Dear Tea Baggers... [Archive] - General Nonsense Forums

FordGT90Concept

02-07-2010, 01:31 AM

Where the fuck were you guys screaming about our loss of freedom and descent into tyranny when Bush was illegally wiretapping American`s phones and sucking up massive ammounts of private data for info mining (in direct violation of the Constitution`s protections against search without probable cause)
The PATRIOT ACT came up many times on this forum. My position is the same: PATRIOT ACT was spawned from the "WTF" moments after 9/11 in answering how did they pull it off. The answer was an intelligence failure. That, in itself, is a big problem but not one Congress could address. At the same time, Congress had to do something to make it look like the USA was safer. The answer was the PATRIOT ACT which granted agencies greater flexibility in seeking out "terrorists." The act was originally sloppy but over the years, it has been cleaned up.

I am fine with the PATRIOT ACT as it stands today.

Where were you "deficit hawks" who are worried about the deficit all of a sudden yet when Bush started 2 wars AND cut taxes I never heard a peep. (you DO realize cutting revenue while increasing spending does increase the deficit).
I was complaining about the deficit but have never blamed the wars. We are committed to finishing them both and we have to make budget cuts else where (especially discretionary funding of projects and the like not vital to the functioning of the nation).

Bush did that and he was on track for balancing the budget until September 2008 with the $700 billion financial recovery package. I was never really a fan of that but without it, it is hard to say where we would be today in terms of recession/depression.

You can cut taxes in tandem with cutting governmental costs and still do a number to the federal deficit. Keyword there is "cut:" legislatures hate it.

And for those of you who are under the delusion of a "liberal media" I was at the anti-war protest in 2003 in DC. There were at least 150,000 people there by DC police figures, and we were BARELY mentioned on any of the mainstream media outlets. The drum beat to war kept on.

And yet... 600 goddamn tea baggers gather in Nasheville and its wall to wall media coverage on every damn media outlet.

Liberal Media...hmph
Anti-war protesting isn't out of the ordinary; a curiosity known as the "Tea Party" that isn't officially a "political party" is drawing attention because it is potentially historical: the USA hasn't seen a strong third party since, well, the 19th century. That's news--big news.

I don't support either (anti-war protesting nor Tea Party), by the way.

MT Alex

02-07-2010, 05:05 AM

Here's a few you'll agree with, by a man you are probably diametrically opposed to. I know that quoting someone doesn't test your intelligence, just your memory, but these are a good way to sniff out whether you are someone who genuinely appreciates freedom, left or right be damned.

“The Patriot Act severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the state the power to spy on law abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include: sneak-and-peek searches; a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism; allowing the FBI access to libraries and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause; easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps; easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet; and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.” Ron Paul

“The amazing thing is that deficits and increases in the debt limit no longer have a stigma attached to them. Some demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily raised” Ron Paul

“We seem to never learn from our past mistakes. Today's neo-cons are as idealistically misled and aggressive in remaking the Middle East as the Wilsonian do-gooders. Even given the horrendous costs of the Iraq war and the unintended consequences that plague us today, the neo-cons are eager to expand their regime changing policy to Iran by force.” Ron Paul

Let's end with a real doozy:

“It was once commonly held that an external force was the greatest threat to the liberty of American citizens. Reality has proven that the greatest threat comes from within, and nowhere is this more apparent that in the growing surveillance state.” Ron Paul

Wile E

02-07-2010, 05:43 AM

I pretty much agree with you on most things political, MT Alex. In my eyes, the patriot act is about the biggest abomination that came out of the previous regime.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 08:28 AM

I was complaining about the deficit but have never blamed the wars. We are committed to finishing them both and we have to make budget cuts else where (especially discretionary funding of projects and the like not vital to the functioning of the nation).

Bush did that and he was on track for balancing the budget until September 2008 with the $700 billion financial recovery package. I was never really a fan of that but without it, it is hard to say where we would be today in terms of recession/depression.

You can cut taxes in tandem with cutting governmental costs and still do a number to the federal deficit. Keyword there is "cut:" legislatures hate it.

No I am sorry but he was not "on track for balancing the budget". The Bush administration was hiding the cost of both wars by funding them with supplimentals as opposed to including them in the normal fiscal year budget. This allowed them to fund the wars off the books and making it "appear" to be balancing the budget.

The fact that the military industrial complex which is really just defense contractor welfare is never on the chopping block is insanity. We spend more money on military projects and weapons systems which have no bearing on any wars we are fighting now, nor in the forseeable future.

At the same time we are cutting funding for education and domestic programs which help real Americans while at the same time spending more money to blow up brown people in foreign lands. Nice priorities you got there.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 08:35 AM

And p.s. I am in the higher tax bracket which means I actually PAY taxes. How much was your refund last year? Me I owed taxes, but I dont mind because I make more. And guess what... I dont even LIVE in the US. I just have to pay.. and I am STILL a liberal. Why.. because I care about people less fortunate and less talented than me.

Do people game the system and sit on their asses? Sure! And so do multi million dollar corporations with their loop holes paying a smaller percentage than I do. I dont hear you conservatives complaining about that one...

Wile E

02-07-2010, 08:48 AM

And who provides the most jobs in this country? Is it primarily the middle class, or is it the corporations?

Personally, I think the taxes should just be a flat rate across the board, with deductions for family size, or business losses.

And news flash, "liberal" politicians don't care any more about the less fortunate than conservative ones. They pass the legislation that gets them the most kickback dollars, not what benefits the citizens.

And if I want to provide for the less fortunate, I will donate to the charities of my choice, and do so. I even donate processing time to such projects as folding@home and World Community Grid, at a $50/mo expense addition to my electricity bill.

I do not wish to hand my money over to the govt to have them use it in ways that completely wastes it, like bailing out failing businesses. Fuck those businesses, you reap what you sow. Let them fail.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 09:04 AM

And who provides the most jobs in this country? Is it primarily the middle class, or is it the corporations?

Small business provide most of the jobs in the United States. Whats your point?

Personally, I think the taxes should just be a flat rate across the board, with deductions for family size, or business losses.

That is a very promising idea. Actually I am more in favor of eliminating the "income" tax completely and instituting a much larger sales tax. This would reward those who save and those business which reinvest into their businesses and increase workers salaries.

And news flash, "liberal" politicians don't care any more about the less fortunate than conservative ones. They pass the legislation that gets them the most kickback dollars, not what benefits the citizens.

I would sincerely disagree. I have known many good liberal politicians who care about the less fortunate. It is a false equivication made by conservative politicians to mask their pure greed.

Medicare, Social Security, Minimum Wage, getting weekends off, child labor laws and many more protections for the less fortunate are the result of good liberal politicians. Do the skids sometimes need to be greased? Damn right, as it happens all the time in private business as well. The biggest difference in these programs versus private programs is the lack of a profit motive where services are the first thing to be cut in order to satisfy wall street. Think about what would happen with a privatized fire department and what a horror that would be.

And if I want to provide for the less fortunate, I will donate to the charities of my choice, and do so. I even donate processing time to such projects as folding@home and World Community Grid, at a $50/mo expense addition to my electricity bill.

I do not wish to hand my money over to the govt to have them use it in ways that completely wastes it, like bailing out failing businesses. Fuck those businesses, you reap what you sow. Let them fail.

We tried that once before the New Deal. And it didnt work. Not enough people care because people are greedy. They will only help others less fortunate when forced to... otherwise you have grandma dying in the streets and 13 year olds working in factories.

I pay taxes and donate time and money to charities. These do not have to be mutually exclusive. Funny thing is I am an athiest, yet I think I am more Christian than more of the "who would Jesus bomb" right wing so called Christians.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 09:13 AM

I do not wish to hand my money over to the govt to have them use it in ways that completely wastes it, like bailing out failing businesses. Fuck those businesses

Then I hope you would be opposed to the sweetheart subisdies the oil and gas companies recieve while at the same time reaping massive profits.

Or the defense contractors getting billions and billions of dollars to design and manufacture weapons systems which we do not need.

Wile E

02-07-2010, 09:19 AM

I disagree with your sincere disagreement. lol. These things do not apply to today's liberals. Today's liberals, and the liberals that started said programs are worlds apart.

I do agree there needs to be some regulations in place to prevent businesses from using their employees. I do believe that those that are actually not able to work due to legitimate medical conditions (not shit like social anxiety) and have no family to help should be entitled to health care.

I do not believe that everyone should be entitled to free health care tho. I propose that anyone not medically unable to work seeking govt healthcare should either have a job for x hours a week, or must do x hours of community service until they find a job, annd can pay the taxes needed to pay for their healthcare. I believe everyone able bodied enough to work must earn their way in EVERYTHING. But like I said, I still believe a leash must be kept on businesses.

