one thing that seems to be ingrained is that the rich are somehow getting the better of everyone else through taxation. Flat taxes would fix any and all imbalances that they receive but that is not good enough. Those that buy into the class warfare will not be happy unless the rich are somehow paying a MUCH larger share than they are. I won’t say others because that is not really the goal. The goal is that those that make more MUST pay a much larger share than they are paying. You see this in the people that idolize the 91 percent range without any understanding of the realities of the tax code that spawned that rate.

I blame the public school system that indoctrinates with social theory more than it teaches basic math including percentages, calculating profit and loss, and concepts such as supply and demand and the value of labor. I blame the media that indoctrinates with social theory more than it informs. And I blame a self serving government that benefits itself (and not much else) by perpetuating skewed concepts of fairness and promotes a sense of entitlement and class envy. I blame those who worship almost all government and those who reject almost all government; those who think they have the right to dictate how we must live our lives, and those who think freedom means preventing people from organizing for mutual benefit and quality of life.

All of it tears apart the basic spirit of human liberty and potential that the Founders intended that we have.

And it has resulted in a steady erosion of our individual liberties, a shift to ever more authoritarian government that force us into an increasing role to feed it and keep it growing, and a tax code that has far more pages and words and complexities than that Declaration of Independent, the U.S. Constitution, War and Peace, and the Bible and probably half of most county libraries combined.

 

[RKMBrown]

The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.

Really? What are you going to do then, eat it? I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt. Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing? That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though. Might as well use rocks.

The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you don’t have to buy anything. You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then. You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason. IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now. That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a ‘fair’ tax. It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying – a tax on others.

All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter. As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed. I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place. You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.

The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "don’t have to buy anything." Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?

 

[RKMBrown]

That is absurd RKM. The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states. It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people. The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.

The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.

It should be that way now. We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same. We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other. God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding. That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.

The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.

Let me get this straight. You say what I said is "absurd." Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."

Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd? Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?

 

[Foxfyre]

That is absurd RKM. The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states. It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people. The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.

The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.

It should be that way now. We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same. We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other. God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding. That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.

The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.

Let me get this straight. You say what I said is "absurd." Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."

Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd? Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?

The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving. I have made that distinction abundantly clear. But then I am engaged in this discussion for the purpose of determining what is the best tax system to throw my support behind and to determine the basis on which that system can be made fair and serve the purpose I intend it to have.

You seem to be in this discussion to be as dictatorial and insulting and intransigent as those in government that I oppose.

 

[RKMBrown]

That is absurd RKM. The social contract that created this country knew that a federal government was necessary to pass sufficient regulation to allow the various states to function as one nation without relinquisihing the individual rights of the people within those states. It recognized the need for an organized defense against aggressors and, most importantly, there had to be a central authority to recognize and protect the individual rights of the people. The government was not authorized to dictate what rights the people would have, but without such recognition and protection, nobody had any rights at all.

The government needed funding to carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities, and the people paying the necessary taxes to provide that funding received full value for the money they remitted.

It should be that way now. We live in a much more populated and complicated world than the one the Founders inhabited, but the principles remain the same. We need a central government to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, we need a standing army to protect us from any would be aggressors, and we need sufficient regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economical, or environmental violence to each other. God willing freedom loving people will finally choose to wind government back to those constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But even those limited duties require some funding, and as all benefit from them, all should be held responsible for providing the funding. That is not slavery as the costs are as necessary as paying our light bill and we do receive value for the money expended.

The only slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all.

Let me get this straight. You say what I said is "absurd." Then in your last sentence you say almost exactly what I said "slavery is when one citizen is required to provide funding for the benefit of another or to support a government that exists for its own self serving purposes and/or when a few are required to disproportionately provide for all."

Why is your agreeing with my statements absurd? Did you miss a <sarcasm> smile?

The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving. I have made that distinction abundantly clear. But then I am engaged in this discussion for the purpose of determining what is the best tax system to throw my support behind and to determine the basis on which that system can be made fair and serve the purpose I intend it to have.

You seem to be in this discussion to be as dictatorial and insulting and intransigent as those in government that I oppose.

>>> The difference between you and me is that you make no distinction between the necessary functions of government and those that are self serving.

