U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-17-2008, 09:51 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 4,369,400 times
Reputation: 4337

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
I have failed at nothing.
I did not attempt to make that assertion.
I don't believe that there is any movement in the USA to make taxes fair.
But thanks for hanging out and waiting for me to explain something I was not a party to.
This IS after all a thread on a consumption tax, as introduced by the OP.
The Fair Tax is not MY Fair Tax. It is a bill that has been introduced into the Senate and the House of Representatives, and likely will be reintroduced in the next session.
Since it is based on consumption, it may be fairer. Some say not, as they believe many of those who you propose to tax with a per capita tax should escape taxation.
Yes, MikeJaquish, you have failed.

The OP asked about replacing the current income tax with a national sales tax. You shifted the focus of the discussion specifically to the Fair Tax. You even provided a link to the Wikipedia article for it. You vigorously defended it from all attacks. You even accused someone of being under the influence of communism for disagreeing with you.

You couldn't have supported the Fair Tax more than if you had donned a cheerleading skirt and shook a pair of pom-poms.

You don't believe that there is any movement in the USA to make taxes fair? The Fair Tax Wikipedia article that you linked asserts that a tax reform movement has formed behind the Fair Tax concept. Think they've formedup because the tax isn't fair?

You DO read the information that you provided to this thread, don't you? Or just the parts that you agree with? Or do you just pull in links from Google searches?

Now you try to distance yourself from the Fair Tax, saying that it's not YOUR Fair Tax? What's the matter, not willing to dance with the girl you brought to the prom?

You say that since the Fair Tax is based on consumption, it may be fairer? It's more fair that the wealthy pay the least tax to support the government, that the poor get a pass on paying the tax, and that the middle class pay the bulk of the tax? That the more you earn, the less you pay in taxes? That's fair?

And as for my head tax? It's satirical. I have maintained that it is satirical in every post where I mention it. I think that it's absolutely absurd to tax children for merely existing. And I was outright flabberghasted when several other posters immediately agreed with me, even despite my disclaimers at the end of my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
The Fair Tax would fund government, and a head tax would not.
See, now you're just making stuff up.

You have no way of knowing that the Fair Tax would fund government and that a head tax would not. Simply making a statement does not prove the statement. Except maybe at the Fair Tax movement meetings.

The purchasing shifts that would occur wouldn't be known until after the income tax was eliminated and the Fair Tax was implemented. Frankly, the poor and the middle class would rush to purchase used goods in order to avoid paying the Fair Tax on new items.

In fact, an irony of the Fair Tax is that is would actually increase the cost of the used goods that are explicitly exempt from the Fair Tax. Think about it.

And we haven't even talked about how badly the services industries, which are the bulk of the national economy, might tank when the Fair Tax is introduced for the first time. If you want less of something, tax it.

It's quite plain that no one could possibly know how sales of new goods and services would be affected by the replacement of the income tax with the Fair Tax, yet you somehow magically know for a fact that the Fair Tax will definitely fund government.

On the other hand, it's known that there's approximately 300 million people in this country. Collect a head tax of $10,000 per each person and it's known exactly how much will be collected. It's a hell of a lot simpler than trying to estimate how many goods and services will be sold next fiscal year.

Oh, and once again, I do NOT support a per capita tax.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
That is not a fairness issue, just a common sense revenue issue.
Or maybe, just maybe, it makes more common sense that those who more greatly profit from participating in a society's economy should shoulder a greater cost of maintaining that society. An economy does not exist outside of a society. Taxpayers aren't just paying for government, they're paying for the structure of society that makes the economy possible, which in turn makes it possible for real wealth to accumulate.

Quote:
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Supreme Court Justice
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
We are aggressively conditioning generations of Americans to believe that someone else should "fairly" fund government, assuming that wealth transfer for vote buying is a legitimate government function.
We are? OK, let's drift off on this tangent that you introduced...

Over the past seven years this nation has been borrowing money from foreign sources so that it might provide immediate tax cuts that most benefit those who have the highest incomes. The theory was that the wealthy would use the money generated by the tax cuts to create jobs. Think that didn't buy some votes?

Of course, the nation wound up with new low wage jobs to replace old high wage jobs. And the wealthy got wealthier.