And I'd rather just have my taxes come out of my check instead of trying to calculate high taxes on items on the fly. I think it's better I never see the money to begin with, so I don't think I have more money than I really do. lol. I do see the credibility of the idea tho, just isn't a good thing for people like me.

As far as greedy people, oh well. If they don't want to give anything, they don't get anything either.

Sweetheart deals falls under regulation.

I'm torn on defense spending. I find it highly important, and we don't actually know how much of this technology makes it to the field. It's not like they actually tell us about it all. I'd have to have more information than what's available to me to make a final decision.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 09:31 AM

I do not believe that everyone should be entitled to free health care tho. I propose that anyone not medically unable to work seeking govt healthcare should either have a job for x hours a week, or must do x hours of community service until they find a job, annd can pay the taxes needed to pay for their healthcare.

There is no such thing as free health care, and I never thought there was. But I think Health Insurance companies are completely worthless and we should switch to the Single Payer system (which is government funded).

I live in Japan and that is what I have. I have a Japanese National Heath Insurance Card. I pay about 400/ month to the Japanese government for this insurance which covers my family. I can choose ANY hospital I want. I can choose any doctor I want. When I go for care I show them my card and I get health care. I then pay at the doctors office/hospital 30% of the cost of my treatment (normally around 20 or 30 USD depending on the service).

For more on my experience in Japan regarding health care read this: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/23/734612/-Single-Payer-Health-Insurance:-My-Japanese-Experience-Updatedx2

Now Ive got a screaming infant to attend to...

Wile E

02-07-2010, 09:39 AM

A system like that could work. Don't really know how to fix healthcare over here, just know that socialized isn't the way to go for us. The insurance companies and hospitals over here do need the reigns tightened somehow tho.

My knowledge of the Japanese health system only extends to their obsession with suppositories, as read on Gaijin Smash (http://outpostnine.com/gaijin_smash/). lol.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 09:44 AM

A system like that could work. Don't really know how to fix healthcare over here, just know that socialized isn't the way to go for us. .

You do realize that statement #1 you made completely contradicted statement #2.

Our system is socialized by definition. Just like your fire and police departments

;)

Wile E

02-07-2010, 09:51 AM

You do realize that statement #1 you made completely contradicted statement #2.

Our system is socialized by definition. Just like your fire and police departments

;)

Not socialized like the plan that was on the table. I meant a system like that could work, but not in it's current state. Just forgot to type it out. Was too buy looking for the suppository post on Gaijin Smash. lol. http://www.outpostnine.com/gaijin_smash/2005/11/dont-get-sickinjured-in-japan.html#more

You pay a lot for you coverage. That's expensive by our standards of employer sponsored coverage, and our coverage can give you much more than 70% coverage, and good plans give you flat copay rates of $10 prescriptions, $20 office visits, etc. The biggest problems are what insurance companies charge employers, and what healthcare providers charge the insurance companies. The costs are driving employers to quit offering benefits.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 10:03 AM

Not socialized like the plan that was on the table. I meant a system like that could work, but not in it's current state.

You are right the one that was on the table (public plan) was a hugely watered down plan which is not even close to the socialized plan I have here.

The biggest problems are what insurance companies charge employers, and what healthcare providers charge the insurance companies. The costs are driving employers to quit offering benefits.

Hit the nail on the head there Wile E. Thats why getting rid of the health insurance companies completely and going to a single payer system is the best way.

And no my plan is not expensive at ALL. You are only seeing the employee side of things. I am a self employed life insurance executive search consultant. 400/month is ALL I pay, and that is determined by my income. If you make less, your monthly is much less. It is determined by income.

And 30% co-pay is low, and there is a cap on the co-pay for more expensive treatments which are covered.

The US spends more money for worse results on health care than any country in the world. Google where the US stands on infant mortality and life expectancy compared to the rest of the world. I think its #37 just above Latvia or something.

My mother (a doctor) has been working in the health care system for the last 30+ years and she is a HUGE advocate for single payer.

And didnt you mention earlier who employs the most people in the US? Small business right. Dont you think it would be nice if they didnt have to negotiate with a health insurer every year for higher rates and less coverage for their employees?　Under single payer that would happen.

Wile E

02-07-2010, 10:06 AM

You are right the one that was on the table (public plan) was a hugely watered down plan which is not even close to the socialized plan I have here.

Hit the nail on the head there Wile E. Thats why getting rid of the health insurance companies completely and going to a single payer system is the best way.

And no my plan is not expensive at ALL. You are only seeing the employee side of things. I am a self employed life insurance executive search consultant. 400/month is ALL I pay, and that is determined by my income. If you make less, your monthly is much less. It is determined by income.

And 30% co-pay is low, and there is a cap on the co-pay for more expensive treatments which are covered.

The US spends more money for worse results on health care than any country in the world. Google where the US stands on infant mortality and life expectancy compared to the rest of the world. I think its #37 just above Latvia or something.

My mother (a doctor) has been working in the health care system for the last 30+ years and she is a HUGE advocate for single payer.

And didnt you mention earlier who employs the most people in the US? Small business right. Dont you think it would be nice if they didnt have to negotiate with a health insurer every year for higher rates and less coverage for their employees?　Under single payer that would happen.I still don't see that being the answer. In the process of going to this, you completely eliminate a segment of the market, and the jobs that go with it.

A modified version may be plausible, but the system you mention I just don't think will work over here.

I think simple regulation could get it under control over here.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 10:11 AM

I still don't see that being the answer. In the process of going to this, you completely eliminate a segment of the market, and the jobs that go with it.

A modified version may be plausible, but the system you mention I just don't think will work over here.

Why wouldnt it work in the US? Please elaborate.

Werent you the one opposed to spending on wasteful unneccesary things? What added value do health insurance companies provide?

Did we prop up the horse industry when a better more efficient option was evident (automobile)? Hell think of all the jobs lost then!! Horse groomers, shoers, the guy scooping the crap out of the street and all those horse traders.

Health Insurance companies add ZERO value.

Wile E

02-07-2010, 10:21 AM

I don't think they have zero value, but they do need knocked down a few pegs.

EDIT: And how did we get back to healthcare again? lol.

Kreij

02-07-2010, 01:10 PM

The problem with our tax system (and why corporations are able to use loopholes) is that the system is so complex that the people who work for the IRS and are paid to assist with tax preparation don't even understand all the rules.

I agree with WileE in that there should be a flat tax, but I disagree that there should be any exemptions for anyone. As soon as you start adding complexity people will find ways to subvert its original intent.

I also think that the flat tax should apply for all taxing entities (federal, state, municipal).

Eliminating income tax and putting everything on sales tax is a bad idea. All it does is punish the people who are the poorest when they need to buy something.

Property taxes are also a source of irritation. My brother-in-law was paying about $1000 more on his property tax (modest home on 1 acre, no garage, not even any trees) than we were at the time (modest home with garage, 14 acres in an oak forest on a river). He was in the same county, but his location in the county put his school distric different than ours, and that school distric was just hemorraging money (and it still is). He has since built a nicer house near us on 40 wooded acres, and is paying less than he did before. Sumpin' ain't right.

Anyway that's my humble opinion on taxes. :D

Steevo

02-07-2010, 03:46 PM

I too like flat rate, but I believe there should be a a larger tax on consumable limited resources to help deter waste. Add another $1 per gallon to fuels, add more to natural gas and then offer larger incentives for car trade in, and home improvement, raise elctricity rates and subsidise the purchase of CFL or more energy efficient products.

I have a bosch washer and dryer, front loaders that use a minute amount of energy and water. High efficency fridge, deepfreeze, have changed over all of my lights that I can to CFL, new hot water heater, new furnace. They recently hiked the utility rates where I live, and even with that, and a colder winter and keepingthe house warmer my utility bill is still only 250 for everything. And I still have some windows to put in, some insulation to put up and a chimmney to take out.

So flat rate everyone in income brackets, allow deductions for biological children, allow energy effiocient credits, tax the shit out of non-renewable enrgy, tax things like cigs, alcohol, and candy at double rate or better and tax fast food untill there is no tomorrow.

FordGT90Concept

02-07-2010, 03:54 PM

No I am sorry but he was not "on track for balancing the budget". The Bush administration was hiding the cost of both wars by funding them with supplimentals as opposed to including them in the normal fiscal year budget. This allowed them to fund the wars off the books and making it "appear" to be balancing the budget.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_federal_budget

Total Revenue: $2.7 trillion
Total Expenditures: $2.9 trillion
Total Revenue less expenditures: -$239 billion
Financial Recovery package: $700 billon
Restore Financial Recovery package to the budget: $461 billion in the green

As for how much was spent on "the war on terror," Iraq, and Afghanistan, I suggest you read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/slot3_20080204.html?_r=1&ref=world

That is a very promising idea. Actually I am more in favor of eliminating the "income" tax completely and instituting a much larger sales tax. This would reward those who save and those business which reinvest into their businesses and increase workers salaries.
Sales tax hurts sales. It is best that income be taxed so people only see how much Uncle Sam is stealing from them once a year. I'd be fine with solely an income tax + deductions but the problem with that is welfare--paying for government pet projects you have nothing to do with.