It wasn't a part of the discussion why are you bringing that up, just to make an argument about what I did not talk about? Is your post just a troll? Are you trying to be an ass because I disagree with you on how to tax for the necessary functions of government? You act like you've never considered that taking someones wages makes them your slave. Is this your first time considering what income taxes really are? Why do you believe slavery is ok when government does it? What does the spending line item have to do with your justification of aspect of slavery of income taxation? Income taxes are not the only means for funding the necessary constitutional functions of government.

Your accusation about me is an absolute lie, I have nothing against funding the necessary functions of government. The issue I have is to whether or not that is done involuntarily by force through wage deductions (aka. indentured servitude.)

 

[FA_Q2]

The difference is I don't have to buy any sales taxed products. That makes it a choice. The mirror example with income tax is that I don't have to have taxable income.

Really? What are you going to do then, eat it? I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt. Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing? That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though. Might as well use rocks.

The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you don’t have to buy anything. You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then. You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason. IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now. That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a ‘fair’ tax. It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying – a tax on others.

All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter. As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed. I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place. You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.

The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "don’t have to buy anything." Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?

And you complain about MY reading comprehension.

If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then don’t bother responding. Insults do NOT reinforce your argument. They reinforce mine.

You did not even bother to read my statements. Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.

 

[RKMBrown]

Really? What are you going to do then, eat it? I guess you can sow dollars together to make a quilt. Perhaps pillow stuffing and mattress stuffing? That is likely the most expensive and uncomfortable sleeping arrangement I can think of though. Might as well use rocks.

The point here is that you are utterly incorrect in the idea that you don’t have to buy anything. You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then. You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason. IOW, nothing different than the system that we have now. That is not a flat tax at all nor is it a ‘fair’ tax. It is a tax on those goods that you are not buying – a tax on others.

All money must be used at some point or it is worthless and the amount taxed does not matter. As that is true, sales tax is no different than income tax other than the fact that you wish to leave things untaxed. I do not agree with such special interest concepts as that is exactly why we are in this mess in the first place. You gain nothing by restarting the same type system that we already have.

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.

The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "don’t have to buy anything." Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?

And you complain about MY reading comprehension.

If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then don’t bother responding. Insults do NOT reinforce your argument. They reinforce mine.

You did not even bother to read my statements. Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.

I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument? sigh Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal.

>>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then.

Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax. Can you not think of more?

>>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.

Special interest goods? What are those? In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate. With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation. With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax. Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax. The food product they buy is not taxed.

Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand. But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions. The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

And to keep the class envy religionists happy, if you have 10 guys making $10,000 paying 10%, they will collectively pay $10,000 in taxes. The 1 guy making a milliom will pay $100,000 in taxes or roughly 97% of the taxes.

At a flat tax, we will still have roughly the same folks at the top paying the huge lion's share of the taxes, but now if the guys at the bottom push to raise the millionaire's taxes, their taxes go up too. And that is exactly as it should be.

The primary difference is that the government will HAVE to go on a diet because it can't use the tax code to generate more and more and more money to waste with the blessings of the bottom 50%.

It will also be a huge incentive to govenment to put policy in place that stimulates the economy and generates job creation because having folks on unemployment and welfare will not be in government's interest as much as it is now. A Fair Tax allows the government to perpetuate itself by giving more and more money to those same people who will then return it in the form of taxes and will keep voting for those who will keep the money flowing to them..

 

[FA_Q2]

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.

The statement "I don't have to buy any sales taxed products." Is not the same as your statement that I said "don’t have to buy anything." Do you really not understand the difference between buying nothing and buying only things that are not applicable to sale tax?

And you complain about MY reading comprehension.

If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then don’t bother responding. Insults do NOT reinforce your argument. They reinforce mine.

You did not even bother to read my statements. Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.

I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument? sigh Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal.

>>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating ‘sales taxed products’ but that is simply reveling the truth then.

Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax. Can you not think of more?

>>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.

Special interest goods? What are those? In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate. With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation. With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax. Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax. The food product they buy is not taxed.

Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand. But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions. The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.

Sigh away. I have not insulted you and if you feel insulted, that is on you. This was the opeining insult:

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.


And where meaningful discussion ends with you. I am sorry if you are unable to carry on a polite conversation when you get frustrated but it is not my job to deal with your problems. I have not treated you as a sallow or TM but now you are acting as they do. I will not debase this good thread by going down that road here.