Also, last time I looked Henry Paulson was rapidly transferring wealth to the financial industry, supposedly to restore liquidity to the credit markets. However it's actually being used to pay out bonuses to the executives who led their investors into this mess, and to facilitate the cannibalization of smaller financial institutions by larger institutions.

This money that we've been borrowing, it's payable in future tax receipts. We have been and still are transferring wealth from our children to the wealthy.

So you don't have a problem with transferring the future wealth from our children to the wealthy, but you seem to have a problem when some of that wealth might be redirected to everyone else who is not wealthy?

But then I thought that this was a discussion about the fairness of tax plans, not the sour grapes of a lost economic and political movement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
A per capita tax would certainly be the most fair tax, kind of like "one man, one vote." It just won't happen.
So now, at the end, you believe that my totally farcical per capita tax is the most fair tax.

Wow.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you probably won't support taxing children for merely existing.


This last bit goes out to everyone who believes that progressive taxation is unfair, that it penalizes work, that it's socialistic plot to redistribute wealth, and that it must be eliminated.

Quote:
And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.
And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.
And he said, of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow has cast in more than they all:
For all these have given of their abundance cast unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.
That's from the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 21, verses 1 through 4 (King James Version). You know, the Bible?

Jesus gets it. Why don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2008, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,649 posts, read 55,416,037 times
Reputation: 30198
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
Yes, MikeJaquish, you have failed.

The OP asked about replacing the current income tax with a national sales tax. You shifted the focus of the discussion specifically to the Fair Tax. You even provided a link to the Wikipedia article for it. You vigorously defended it from all attacks. You even accused someone of being under the influence of communism for disagreeing with you.

You couldn't have supported the Fair Tax more than if you had donned a cheerleading skirt and shook a pair of pom-poms.

You don't believe that there is any movement in the USA to make taxes fair? The Fair Tax Wikipedia article that you linked asserts that a tax reform movement has formed behind the Fair Tax concept. Think they've formedup because the tax isn't fair?

You DO read the information that you provided to this thread, don't you? Or just the parts that you agree with? Or do you just pull in links from Google searches?

Now you try to distance yourself from the Fair Tax, saying that it's not YOUR Fair Tax? What's the matter, not willing to dance with the girl you brought to the prom?

You say that since the Fair Tax is based on consumption, it may be fairer? It's more fair that the wealthy pay the least tax to support the government, that the poor get a pass on paying the tax, and that the middle class pay the bulk of the tax? That the more you earn, the less you pay in taxes? That's fair?

And as for my head tax? It's satirical. I have maintained that it is satirical in every post where I mention it. I think that it's absolutely absurd to tax children for merely existing. And I was outright flabberghasted when several other posters immediately agreed with me, even despite my disclaimers at the end of my posts.



See, now you're just making stuff up.

You have no way of knowing that the Fair Tax would fund government and that a head tax would not. Simply making a statement does not prove the statement. Except maybe at the Fair Tax movement meetings.

The purchasing shifts that would occur wouldn't be known until after the income tax was eliminated and the Fair Tax was implemented. Frankly, the poor and the middle class would rush to purchase used goods in order to avoid paying the Fair Tax on new items.

In fact, an irony of the Fair Tax is that is would actually increase the cost of the used goods that are explicitly exempt from the Fair Tax. Think about it.

And we haven't even talked about how badly the services industries, which are the bulk of the national economy, might tank when the Fair Tax is introduced for the first time. If you want less of something, tax it.

It's quite plain that no one could possibly know how sales of new goods and services would be affected by the replacement of the income tax with the Fair Tax, yet you somehow magically know for a fact that the Fair Tax will definitely fund government.

On the other hand, it's known that there's approximately 300 million people in this country. Collect a head tax of $10,000 per each person and it's known exactly how much will be collected. It's a hell of a lot simpler than trying to estimate how many goods and services will be sold next fiscal year.

Oh, and once again, I do NOT support a per capita tax.



Or maybe, just maybe, it makes more common sense that those who more greatly profit from participating in a society's economy should shoulder a greater cost of maintaining that society. An economy does not exist outside of a society. Taxpayers aren't just paying for government, they're paying for the structure of society that makes the economy possible, which in turn makes it possible for real wealth to accumulate.