For example, you pay tax on gasoline to repair the roads, makes sense. You drive, you help service the roads you drive on. Collecting tax on income and spending it on building an ACORN facility on the other side of the country, on the other hand, makes no sense.

The most logical solution for this is that, the government shalt make no law spending money in ways that have limited/no usefulness to those that paid for it. That means the federal government couldn't fund ACORN at all but because your average citizen can drive anywhere in this country, they can fund road construction/repair. Since ACORN is more or less a local deal--should they need funds, they'd have to come from city taxes (also income tax).

Our government, as it stands today, is too damn top heavy. Top heavy = disconnected with the people.

erocker

02-07-2010, 07:02 PM

You do realize that statement #1 you made completely contradicted statement #2.

Our system is socialized by definition. Just like your fire and police departments

;)

Police and fire departments get a paltry salary compared to anyone in the medical/healthcare industry. I have no problems with socialized healthcare but the greed of making money on the sick needs to stop. The current healthcare socialization plan doesn't do that. That's why it will fail, and since it's the United States government that will be running it it will fail even more. Successful government programs in the US are too few and far between to take on this monster. This monster needs to be stabbed, set on fire, locked in concrete and sent to the bottom of the ocean. Healthcare will be fail for the people untill heathcare is not for profit. The Tea-Party crowd is just the Republicans doing what the Democrats have done so well for years. It's just that a bunch of soccer moms and guys in suits are "rallying, etc." instead of "hippies" and "minorities". Last comment is a bit tounge and cheek but it has a point. I can't stand soccer moms. Palin reminds me of one of those. I want to puke when she speaks.

Vog46_1999

02-07-2010, 07:42 PM

Ford-
All of the figures quoted in your Wiki source are estimates - do you have the final outcome of that budget?

they'd have to come from city taxes (also income tax).

I don't know about you but my city operates mostly on PROPERTY taxes and certain sales taxes such as a room tax on hotel/motels

Sales tax hurts sales
True but your outcome can be HELPED by sales taxes.
The Romney HC plan in Mass us funded by an outrageous tax on cigarettes. There are less people smoking now but 98% of the population is covered by the states health care plan (Pack of Marlboro's is now over $7).
This sales tax HELPED. Long term - most doctors expect fewer smoking related treatments and costs. Of course an argument could be made that those not getting an advantage from a tax shouldn't have to PAY the tax - so does that mean that married childless couples should pay LESS local property tax since they don't get any educational benefits??

This opens a huge can of worms.
But the flat or national sales tax allows for an immediate increase in income - which then empowers the worker to control how much tax he pays by limiting or contolling what he buys.
There are some things that are excluded in the national sales tax from what I've read. I would tax (minimally of course) stock sales. Keep it limited to 1% or so.

But hey we're talking tryng to balance a budget and not deficit spend - the only people that do THAT are households. Federal, state and city governments have no problem giving out IOU's, or seling bonds to finance things.

Why weren't the wars funded by war bonds? Was Bush afraid of not being able to prosecute the wars due to lack of funding?

Best Regards
Vog

ProgressiveTokyo

02-07-2010, 07:58 PM

Ford-
All of the figures quoted in your Wiki source are estimates - do you have the final outcome of that budget?

I don't know about you but my city operates mostly on PROPERTY taxes and certain sales taxes such as a room tax on hotel/motels

True but your outcome can be HELPED by sales taxes.
The Romney HC plan in Mass us funded by an outrageous tax on cigarettes. There are less people smoking now but 98% of the population is covered by the states health care plan (Pack of Marlboro's is now over $7).
This sales tax HELPED. Long term - most doctors expect fewer smoking related treatments and costs. Of course an argument could be made that those not getting an advantage from a tax shouldn't have to PAY the tax - so does that mean that married childless couples should pay LESS local property tax since they don't get any educational benefits??

This opens a huge can of worms.
But the flat or national sales tax allows for an immediate increase in income - which then empowers the worker to control how much tax he pays by limiting or contolling what he buys.
There are some things that are excluded in the national sales tax from what I've read. I would tax (minimally of course) stock sales. Keep it limited to 1% or so.

But hey we're talking tryng to balance a budget and not deficit spend - the only people that do THAT are households. Federal, state and city governments have no problem giving out IOU's, or seling bonds to finance things.

Why weren't the wars funded by war bonds? Was Bush afraid of not being able to prosecute the wars due to lack of funding?

Best Regards
Vog

Great points Vog but I wouldnt spend too much time argueing with this person. Anyone who uses that right wing, faux news, borderline conspiracy theorist straw man ACORN as part of his arguement neither deserves the critical thinking to counter his copy/paste right wing talking points.. nor is s/he likely capable of the critical thinking necessary to understand your point anyway.

Ohh and I love how this nitwit used WIKIPEDIA for budget numbers when they are publically available on the .gov sites. Epic teabagger fail

Kreij

02-07-2010, 08:21 PM

Great points Vog but I wouldnt spend too much time argueing with this person. Anyone who uses that right wing, faux news, borderline conspiracy theorist straw man ACORN as part of his arguement neither deserves the critical thinking to counter his copy/paste right wing talking points.. nor is s/he likely capable of the critical thinking necessary to understand your point anyway.

Ohh and I love how this nitwit used WIKIPEDIA for budget numbers when they are publically available on the .gov sites. Epic teabagger fail

Nice PT. Instead of refuting a reply by posting accurate and factual data you resorted to character assasination and name calling. That's pretty common here these days .. by both sides. I'm was hoping you could do better than that.

FordGT90Concept

02-07-2010, 09:05 PM

Ford-
All of the figures quoted in your Wiki source are estimates - do you have the final outcome of that budget?
FYI, the White House makes budgets but Congress rarely sticks to them. Multiple agencies handle incoming (IRS, Department of the State, etc.) and outgoing (White House, CBO, etc.) funds but no agency is charged with keeping track of every single penny; hence, all we have are estimates.

I don't know about you but my city operates mostly on PROPERTY taxes and certain sales taxes such as a room tax on hotel/motels
Property shouldn't be taxed because housing is critical for survival, especially up north.

In any case, taxation varies substantially from state to state and even city to city.

As you stated, the problem with an income tax is that the state is not making money directly off of tourists; however, money spent at the business is income for the business which gets passed on to employees as expenditures. Only employees would be taxed for their income. Businesses aren't directly taxed in order to spure growth.

True but your outcome can be HELPED by sales taxes.
The Romney HC plan in Mass us funded by an outrageous tax on cigarettes. There are less people smoking now but 98% of the population is covered by the states health care plan (Pack of Marlboro's is now over $7).
This sales tax HELPED. Long term - most doctors expect fewer smoking related treatments and costs. Of course an argument could be made that those not getting an advantage from a tax shouldn't have to PAY the tax - so does that mean that married childless couples should pay LESS local property tax since they don't get any educational benefits??
Setting variable rates with numerous taxes is what leads to the problems we have now: IRS, attorney required to correctly fill out a tax return, etc. We need simplicity if we want the IRS gone.

But remember what taxes are for: paying for services the whole of demographic (city, state, federal) needs. Why should government be allowed to control internal trading through taxation? What warrants it? The only commodity price the federal government needs to set is involving imports in order to prevent foreign countries from killing off industries in the USA (like steel production).

A smoker is paying for his habit through his health bills. What makes it the government's business to make it hurt his wallet more than his innards? As any smoker (marijuana, cigarette, etc.) will tell you, they hate paying those exorbitant prices for services they don't use. It isn't fair for anyone.

Kreij

02-07-2010, 09:23 PM

Vog46_1999

02-07-2010, 09:41 PM

Ford-
There are no easy answers to taxation however of this is what you want:

We need simplicity if we want the IRS gone.
Are we not back at the national sales tax again? Collected at seller level. No income or corporate taxes collected.
But if we go sales tax why exclude stock sales? They are very seldom owned by individuals anymore and cap the tax at 1% so as to NOT interfere too much with cutting into profit margins or capital gains. Commissions have in NO WAY impacted investment and that is a fee charged on stock transactions.

As for paying taxes for what you use - thats great, so, my kids are no longer in school my property taxes should go down as I don't need the local educational system anymore - right?
Simplicity seems to indicate a national sales tax is the answer..........but once you start EXCLUDING certain items off the list of taxable sales items you run the risk of getting a phalanx of attorneys involved (again) and we start the whole obfuscation process all over. No we've got a roomful of books with exclusions from the national sales tax.