 

[Euroconservativ]

America is the OECD country where the wealthiest 10% pay a higher share of all taxes: 45% of all taxes. They are the top world payers even compared to the % of total wealth earned by them.

No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S. | Tax Foundation

The American top 10% households pay 1.35. The highest in OECD-24

Paying 1.00 would be the "fair share". It only happens in Sweden, Denmark, Japan and Germany. The Swiss wealthy pay below the fair share but, even if the pay the lowest tax rates in the West (top federal income tax rate= 11.5%), the wealth is much better distributed than in other countries (share of market income of richest swiss decile=23.5%).

The OECD is not a right-wing, libertarian, anti-worker, anti-women, anti-minorities, etc organization


And the main difference with other countries is the nonexistence of a national flat sales tax or VAT in America.

Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent. In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.


CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress

I highly doubt they actually paid 91% in those day. Anyway, it was a completely different world: cold war and less open to trade and competition

 

[RKMBrown]

And you complain about MY reading comprehension.

If you are going to act like an arrogant prick, then don&#8217;t bother responding. Insults do NOT reinforce your argument. They reinforce mine.

You did not even bother to read my statements. Likely because you have no real defense in what you are trying to advocate for.

I'm the "arrogant prick" because I respond to your insults with in-kind insults and that reinforces your argument? sigh Never understood why some folks feel the need to put themselves on a pedestal.

>>> You are, of course, leaving an opening by stating &#8216;sales taxed products&#8217; but that is simply reveling the truth then.

Sales taxed products is just one means of taxation that is not based on personal income tax. Can you not think of more?

>>> You want a system where YOU can avoid those taxed through special interest goods that are not taxed for whatever reason.

Special interest goods? What are those? In Texas, Florida, and many other states the things that are not taxed through sales taxes are the things used in the production of food, health care, and real estate. With regard to the special interest "real estate," we have annual real-estate taxes so I guess they figured sales taxes on top would be an unfair form of double taxation. With regard to food and health care, well those are considered "life" giving things thus sort of evil to tax. Note: if you go out to eat, the restaurant does collect a sales tax. The food product they buy is not taxed.

Again, if don't live in a sales tax state it's likely that you won't understand. But no one calls these "special interest" exceptions. The sales tax is the same for everyone, black, white, poor, rich, it does not matter.

Sigh away. I have not insulted you and if you feel insulted, that is on you. This was the opeining insult:

You appear to be ignorant about this topic and also appear to be exhibiting a serious reading comprehension problem that you should address if you wish to converse with others.


And where meaningful discussion ends with you. I am sorry if you are unable to carry on a polite conversation when you get frustrated but it is not my job to deal with your problems. I have not treated you as a sallow or TM but now you are acting as they do. I will not debase this good thread by going down that road here.

IOW you'll only debate/dicuss the topic if you can win your argument by miss-quoting / lying making up shit about what those on the other side of the argument say. My comment about your reading comprehension was based on your changing my statement to mean the opposite of what I said. You lied, either because of a reading comprehension problem or outright. If it wasn't reading comprehension perhaps you can explain why you changed my statement. FYI: It is most definitely an insult to twist someone's statements and cite/present them as statements that are the complete opposite of what they said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well one way to destroy or derail a thread is via food fight, ad hominem, and personal insult. But in real life, in formal debate, and in this weird world of message boarding, he/she who stops making an argument and starts flinging sh*t is out of ammo and has lost the debate.

But I remain hopeful that there are some Fair Tax advocates out there who can convince me through logic, reason, and facts that the Fair Tax would be superior to a flat income tax. I do understand the psychological satisfaction of having some control over what you spend and therefore what you pay with the Fair Tax. But, but if at the end of the day, it erodes our buying power and quality of life and does nothing to curb the excesses and encroachment of big government, that control becomes pretty empty in concept. Again the devil is in the details.

So, come on Fair Tax believers. Make a believer out of me.

 

[RKMBrown]

...convince me through logic, reason, and facts that the Fair Tax would be superior to a flat income tax. I do understand the psychological satisfaction of having some control over what you spend and therefore what you pay with the Fair Tax. But, but if at the end of the day, it erodes our buying power and quality of life and does nothing to curb the excesses and encroachment of big government, that control becomes pretty empty in concept. Again the devil is in the details.

So, come on Fair Tax believers. Make a believer out of me.