We are? OK, let's drift off on this tangent that you introduced...

Over the past seven years this nation has been borrowing money from foreign sources so that it might provide immediate tax cuts that most benefit those who have the highest incomes. The theory was that the wealthy would use the money generated by the tax cuts to create jobs. Think that didn't buy some votes?

Of course, the nation wound up with new low wage jobs to replace old high wage jobs. And the wealthy got wealthier.

Also, last time I looked Henry Paulson was rapidly transferring wealth to the financial industry, supposedly to restore liquidity to the credit markets. However it's actually being used to pay out bonuses to the executives who led their investors into this mess, and to facilitate the cannibalization of smaller financial institutions by larger institutions.

This money that we've been borrowing, it's payable in future tax receipts. We have been and still are transferring wealth from our children to the wealthy.

So you don't have a problem with transferring the future wealth from our children to the wealthy, but you seem to have a problem when some of that wealth might be redirected to everyone else who is not wealthy?

But then I thought that this was a discussion about the fairness of tax plans, not the sour grapes of a lost economic and political movement.



So now, at the end, you believe that my totally farcical per capita tax is the most fair tax.

Wow.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you probably won't support taxing children for merely existing.


This last bit goes out to everyone who believes that progressive taxation is unfair, that it penalizes work, that it's socialistic plot to redistribute wealth, and that it must be eliminated.



That's from the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 21, verses 1 through 4 (King James Version). You know, the Bible?

Jesus gets it. Why don't you?
Nice rant! Really!

FWIW:

I "get" that one can quote much while comprehending little.
It is common.

Jesus did not say that using his word tangentially to rationalize punitive taxation or stealing from the subjectively-labeled "rich" was admirable.
I would propose that he even supports those old nuisances, the 10 Commandments, including the one against coveting. Since coveting is the cornerstone of popular vote-buying, that is the one that class warfare proponents would most like to sweep away.

Since Jesus also said, "The poor will always be with us," should we then accept that as unalterable, acceptable, and wonderful, too? I would say not.

Another quote, "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
It seems that the fixation on contempt of others' wealth often renders the covetous enslaved by Money more than the wealthy target of that scorn is bothered. See, the "rich" will always be with us, too.
Claims of serving God via clutching at the other guys' money seem a little off the mark to me...

Actually, I find that much of Jesus's thought is intended to prod people regarding their own behavior, to discomfit the individual during self-assessment. "Judge not, lest you be judged," seems to apply.
I think that is the intent, to prompt folks to look inside their own souls, rather than to provide ammunition to judgementally use against others, or to provide a basis for grabbing power through government.

Ergo, among my personal favorites from Jesus is his admonition against focusing on the mote in the other feller's eye rather than the timber in ones' own eye.
Rather a forgotten tenet in this day and age, but still one of my favorites.

Last edited by MikeJaquish; 11-18-2008 at 06:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 09:35 PM
 
5,092 posts, read 4,369,400 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Nice rant! Really!
That was a rant? What a sheltered life you must lead.

Watch again as I pick apart another of your posts, point by point. And it's a refutation, not a rant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
FWIW:

I "get" that one can quote much while comprehending little.
It is common.
Yes, most of your post illustrates quite nicely that you "quote much while comprehending little". Very good example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Jesus did not say that using his word tangentially to rationalize punitive taxation or stealing from the subjectively-labeled "rich" was admirable.
Aside from considering all of the things that Jesus didn't say, I see that I need to make my point as simple as possible for you.

What exactly was the point that Jesus was making in Luke 21:1-4?

Jesus and some of his disciples were in the Temple in Jerusalem, near where the devout were making their offerings to God. Jesus observes rich men placing items of great value into the Temple treasury. He also observes a poor widow placing two copper coins into the treasury.

Jesus immediately brings this to the attention of his disciples: that the rich men give only a portion from their wealth, while the widow gives all of the meager funds that she possesses.

The point that Jesus is making is that the widow makes the far greater sacrifice than any of the rich men, they gave a small portion of their vast wealth, she gave the entire portion of the little amount of wealth that she had.