As for Mass hurting the wallets of smokers? The plan is still new but long term I think helthcare costs go down in Mass for just that reason...........it seems to be zero debt plan which is the good thing about it.

Best Regards
Vog

FordGT90Concept

02-07-2010, 10:04 PM

Are we not back at the national sales tax again?
Absolutely not. The "fair tax," like the VAT, greatly reduces consumer purchases. A product that should cost $100 would cost in excess of $125. That's enough to make a lot of buyers say no when they would have said yes without VAT/"Fair Tax"--economy slows.

As for paying taxes for what you use - thats great, so, my kids are no longer in school my property taxes should go down as I don't need the local educational system anymore - right?
You'd be paying pretty much the same but instead of property, it would be based on your income. If you are out of work, your taxes drop to nothing.

As for Mass hurting the wallets of smokers? The plan is still new but long term I think helthcare costs go down in Mass for just that reason...........it seems to be zero debt plan which is the good thing about it.
The drop in smoking amongst adults is a national trend. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the cost of cigarettes decreasing the quantity of cigarettes smoked. Sure there is a connection but nicotine represents a chemical addiction. Unless people decide to kick the habit, they'll drive themselves bankrupt before they stop which means their entire family is on welfare or ends up broken--much more costly than healthcare.

Vog46_1999

02-07-2010, 10:24 PM

Absolutely not. The "fair tax," like the VAT, greatly reduces consumer purchases. A product that should cost $100 would cost in excess of $125. That's enough to make a lot of buyers say no when they would have said yes without VAT/"Fair Tax"--economy slows.
Absolutely? On what do you base that?
Have we tried this before?
Lets see...assuming that I make $100/week. My current tax bracket is 27%
Now I make 127/week
so that TV is now more affordfable to me - one paychek and I stll have $2 left over.

So - whats the fair bracket for an income tax?
Sliding?
Or flat at 25%???
The more you make the more you pay?
Isn't that counter productive and a detriment to trying to get ahead????

The drop in smoking amongst adults is a national trend.
Quite true but the higher number of "quitters" in Mass is indicative of price affecting "demand" for a product - and that reduced eemnad will play out as lower health care costs overall - which is good for everyone.
Best Regards
Vog

PS - of course the trick for Romney would be for him to propose such a plan NATIONWIDE as part of his platform - which we know he won't do - which will then get him labeled as a fliop flopper by his former constituents in Mass.
That would not be good for him

FordGT90Concept

02-07-2010, 11:21 PM

Absolutely? On what do you base that?
Have we tried this before?
Lets see...assuming that I make $100/week. My current tax bracket is 27%
Now I make 127/week
so that TV is now more affordfable to me - one paychek and I stll have $2 left over.

So - whats the fair bracket for an income tax?
Sliding?
Or flat at 25%???
The more you make the more you pay?
Isn't that counter productive and a detriment to trying to get ahead????
You're paying the same amount either way. What I am getting at is purchasing decisions. The more something costs, the more people have to ponder whether or not it is worth it. VAT increases the "shock value" which drives people to purchase less. It's kind of like how stuff at Newegg costs a crapload less than stuff in Europe because all the taxation is hidden from us in the USA but it is not in the EU. Taxation is not a friendly topic in most cases so why remind people how much their government is stealing from them at almost every damn transaction.

I think brackets are bad because going up in a bracket can mean Uncle Sam is taking more money than expected leaving you to have to dig for money you might not have. For that reason, I think a flat income tax would be preferred (e.g. 2% income to federal, 5% income to state, 5% income to county, 8% income to city). Your employer takes those taxes out of your salary and pays them in according to your earnings. Filing your return would basically just mean proving your employer paid on your behalf. The IRS's sole purpose would be to make sure employees and employers claim the same amount the IRS expects. If the IRS sees a problem, they go to the employer, not the employee.

Edit: Let me paraphrase it: Would you rather be told you are making $100,000 a year or $73,000 a year after taxes? Employers taxing X% amount out for each employee requires far less bookkeeping than keeping record of every purchase taxed/not taxed and how much is collected off of taxed items. This saves businesses money because their existing software can handle an income tax but it isn't so easy to implement category specific sales taxes.

Because taxes are determined by the location of the business, cities, counties, and states will have to learn to be lean and mean in order to get businesses to set up shop. Entrepreneurs would naturally prefer the locations with the least taxation either to pass it on to their employees or put it towards expansion.

PS - of course the trick for Romney would be for him to propose such a plan NATIONWIDE as part of his platform - which we know he won't do - which will then get him labeled as a fliop flopper by his former constituents in Mass.
That would not be good for him
Paraphrasing various sources:

The healthcare plan in Massachusetts is far from ideal. It only covers 169,000 at a cost of $618 million ($3656.80 per individual). It costs $300 more per individual per year than projected.

Hospitals providing low-income families care under that law were encountering budget short falls. A separate source reported a $100 million funding gap which they corrected through an additional $1 per pack increase on cigarettes.

A study conducted in 2007 (GDP growth during the period) discovered business startups reduced by 16% due to the healthcare reform which carried over into the state of New Jersey. The study also concluded that making the plan national would have dire consequences on small states.

Massachusetts know has major problems of overcrowded waiting rooms and overworked employees.

Overall, it is a poor system when compared to other states. Yes, it covers more people but at the expense of the tax payer and the healthcare providers.

Vog46_1999

02-07-2010, 11:54 PM

Ford-
The healthcare plan in Massachusetts is far from ideal. It only covers 169,000 at a cost of $618 million ($3656.80 per individual). It costs $300 more per individual per year than projected.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670_02.pdf

How Much Does the U.S. Spend on Health and How Has It Changed?............2 The U.S. spends about $7,400 per person on health care each year. Sixteen percent of the U.S. economy is devoted to health care. Health care spending is consuming an increasing share of economic activity over time and has exceeded economic growth in every recent decade.

Lets see here
$7,400

-$3656.80 per individual

So healthcare in Mass costs $3743 LESS than average U. S. individual outlays for health care.

Obviously that type of savings isn't fesible on a national scale.
But my point is that Romney had a good idea - far better than the monstrosity the Democrats proposed, and it still costs far less than what we are paying now.

Health care spending is consuming an increasing share of economic activity over time and has exceeded economic growth in every recent decade.

And THIS is why we have to do something, and soon

Best Regards
Vog

Wile E

02-08-2010, 12:55 AM

Ford-
There are no easy answers to taxation however of this is what you want:

Are we not back at the national sales tax again? Collected at seller level. No income or corporate taxes collected.
But if we go sales tax why exclude stock sales? They are very seldom owned by individuals anymore and cap the tax at 1% so as to NOT interfere too much with cutting into profit margins or capital gains. Commissions have in NO WAY impacted investment and that is a fee charged on stock transactions.

As for paying taxes for what you use - thats great, so, my kids are no longer in school my property taxes should go down as I don't need the local educational system anymore - right?
Simplicity seems to indicate a national sales tax is the answer..........but once you start EXCLUDING certain items off the list of taxable sales items you run the risk of getting a phalanx of attorneys involved (again) and we start the whole obfuscation process all over. No we've got a roomful of books with exclusions from the national sales tax.

As for Mass hurting the wallets of smokers? The plan is still new but long term I think helthcare costs go down in Mass for just that reason...........it seems to be zero debt plan which is the good thing about it.

Best Regards
VogBut what you fail to realize, is that the sales tax only idea is that not everyone pays according to what they make. A flat income tax would have people paying according to their means. A sales tax does not do that, it has everyone paying the same amount of tax on an item, whether that person can afford it or not.

Let's do 10% as an example. A person making $10,000/yr will have to pay $10 in taxes on a $100 item. A person making $1,000,000/yr will still only pay $10. $10 can make or break the poor person, not so much for the rich guy.

Nope, sales tax is not the way to go. Flat tax with maybe a slight reduction for those with dependents. Or those with honest to goodness business losses for the year.

No line by line deductions for expenses and charities and other crap.

Vog46_1999

02-08-2010, 01:24 AM

Wile E

02-08-2010, 01:41 AM

Correct.
But that guy making 10K would not buy a car costing 75K (tax of 7500)
He might buy a Hyunday(sp?) at 15k (tax of 1500)

But no matter what -he makes the choice. Income taxes are invasive and not under control of the people making the money.

Personal freedom....
Best Regards
Vog
Yeah, but what if he's buying food, or some other necessities? He still spends within his means with income tax and no sales tax.

Lets take this further with some made up numbers. Let's say poor guy makes $12000/yr before any kind of taxes to make matter easier. That's obviously $1000/mo. Lets say he spends $100 in food a month, before taxes. Let's say his other expenses total another $100 for clothing, toiletries, and other things of need and of no extravagance. Now, this doesn't even include his bills, so he's spending $200 on expenses that are not bills or utilities, but basic necessities for the most part, all prior to taxes.