Circumstantial evidence: Texas, does not have state income tax. Texas has sales tax and property tax. Texas has a robust and fast growing economy.

Personal Opinion: When choosing a place to raise a family I choose Texas, been here 20years. The number one reason I choose Texas is how they tax, and more particularly how they do not tax. The number two reason I choose Texas was the family oriented focus Texas has. The schools are exemplary, without over spending. The folks are friendly It's not over crowded. The state is for the most part conservative. I've had offers to move to NYC, Boston, SF, DC, and many other bastions of liberal life with high state income taxes and a decidedly liberal population. I told them they could triple my salary and I would still say no.

Personal Observations: Folks here in Texas do not complain about the state taxes with only a few exceptions. For example, the retired folks typically vote against bonds for new schools. As another example, no one likes to see their sales or property taxes go up. Some folks argue to remove the property tax by increasing the sales tax. But I honestly can't remember ever hearing a complaint about sales tax as a means for paying for government services. I lived in Florida, for 30years. While there I honestly don't remember anyone who was a long time resident of the state complaining about sales tax. I do remember "visitors" and snow birds complaining about sales tax.

Eroding argument: All taxation erodes buying power. Sales tax, is at least somewhat avoidable in so far as it does not apply to food products, shelter, and health care.

Quality of life: Toys? Is that how you measure quality of life, how many toys you can buy without having to pay any type of tax income or sales?

Justification: At some point we have to fund the functions of Government if we are to have one. Sales tax is, by my argument, the best of the choices. The primary reason being that Personal Income taxes are a vile theft of a man's labor without his permission.

Alternatives: If you change these Personal Income taxes by allowing us to pick and choose which government services we will buy, then it's ok (alternative 1). Forcing someone to fund someone else's idea of an ideal life is ridiculous, vile, despicable, ... hell it makes me so mad, so as to consider preparing for civil war (alternative 2).

 

[Foxfyre]

All taxes do not necessarily erode buying power. Taxes paid for necessary fire and police services, for water and sewer systems, and other services that keep us from having to provide these for ourselves can give us excellent value for our money. And despite the savings of not having to have my own well and septic system, etc., they can lower my insurance costs, increase my property values, and attract the kinds of economic growth that allow me to make a better living.

All taxes are not oppressive. All taxes are not bad. Only those that are unnecessary, do not deliver as advertised, and/or do not intend to equally benefit all are bad taxes that we need to eliminate. A flat income tax will not eliminate bad taxes if we do not put serious restraints on government re how much that flat tax will be and what it can be spent on. Ditto a Fair Tax.

I still see a Fair Tax as less equitable and more inflationary than a flat income tax. So far nobody has convinced me that it would be better.

 

[RKMBrown]

All taxes do not necessarily erode buying power. Taxes paid for necessary fire and police services, for water and sewer systems, and other services that keep us from having to provide these for ourselves can give us excellent value for our money. And despite the savings of not having to have my own well and septic system, etc., they can lower my insurance costs, increase my property values, and attract the kinds of economic growth that allow me to make a better living.

Are we talking about which system of taxation is better or coming up with a way to justify federal taxation and spending programs based on state programs for fire, police, and utilities?

All taxes are not oppressive. All taxes are not bad. Only those that are unnecessary, do not deliver as advertised, and/or do not intend to equally benefit all are bad taxes that we need to eliminate. A flat income tax will not eliminate bad taxes if we do not put serious restraints on government re how much that flat tax will be and what it can be spent on. Ditto a Fair Tax.

Again you are mixing the issue of federal and state spending programs with the issue of federal taxation means. Why? Deflection?

I still see a Fair Tax as less equitable and more inflationary than a flat income tax.

Why?

So far nobody has convinced me that it would be better.

You have not addressed a single argument. Instead you deflect away from the arguments, ignore the evidence presented, then ask the same question. You admit your mind was made up before the discussion started, then ignore the alternative arguments and evidence, then ask to be convinced you are wrong. Respectfully, I don't believe you. I believe your mind is set, and you are just deflecting.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well RKM, I hate chopping up posts so I won't respond point by point. I have done my damndest in this thread to address my concerns with a Fair Tax system, and so far you have shown absolutely no ability to have a conservation about that and you have a strong propensity to be insulting to those who disagree with you. So I will ask for those who actually wish to discuss the pros and cons of Fair Tax vs Flat Tax to respond here. And that would not be you.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well RKM, I hate chopping up posts so I won't respond point by point. I have done my damndest in this thread to address my concerns with a Fair Tax system, and so far you have shown absolutely no ability to have a conservation about that and you have a strong propensity to be insulting to those who disagree with you. So I will ask for those who actually wish to discuss the pros and cons of Fair Tax vs Flat Tax to respond here. And that would not be you.

As I said. You have no intention of discussing. Your mind is made up. I respond with insults in kind and you then use that as an excuse to use your deflection tactic. Your mind is made up. I assume you are intelligent enough to realize you have no basis for your view. Thus you are left with accusations, personal attacks and deflection as the only means for supporting your view.

However, I will admit that if you are looking for a person to pat you on the back for supporting involuntary federal personal income tax, that is not me.

 

[PMZ]

OK, I see what you're asking now. That would be primarily because of excess social security payments. Social security is just a tax, there is no trust fund. The balance of the debt, government owes itself.

That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.

Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.

But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.

If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?

Like I said, you're a fucking nut.

When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.

When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.

Nice. Real nice.

That was a pretty lucid argument for a liberal. Well done. I'm repping you for that. I mean positively of course.

Unfortunately, it's a budget game both ways that politicians are playing. While there is no real trust fund, we are on the hook for future payments, so we are actually damned either way. So yeah, it's negative both times.

Also, the idea that I'm OK with Republicans doing it is flat out wrong, W sucked, he was a tax and spend liberal. And I always say so, Obama is still worse.

Frankly too, you're the first liberal I've seen grasp that. I wasn't expecting you to get it and that was the basis of your argument until you repeated it. Again, well done.

The Bushman was no liberal.

One of the things that he wanted to do that liberals prevented was to invest the Trust Fund in equities rather than treasuries. That would have been a disaster.

 

[kaz]

That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.

Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.

But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.





Like I said, you're a fucking nut.

When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.

When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.

Nice. Real nice.

That was a pretty lucid argument for a liberal. Well done. I'm repping you for that. I mean positively of course.

Unfortunately, it's a budget game both ways that politicians are playing. While there is no real trust fund, we are on the hook for future payments, so we are actually damned either way. So yeah, it's negative both times.

Also, the idea that I'm OK with Republicans doing it is flat out wrong, W sucked, he was a tax and spend liberal. And I always say so, Obama is still worse.

Frankly too, you're the first liberal I've seen grasp that. I wasn't expecting you to get it and that was the basis of your argument until you repeated it. Again, well done.

The Bushman was no liberal.

I was referring to fiscal policy, so yeah, he was. What's funny is I bet while saying he wasn't a liberal you'd agree he was a neocon...

One of the things that he wanted to do that liberals prevented was to invest the Trust Fund in equities rather than treasuries. That would have been a disaster.

Well, at least it would have made it an actual trust fund instead of an imaginary one. Though killing Social Security as the Constitutional abomination that it is would be far preferable.

 

[PMZ]

typo -- Perhaps you can explain to the U.S. Treasury then how they're missing more than a trillion dollars for FY2008 if the federal deficit was only $438tb

9/30/2007: $9.00t
9/30/2008: $10.02t

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

And how do you figure FY2013 was about [edit: $700b]?

OK, I see what you're asking now. That would be primarily because of excess social security payments. Social security is just a tax, there is no trust fund. The balance of the debt, government owes itself.

That "excess" is applied to the budget deficit. It still has to be paid back.

Budget deficit for FY2008 -- over one trillion dollars.

But wait, you already knew this -- here you are, pointing this out yourself when arguing how Clinton didn't balance the budget. YOU pointed this out yourself.

If Clinton balanced the budget, then why did the national debt go up every year he was President?

Like I said, you're a fucking nut.

When attacking the Democrat (Clinton), you include the entire budget deficit, both public and intra-governmental.

When defending the Republican (Bush), you intentionally omit the intra-governmental debt.

Nice. Real nice.

The money invested by the Trust Fund into Treasuries is no different than money you and I have I'm Treasuries. It's all part of the National Debt that we are obligated to pay off. Money that we borrowed to pay for Bush's holy wars, money that he gave to the wealthy in tax cuts, money that we had to borrow to get the economy back on track. after he derailed it.

Thanks to Obama we now have an economy that allows us that repayment.

No thanks to the House that continues to try to derail it again.