Now lets take a 15% income tax vs a 10% sales tax. With sales taxes, he's paying $2400/year in taxes. With the flat tax rate, he's paying $1800/yr, for absolutely everything, and dumping more money into the economy, or saving for a tough time, or whatever he chooses to do with it. I think having a little more cash affords him a little more freedom than sales tax.

FordGT90Concept

02-08-2010, 02:17 AM

How Much Does the U.S. Spend on Health and How Has It Changed?............2 The U.S. spends about $7,400 per person on health care each year. Sixteen percent of the U.S. economy is devoted to health care. Health care spending is consuming an increasing share of economic activity over time and has exceeded economic growth in every recent decade.

Lets see here
$7,400

-$3656.80 per individual

So healthcare in Mass costs $3743 LESS than average U. S. individual outlays for health care.
That dollar figure I gave is the bill the taxpayers are footing. It does not take into consideration underpayments to medical facilities, out of pocket expenses, or considerations involving quality of care (treatments limited due to insurance not paying out). The figure most likely comes out to about the same because the problems in the health system are federal in nature and thus, occur almost universally across the nation.

Taxpayers are paying $3656.80 per person no matter if that individual requires health insurance or uses it.

Now lets take a 15% income tax vs a 10% sales tax. With sales taxes, he's paying $2400/year in taxes. With the flat tax rate, he's paying $1800/yr, for absolutely everything, and dumping more money into the economy, or saving for a tough time, or whatever he chooses to do with it. I think having a little more cash affords him a little more freedom than sales tax.
Not to mention all the money wasted on filing complex sales taxes for all parties involved: what is exempt, what isn't exempt, who is elgible, who isn't elgible, and people getting screwed by the tax when they making no money.

It even makes life much easier for those living on a fixed income like those receiving Social Security Disabilities and Supplemental Security Income. Additionally, taxes wouldn't have to be figured into any health, education, clothing, or shelter considerations.

The only question marks would be money made through gifts and that received through self-employment (side jobs, stock market, etc.). At the same time, if taxes were vastly simplified, more people may declare themselves self employed and claim thost things as income.

Definite yes to deductions for dependants. Each dependent would net a percentage decrease to taxes withheld. The number of dependants is calculated annually so that unexpected tax jumps do not occur.

DaMulta

02-08-2010, 02:32 AM

I know I would like to tea bag these fucks personally.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-08-2010, 03:30 AM

After a little thought, I want to apologize for calling PT out on the carpet. He posts some very thought provoking political threads and he should not have been singled out in my reponse to his replies, as there are others who reply in the same manner.

The Tea Party movement and the "Hope and Change" movement that Obama created are both the same in that people DO want change, they are just different sides of the same coin.

If we cannot engage in civil and meaningful discussion on the differences and how to best accomplish what is best for our country ... then we will get nowhere.

Thank you very much Kreji. I had tried posting thoughtful and well researched answers to the debates I am engaging in, but I get responses which boil down to one liners and talking point liners which boil arguments down to their most base and thoughtless parts which doesn't allow for the debate of the intangibles (which I debate best)..aka the grey area. I am personally a policy wonk and a study of history.. but unfortunately for most; going deep into any issue requires to much thought.

Thank you so much for the compliment. Even if we disagree on policy, it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.

MT Alex

02-08-2010, 05:26 AM

Okay, if no one else will...

...I am personally a policy wonk and a study of history.. but unfortunately for most; going deep into any issue requires too much thought.

Ah yes, the old "If only the world was as fabulous as I am" routine. Got it.

Here, let me help: Once every eon, a single sperm and egg will combine in such a glorious fashion as to create a master of critical thinking; a man so astute and versed in the human psyche and modern folklore that all others will pale in his comparison; a modern renaissance man by every stretch of the word. Men will tug on his shirt sleeves hoping that drops of spittle will fall from his sneer, which they will devour as pearls of wisdom. Women will skin their knees at every chance, for even if he has no seed to spare, a simple golden shower will wash them like the River Ganges.

Thank heavens you're here, PT. The world has waited long enough.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-08-2010, 07:32 AM

Okay, if no one else will...

Ah yes, the old "If only the world was as fabulous as I am" routine. Got it.

Here, let me help: Once every eon, a single sperm and egg will combine in such a glorious fashion as to create a master of critical thinking; a man so astute and versed in the human psyche and modern folklore that all others will pale in his comparison; a modern renaissance man by every stretch of the word. Men will tug on his shirt sleeves hoping that drops of spittle will fall from his sneer, which they will devour as pearls of wisdom. Women will skin their knees at every chance, for even if he has no seed to spare, a simple golden shower will wash them like the River Ganges.

Thank heavens you're here, PT. The world has waited long enough.

Well when your answers to well thought out responses are simply cut and paste jobs from Ron Paul speeches and/or talking points I could find posted on Redstate, I cant say I am debating with the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Then again debating with knuckle dragging tea baggers like yourself I suppose I shouldn't have expected much. But I had hope.

When you can respond in multiple paragraphs without cutting and pasting from Sarah Palin speeches let me know.

(and when I say respond, I mean to the numerous points I made upthread which none of the right wingers here even bothered to acknowledge I made. Guess they might have cut too deeply into the Faux News propaganda they swallow whole cloth day in and day out and might have cause critical thinking. God forbid that happens)

erocker

02-08-2010, 08:45 AM

MT Alex

02-08-2010, 02:08 PM

Can't say that I ever once brought up Sara Palin, I can't stand Fox News, never been to a tea party, and my first post filled with quotes was prefaced with my main point, which was: Even though you would have agreed with his so called "talking points," (actually excerpts from speeches given on the floor of the House) you attack him because you consider him from the opposite camp. Every Ron Paul quote posted was in direct agreement with the points you brought up in your OP. Perhaps reading comprehension falls above you're fantastic debating skill set. I did this because the intent of this tread was obviously to incite a flame war between what you consider the Left and Right, not to discuss policy. It's easy to draw out "populous elites."

If Ron Paul wasn't running I would have voted for Dennis Cosinage. Ford and I rarely agree on policy, but we have a very good report. I haven't seen anyone jump on anybody on this forum like you did to him, hence my last post, which (you have to admit) was filled with some fine literature. By the way, it's a good sign that you didn't take my previous post as truth.

Wake up. The false paradigm between Left and Right is exatcly that, a load of crap. It doesn't matter which side is in office, the same results transpire. It just keeps folks like you attacking people that probably agree with you more than you realize. I look forward to serious discussions with you in the future.

Kreij

02-08-2010, 03:02 PM

Okay, I know no one likes to be crapped on in a thread, but this has stop now or this thread will be taken out with the trash. The post by erocker (2 above this one) was not a suggestion, it was a gently worded warning.

I would hate to see this thread killed. It has good information and discussion in it.
Shall we begin again?

FordGT90Concept

02-08-2010, 05:10 PM

Shall we begin again?
Yes, but how? I have ammunition with no target. :(

Kreij

02-08-2010, 05:46 PM

Well, for one I would like to see these discussion in threads titled by the content, not titled by derogatory terms which classify a particulr group as wrong or right.

Start new thread(s), Ford, and lets get some honest discussion going without the name calling and labelling. I'm not sure if it's possible for an internet thread on politics not to deteriorate into such, but it's worth a try.

Just my 2 cents.

Steevo

02-08-2010, 05:59 PM

Everyone. Political discussion can indeed be heated and emotions definitely come into stake. I ask you all to do your best to discuss the ideals and ideas on the table and not about other members, pointing fingers, etc. Keep it friendly and civilized.

Thanks. :)

I stole your coleslaw.

Flat tax with double tax on luxury consumables, and larger tariffs on imported goods, and double tariff on imported luxury consumables.

So crackers made in the USA $1.39 plus 5% tax, plus local tax.
China made crackers $1.20 plus 5% tax, plus local tax, already billed for tariff at 5%
Russian made for Caviar $12.99 plus 10% tax, plus local tax, already billed for tariff at 10%

Applies to imported "domestic" cars as well.

Ford made in mexico of chinease and other asian parts $25,000 plus 5% tax, plus local tax, 5% tariff alread included.
Mercedes $250,000.00 plus 10% tax, plus local tax, 10% tariff already included.
All vehicles over 3500Lbs for private use get taxed a extra luxury tax of 10% per year.
All vehicles getting less than 16MPG highway for personal use get taxed a extra 5% per year.

We first need to remember, driving is not a right. Neither is eating more than basics. Neither is smoking, or drinking. Tax the shit out of them, allow companies and NFP write it off as needed.

SK-1

02-08-2010, 06:02 PM

I`ve been reading many of your posts, and your posting history and I`ve got a question for ya..kay?
Who's the divisive party?

Where the fuck were you guys screaming about our loss of freedom and descent into tyranny when Bush was illegally wiretapping American`s phones and sucking up massive ammounts of private data for info mining (in direct violation of the Constitution`s protections against search without probable cause)

And ALL for personal gain?? Not to stop the terror...I mean extremest?

Where were you "deficit hawks" who are worried about the deficit all of a sudden yet when Bush started 2 wars AND cut taxes I never heard a peep. (you DO realize cutting revenue while increasing spending does increase the deficit).
If liberals smoked less medical marijuana and took more ginkgo biloba, they wouldn't have as much trouble remembering which party controlled congress for the last 4 years when blaming any and every trouble on Bush.

And for those of you who are under the delusion of a "liberal media" I was at the anti-war protest in 2003 in DC. There were at least 150,000 people there by DC police figures, and we were BARELY mentioned on any of the mainstream media outlets. The drum beat to war kept on.

You are like the frog in the pan of boiling water.
Great spin man... Keep saying it and it might come true.

This is sure to piss the libs off.
Face it.
Even the staunchest liberals say the media is biased lol.
Mika Brzezinski: The Media Does Have A Liberal Bias — “That’s Why We Have Fox”
http://img.techpowerup.org/100208/Capture172.jpg
http://www.mediaite.com/online/mika-brzezinski-the-media-does-have-a-liberal-bias-thats-why-we-have-fox/

Liberal Media...hmph
Exactly.

FordGT90Concept

02-08-2010, 06:24 PM

Start new thread(s), Ford, and lets get some honest discussion going without the name calling and labelling. I'm not sure if it's possible for an internet thread on politics not to deteriorate into such, but it's worth a try.
Most political threads here are very civil. Every once in a while, things get out of hand though.

All vehicles over 3500Lbs for private use get taxed a extra luxury tax of 10% per year.
All vehicles getting less than 16MPG highway for personal use get taxed a extra 5% per year.
Work trucks and large trasnport vans/vehicles are almost always in excess of 5000 lbs. That means your bus tickets would go up in cost, every commodity shipped via truck would go up in cost, and everyone that requires pickups for their job (like construction workers) would have to increase the price of the services they are selling. Bottomline: That would be very, very bad for the US economy.

We first need to remember, driving is not a right. Neither is eating more than basics. Neither is smoking, or drinking. Tax the shit out of them, allow companies and NFP write it off as needed.
Driving is a necessity to a lot of consumers. The average commute to work is, if memory serves, about 20 miles. No car = no work. No work = no food, clothing, or shelter. Like it or not, USA is a driving culture--there is no stopping it without literally stopping the economy.

Steevo

02-08-2010, 06:30 PM

Work trucks and large trasnport vans/vehicles are almost always in excess of 5000 lbs. That means your bus tickets would go up in cost, every commodity shipped via truck would go up in cost, and everyone that requires pickups for their job (like construction workers) would have to increase the price of the services they are selling. Bottomline: That would be very, very bad for the US economy.

Driving is a necessity to a lot of consumers. The average commute to work is, if memory serves, about 20 miles. No car = no work. No work = no food, clothing, or shelter. Like it or not, USA is a driving culture--there is no stopping it without literally stopping the economy.

Commuting is avainable in mass transit. Where not avaible people should treat their driving privileges as a very important one. Less tehy lose it.

Notice this applies to personal vehicles? People who can afford to purchase a escalade can afford to toss a bit more in the pot for the hard work they have pushed the masses to do.

Stop thinking you have rights, when they are privileges.

As far as being a necissity? We hired a parolee that rode his bike the few miles each way, brought his lunch and just got his licanse a few months ago. Same with the one before that. They understood driving is just a privilege that you can lose, and that some might not be able to afford.

Kreij

02-08-2010, 06:59 PM

Why have a flat tax and another tax on luxuray consumables?
The flat tax ensures that someone who is making more is already contributing more.

Let's say the flat tax is 10%.
If I make 50K, I pay 5K in taxes. If I make 500K I pay 50K in taxes.
Why tax the people who are doing well doubly with a luxury tax?

FordGT90Concept

02-08-2010, 08:10 PM

Commuting is avainable in mass transit. Where not avaible people should treat their driving privileges as a very important one. Less tehy lose it.
There's no mass transit in these parts and there shouldn't be. Human traffic volumes are way too low to justify the expense.

Notice this applies to personal vehicles? People who can afford to purchase a escalade can afford to toss a bit more in the pot for the hard work they have pushed the masses to do.
They are paying the wages of those that built and sold that Escalade. Why should Uncle Sam be entitled to a chunk off the top? What warrants it?

As far as being a necissity? We hired a parolee that rode his bike the few miles each way, brought his lunch and just got his licanse a few months ago. Same with the one before that. They understood driving is just a privilege that you can lose, and that some might not be able to afford.
Riding a bike isn't an option when the roads are ice and it is 0F out. Nor is it an option when your bike is less than 4 feet from 18-wheelers doing 60 MPH. Sorry, we don't all live in a utopian city.

Also, to add to what Kreij said, a lot of millionaires got their wealth by not spending much money. If you tax only commodities, that large segment of millionaires and billionaires won't be affected. Taxing income takes the money as it is being made--pretty damn hard to avoid it.

Steevo

02-08-2010, 10:21 PM

Then they can find a decent used car for a couple thousand. Just like the rest of the world.

Why tax the user that uses a disproportionate amount of the resources more? Ummm... because when your childrens children are cold and the price of electricity is three or four times what it is now and the reason is the extravagant use by a few deplete the resources of all.

FordGT90Concept

02-09-2010, 12:46 AM

I currently have a 2002 Suburban, 1994 F-150, and 1992 Seville STS. Why buy a new car when those work fine? Why are we even discussing this like it is an issue? It is unfair and you know it.

When's the last time you had to get to town because the wind and ice cut off electricity and your only option not to freeze to death is get in a vehicle and drive to where there is heat? Those that need the more robust vehicles pay for it at the pump as is: it is none of your damn business.

FYI, nuclear power requires little to no oil. If we had to, we could mine uranium via electric shovels, deliver it on electric rails, and power nuclear plants which keep the electricity flowing.

ProgressiveTokyo

02-09-2010, 01:07 AM

Wake up. The false paradigm between Left and Right is exatcly that, a load of crap. It doesn't matter which side is in office, the same results transpire. It just keeps folks like you attacking people that probably agree with you more than you realize. I look forward to serious discussions with you in the future.

This point you made here is spot on. In the mainstream media's portrayal of left and right are just puppet #1 and puppet #2 with different talking points.

I do believe I am a leftist in the sense I believe that government does have a place in society and can do considerable good (I consider myself a Democratic Socialist).

Others believe that government has no place and that the free market can handle all aspects of life.

These are not false paradigms, but are the reality of the opposing views.

Sorry if I was rude, I get a bit ornery when I have had a few too many drinks. And yesterday being my birthday I definitely had a few too many.

I am also looking forward to more spirited (yet respectful) debates in the future.

Vog46_1999

02-09-2010, 01:53 AM

A belated Happy Birthday to you PT.
May your year be full of your baby's laughter, and good health (for both of you)

Best Regards
Vog

jmcslob

02-09-2010, 02:03 AM

Wile E

02-09-2010, 04:30 AM

The problem with a Flat Tax is assuming that all individuals are capable of producing equal amounts of income and also assuming that those with the means will not simply just "Globally Bank" and keep Finances off shore think Swiss Banks..

It sounds good But it is simply not possible Mathematically to achieve true Flat Tax..

It's simply a Generic Republican Retard Scheme to make the masses feel as though they too can achieve what the wealthy have...

Seriously stop entertaining such Stupid goals and Start to Face what is actually possible..

And I'm serious Flat Taxes are Bullshit...

Put 5 minutes of Thought to it and figure it out for yourself..

Sheer numbers equal Sheer Logic and more money in the Hands of the Few is not Logical it would only serve to extend the problems that already exist.
Simple solution, taxed based off of US earning, not where you keep the money.

But aside from that, I think you are confused as to what flat taxes are. Flat Tax has nothing to do with individuals being able to achieve x amount of money. Flat tax is percentage based. The less you make, the less you pay and vice versa. It's not saying you have to pay $x in taxes a year, it's saying you have to pay x% a year.

There is no logic in your post whatsoever.

jmcslob

02-09-2010, 05:04 AM

Simple solution, taxed based off of US earning, not where you keep the money.

But aside from that, I think you are confused as to what flat taxes are. Flat Tax has nothing to do with individuals being able to achieve x amount of money. Flat tax is percentage based. The less you make, the less you pay and vice versa. It's not saying you have to pay $x in taxes a year, it's saying you have to pay x% a year.

There is no logic in your post whatsoever.
No...

The reason a Flat tax can't work is because upper end tax is what leverages the Market and without that you would stifle the market and besides that it's the only moral way to go.

Look it doesn't matter how you look at it... you are where you are because of society, you didn't get to where your at on your own, you got there through society.

EXAMPLE:

Bill Gates didn't create the Computer he created the Better operating System for it to run...
Society before Him Created the Computer without the people before him Windows is useless..

Because Microsoft is so Successful It pays a higher tax to promote innovation through competition just Like IBM did before Microsoft....

Think about it like a Market Infrastructure Tax...without it the Market Collapses...Think about it the Largest Market Growth in History only Happened after Laws that governed them properly were in Place...

Ford didn't simply build the Car someone had to build the Steel mills before him before that someone had to build the machines to build the machines to make everything possible...

Without leverage Free Will means Nothing

Make sense yet:D

FordGT90Concept

02-09-2010, 05:12 AM

It sounds good But it is simply not possible Mathematically to achieve true Flat Tax..
The only variables in taxing income is what income is reported and what are the precentages deducted. Assuming there are no holes in especially the reporting bit, a "true" flat tax is possible. Of course, there will always be a problem with tax evasion but that's pretty much unavoidable.

It's simply a Generic Republican Retard Scheme to make the masses feel as though they too can achieve what the wealthy have...
Most of the millionaires and billionaires today had modest beginnings. For example Warren Buffett started off at a grocery store which invested in a pinball machine. Pierre Omidyar (founder of EBay) started off working for Claris (creators of ClarisWorks).

No one becomes successful overnight; even those that inherit money from someone else often squander it without first learning how to be successful themselves. Anything is possible in the USA so long as you have the determination to do it. Many have before and more are still to come.

Bill Gates didn't create the Computer he created the Better operating System for it to run...
Society before Him Created the Computer without the people before him Windows is useless..
Bill Gates' genius isn't in the software he wrote/orchestrated--it is his keen eye for offering what people (especially businesses) want.

Steevo

02-09-2010, 05:44 AM

Your definition of flat tax and mine differ, I say charge no tax on income unless it is going out of country. I say to charge based on use. If you want to be big, fine make billions and pay millions in taxes, and pay throgh the nose all you want for your luxuries. You can have them, but you will pay for them.

What does a caddy do for you? Especially when you have a truck? You driving the car you want is a privilige, not a right. Either way if any of your vehicles get less than said amount of fuel mileage and yet you still drive them then your silly. You would be much better off trading it on someting more fuel efficient and newer.

On the other hand a depreciation rate for vehicles or a fair market value based tax during ownership is fair, still bases it off a few key factors and ecological impact as well as consumption.

So again, buy a new 60K caddy pay a extra 20% as you should be able to afford it. Pay 8% the next year for tax, licansing and fee's. Pay 6% the year after.....etc.

Buy a used honda civic, malibu, ford POS or whatever and pay only licansing and fee's with a minor tax like 1%.

Own a business that has a fleet? Pay half of standard tax on fleet qualified vehicles, limos, hummers, luxury, and sports cars don't apply, nietehr do large SUV's, unless they are hybrid.

I drive a loaded Ford Exploder for a company vehicle, thrid row seats that never get used, rear heat and AC that never gets used, premium stereo that I like, heated seat which is nice. But I don't think for a second that it should be a company vehicle, I asked for a car, they thought this would fit me better. I have as of yet to use 4WD, or go somewhere my old worn out oldsmobile coudn't. the only benefit I have gotten is the cupholders.

jmcslob

02-09-2010, 06:15 AM

The only variables in taxing income is what income is reported and what are the precentages deducted. Assuming there are no holes in especially the reporting bit, a "true" flat tax is possible. Of course, there will always be a problem with tax evasion but that's pretty much unavoidable.

Most of the millionaires and billionaires today had modest beginnings. For example Warren Buffett started off at a grocery store which invested in a pinball machine. Pierre Omidyar (founder of EBay) started off working for Claris (creators of ClarisWorks).

No one becomes successful overnight; even those that inherit money from someone else often squander it without first learning how to be successful themselves. Anything is possible in the USA so long as you have the determination to do it. Many have before and more are still to come.

Bill Gates' genius isn't in the software he wrote/orchestrated--it is his keen eye for offering what people (especially businesses) want.
Yes a Small percentage of Rich people worked there way up But only Because Market Leverage existed and obviously no one becomes successful overnight But they still wouldn't have had there success at all without the progress brought by society....Society created the Need They Filled it and Profited and then they pay back society for being given the opportunity to succeed and someone new comes about and the cycle continues..

That cycle will end with a Flat Tax

FordGT90Concept

02-09-2010, 05:04 PM

What does a caddy do for you? Especially when you have a truck? You driving the car you want is a privilige, not a right. Either way if any of your vehicles get less than said amount of fuel mileage and yet you still drive them then your silly. You would be much better off trading it on someting more fuel efficient and newer.
It's not mine and it was purchased used in I think 1998. I pay nothing except insurance on all three. I would have never got it in the first place. And BTW, it has a V8 so it gets like 17 mpg--not much better than the Suburban or F-150.

I drive about 6 miles a day. $20,000+ on a new car for a few MPG better fuel mileage is not justifiable. The car would die before it could pay off its initial investment.

I drive a loaded Ford Exploder for a company vehicle, thrid row seats that never get used, rear heat and AC that never gets used, premium stereo that I like, heated seat which is nice. But I don't think for a second that it should be a company vehicle, I asked for a car, they thought this would fit me better. I have as of yet to use 4WD, or go somewhere my old worn out oldsmobile coudn't. the only benefit I have gotten is the cupholders.
My "company vehicle" is a 2009 Volvo VN780. :p

Society created the Need They Filled it and Profited and then they pay back society for being given the opportunity to succeed and someone new comes about and the cycle continues..
Buyers have always created sellers. Buyers want something and a seller fulfills that want. Sellers that made money have needs themselves which creates new buyers. So long as expendable funds are available, the cycle continues.

Taxation is simply how much is taken for public services. If you take the money from them at the time of purchase, it hurts low income buyers because they might not have enough money to cover the sales tax. If you take the money before the buyer ever sees it, it vastly simplifies purchasing decisions--a purchase that wouldn't have been made with sales tax may be made now.

Vog46_1999

02-09-2010, 05:25 PM

Ford-
The "fair Tax" also does something else.
By removing all taxes from the manufacturing steps involved in making the product you lower the cost of that product

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail
Thumbnail Sketch of the FairTax
(PDF VERSION)

The FairTax proposal is a comprehensive plan to replace federal income and payroll taxes, including personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security/Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes. The FairTax proposal integrates such features as a progressive national retail sales tax, dollar-for-dollar revenue replacement, and a rebate to ensure that no American pays such federal taxes up to the poverty level. Included in the FairTax Plan is the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The FairTax allows Americans to keep 100 percent of their paychecks (minus any state income taxes), ends corporate taxes and compliance costs hidden in the retail cost of goods and services, and fully funds the federal government while fulfilling the promise of Social Security and Medicare. Americans take home their whole paychecks.
Not only do more Americans have jobs, but they also take home 100 percent of their paychecks (except where state income taxes apply). No federal income taxes or payroll taxes are withheld from paychecks, pensions, or Social Security checks.

The prebate makes the FairTax progressive.
To ensure no American pays tax on necessities, the FairTax Plan provides a prepaid, monthly rebate (prebate) for every registered household to cover the consumption tax spent on necessities up to the federal poverty level. This, along with several other features, is how the FairTax completely untaxes the poor, lowers the tax burden on most, while making the overall rate progressive. However, the FairTax is progressive based on lifestyle/spending choices, rather than simply punishing those taxpayers who are successful. Do you see how much freer life is with the FairTax instead of the income tax?

No tax on used goods. The amount you pay to fund the government is totally visible.
With the FairTax you are only taxed once on any good or service. If you choose to buy used goods − used car, used home, used appliances − you do not pay the FairTax. If, as a business owner or farmer, you buy something for strictly business purposes (not for personal consumption), you pay no consumption tax. The FairTax is charged just as state sales taxes are today. When you decide what to buy and how much to spend, you see exactly how much you are contributing to the government with each purchase.

Retail prices no longer hide corporate taxes or compliance costs, which together drive up costs for those who can least afford to pay.
Did you know that income taxes and the cost of complying with them currently make up 20 percent or more of all retail prices? It’s true. According to Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University, hidden income taxes are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for everything you buy. If competition does not allow prices to rise, corporations lower labor costs, again hurting those who can least afford to lose their jobs. Finally, if prices are as high as competition allows and labor costs are as low as practical, profits/dividends to shareholders are driven down, thereby hurting retirement savings for moms-and-pops and pension funds invested in Corporate America. With the FairTax, the sham of corporate taxation ends, competition drives prices down, more people in America have jobs, and retirement/pension funds see improved performance.

The income tax exports our jobs, rather than our products. The FairTax brings jobs home.
Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries’ value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match.

The FairTax strategy is revenue neutral: Neither raise nor lower taxes so consumer costs remain stable.
The FairTax pays for all current government operations, including Social Security and Medicare. Government revenues are more stable and predictable than with the federal income tax because consumption is a more constant revenue base than is income.

If you were in a 23-percent income tax bracket, the federal government would take $23 out of your paycheck for every $100 you made. With the FairTax, if the federal government gets $23 out of every $100 spent in America, the same total revenue is delivered to the federal government. This is revenue neutrality. So, instead of paycheck-earning Americans paying 7.65 percent of their paychecks in Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes, plus an average of 18 percent of their paychecks in federal income tax, for a total of about 25.65 percent, consumers in America pay only $23 out of every $100. Or about 30 percent at the cash register when they elect to spend on new goods or services for their own personal consumption. And this tax is collected only on spending above the federal poverty level, providing important progressivity.

Tax criminals don’t make criminals out of honest taxpayers.
Today, the IRS will admit to 16 percent noncompliance with the code. FairTax.org will be generous and simply take the position that this is likely a conservative estimate of the underground economy. However, this does not take into account the criminal/drug/porn economy, which equally conservative estimates put at one trillion dollars of untaxed activity. The FairTax does tax this -- criminals love to flash that cash at retail -- while continuing to provide the federal penalties so effective in bringing such miscreants to justice. The substantial decrease in points of compliance -- from every wage earner, investor, and retiree, down to only retailers -- also allows enforcement to concentrate on following the money to criminal activity, rather than making potential criminals out of every taxpayer struggling to decipher the current code.

What is the FairTax Plan?
The FairTax Plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. The IRS is disbanded and defunded. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

What is Americans For Fair Taxation (FairTax.org)?
FairTax.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots organization solely dedicated to replacing the current tax system. The organization has hundreds of thousands of members and volunteers nationwide. Its plan supports sound economic research, education of citizens and community leaders, and grassroots mobilization efforts. For more information visit the Web page: www.FairTax.org or call 1-800-FAIRTAX.

************************************************** **********
I am by no means a tax expert (nor am I an accountant).
But this "plan" seems to have a lot to offer - including the abolishment of the IRS - and complete elimination of all corporate taxes -which is something many conservatives have been calling for for years.
It also protects "necessity purchases" (such as food) by allowing people to spend up to the poverty level on necessities.

I'm of the opinion that "income" taxes are repressive - and are serving as a deterent to "getting ahead"....

Best Regards
Vog

jmcslob

02-09-2010, 08:11 PM

@Ford Those Higher Taxes that businesses pay help pay for other Infrastructure Needs that Businesses require to get there products to the Consumer.. Business needs roads and electric just like the end consumer and with higher amounts of revenue derived from such things more revenue is expected

Like I said it's a Free Market Infrastructure Tax...

I hope no one thinks i don't get the Flat Tax Idea cause I do....It just Can't work...

FordGT90Concept

02-09-2010, 08:15 PM

I'm not going to go line by line but basically, it is a horrible idea. It will not simplify the tax code because city, county, and state taxes still function the same. It would only simplify federal taxes. Additionally, it will limit purchases by making products cost more. The only benefit of "fair tax" over current tax code is that the it would make the 44,000 page tax code and maybe take 1,000 pages off. You would still require a CPA to make any sense of it and business would still have the substantial overhead of keeping track of taxes collected and owed.

@Ford Those Higher Taxes that businesses pay help pay for other Infrastructure Needs that Businesses require to get there products to the Consumer.. Business needs roads and electric just like the end consumer and with higher amounts of revenue derived from such things more revenue is expected
Business are people. People need infrastructure, fire and police services. If you fairly tax the people, there's no need to tax businesses unless they operate overseas (tarriffs should apply to fun transfers leaving the country as well as products and services).

Social Security is an income-based tax (6.2%). I don't see anyone complaining about that...

Vog46_1999

02-09-2010, 09:48 PM

So you are against tax cuts to corporations?
You are against the permanent repealing of hte estate tax?
All as part of a much larger simplification of the tax code?

It will not simplify the tax code because city, county, and state taxes still function the same. It would only simplify federal taxes. Additionally, it will limit purchases by making products cost more.

Link?

Best Regards
Vog

PS - I'm by no means convinced that the Fair Tax is THE answer - but as soon as you tax at a "rate" you leave yourself open to exceptions and exclusions - which just re-ignites the tax lawyer lobby and starts the process of expaning the tax codes again

FordGT90Concept

02-10-2010, 01:36 AM

So you are against tax cuts to corporations?
You are against the permanent repealing of hte estate tax?
All as part of a much larger simplification of the tax code?
There would be no direct tax on corporations unless they deal with international trade. In which case, a tax is leeved on goods crossing the border to fund border security and customs.

There would be no estate tax.

The tax code I'm talking about would fit on under five pages (one page for individual, one page for city/county, one page for state, one page for employer responsibilities, and one page for international commerce).

Link?
It was in the text you copied here: "minus any state income taxes." Fair Tax does nothing for city/county taxation (implicit, I can find no documentation that says the federal government could collect money on a city/county's behalf).

Vog46_1999

02-10-2010, 02:06 AM

Ford-
A lot of money that stats use comes from the federal budget. Gas taxes come back to the states to fund road construction projects and a lot of grants are used to fund educational systems below college level.
Cities (at least around here) do not rely on ANY sales taxes with the exception of a room tax surcharge locally that is used to fund beach renourishment projects (This is a tourist/beach area). The cities rely on property taxes including auto taxes and fees to fund their budgets.
Fair or not thats how it is around here.
WE do pay a state income tax but some states do not such as Florida.
I would think that a very small income tax to fund state operations could be used in addition to the Fair tax.
But imagine not having SSI taken out of paychecks or federal taxes, or medicare/caid as the Fair tax proponents argue woudl happen. They claim that the fair tax funds all current federal obligations, does not hurt lower income people and allows for necessity spending.
Its about time we abolished the corporate, and estate taxes as a means to stimulate business investment.

Best Regards
Vog

jmcslob

02-10-2010, 03:02 AM

That wont work Without those Taxes Big Business will become larger... So large that small time innovations will never Happen.... and major infrastructure Funds will dry up very quickly

It sounds and looks Good on Paper until you see the Bigger Picture... Schemes Like this are simply That, schemes...If it was so easy to simply solve this with the Fair Tax Deal it would have been done already..

Again this is a Loophole ridden Push by big business to simply Claim profit from the needs of the Republic.

FordGT90Concept

02-10-2010, 03:32 AM

Depends on the state. Some states get hardly anything from the federal government and others get drenched in handouts.

States maintain the roads (Interstate and State) because it is more efficient to do so than maintaining a full staff of strictly federal employees with federal equipment. States do little for county and city roads though.

The federal government sets guidelines for national education requirements (e.g. No Child Left Behind Act). They have funds to help expand faltering schools where the city and state funding can't keep up.

Cities (at least around here) do not rely on ANY sales taxes with the exception of a room tax surcharge locally that is used to fund beach renourishment projects (This is a tourist/beach area). The cities rely on property taxes including auto taxes and fees to fund their budgets.
Fair or not thats how it is around here.
Exactly. Cities and counties need money and they get it through their own taxes. That's what makes the current tax system broken beyond repair: there is no less than four individual parties with their hand in the many different candy jars. It is very expensive in terms of overhead. That's why we need one candy jar and everyone takes their portion out of it. Move somewhere else in the USA and the only thing that would change is the percentage withheld, not who the money is going to or 44,000 pages of loop holes and different rules.

If Fair Tax were passed, you'd be paying at least 12.4% (6.2% for employee contributions, 6.2% for employer contributions) more on taxed goods just to cover Social Security. Because sales would drop, that percentage would have to go up in order to compensate for shortfalls. It would have increase again because not everyone spends all their spare income on taxable items under Fair Tax. I could only guesstimate how high the Fair Tax would be just for Social Security but it is most certainly north of 15%. Add on top of that defense, Medicare, and everything else our bloated government spends money on and it will break 30% easily. That excludes all the withdrawal cities, counties, and states make.

That wont work Without those Taxes Big Business will become larger... So large that small time innovations will never Happen.... and major infrastructure Funds will dry up very quickly
Anti-trust is to be determined by the judicial system; not taxation. Remember, there's more small corporations (e.g. LLCs and not-for-profits) than Fortune 1000 companies.

A previous idea, which I really like to combat that problem would be to limit compensation to a percentage of the least-paid employee. In order for the higher-ups to get paid more, they'd have to increase the salary of the lower-downs. Failure to comply would result in the company owing 200% to those employees that were shortchanged.