My point still stands: Jesus himself indicates that the widow (aka The Low Income Earner) who gives all of her wealth (much like the Fair Tax would leave her with little to no discretionary income), makes the far greater sacrifice than the rich men (aka The High Income Earners) would give only a much smaller percentage of their total wealth (much like the Fair Tax would leave the High Income Earner with a substantially higher discretionary income).

Jesus gets it. How about you?

There is absolutely nothing in this biblical passage about "punitive taxation" or "stealing from the rich".

And by the way, at what point exactly does taxation become punitive? Is it when it exceeds $10,000? Is it when the tax rate goes from 35% to 36%? Or is it when it eliminates a person's discretionary income?

"Subjectively-labeled 'rich'"? I didn't call them "rich", the King James version of the Bible called them "rich". In fact, all of the translations that I can find online concerning this passage in the Gospel of Luke all refer to these men as rich and/or wealthy.

Apparently you have a disagreement with the author of the Gospel of Luke. It's a good thing you're around to set him straight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
I would propose that he even supports those old nuisances, the 10 Commandments, including the one against coveting. Since coveting is the cornerstone of popular vote-buying, that is the one that class warfare proponents would most like to sweep away.
Now see, this here above, this is a proper rant! Kudos!

Forcibly extracting the word 'covet' from the 10 Commandments, immediately associating "coveting" with "popular vote buying", you find an injuction in the 10 Commandments against democracy?

Of course, those votes MUST have been bought! How else could the Republican party have fallen so far out of power?

Maybe the real reasons that the Republicans are now in the political wilderness are found in fighting two long simultaneous wars (one that was questionable, both of which were grossly mishandled), in adding another 3 trillion dollars to the federal debt (now 9 trillion and climbing), and in instigating the most serious economic meltdown since the 1930's.

NAW! Had to be "vote buying"!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Since Jesus also said, "The poor will always be with us," should we then accept that as unalterable, acceptable, and wonderful, too? I would say not.
Once again, you're "quoting much and comprehending little".

To put it into context, the entire passage from Mathew 26:6-13 (KJV) is

Quote:
(6) Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,
(7) There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it upon his head, as he sat at meat.
(8) But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
(9) For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
(10) When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
(11) For ye will have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
(12) For in that she hath poured this ointment onto my body, she did it for my burial.
(13) Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also be this, that this woman has done, be told for a memorial of her.
Jesus is commending a woman for an act of kindness and chastising his disciples for faulting the woman.

You twist this into an observation that to some it's acceptable, even wonderful, to always have the poor around? Wonderful to whom? Not me.

You then pop in the "I imagine not" phrase. Isn't so nice to set up a straw man so you can show every one how tough you are when you knock it down?

Apparently, your answer to poverty is to lighten the tax burden on the high income earners by placing a heavier tax burden on the middle and low income owners.

For a guy who finds poverty unacceptable, you certainly do seem intent on keeping poor people poor. Do you also throw anchors to people who are drowning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Another quote, "No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
It seems that the fixation on contempt of others' wealth often renders the covetous enslaved by Money more than the wealthy target of that scorn is bothered. See, the "rich" will always be with us, too.
Now this....this is a true rant! I can just see you foaming at the mouth, spittle flying at the computer screen as you pound away at the keyboard! And the Palinesque non-sequitors at the end - Bravo!

Contempt of others' wealth? Who said anything about that? I'm pointing out that the Orwellian-named "Fair Tax" isn't fair.

And merely asking that those who benefit the most from the economy that society provides actually pull their own weight when paying taxes into the government coffers.

And pointing out that an extra hundred dollars means a hell of a lot more to a poor widow on a fixed ten thousand dollar income than an extra ten thousand dollars means to a rich CEO with a ten million dollar income.

But, if I understand you correctly, one can only serve God or serve Money.

And those who serve Money are the poor, those who have the least amount of it?

Because the poor are contemptuous of the wealthy, who are wealthy because they're the ones with lots and lots of money? Which makes the poor covetous of the thing that makes the wealthy, well, wealthy? So the poor hate the wealthy but want to be just like them? Which enslaves them?

And those with lots of money AREN'T possibly enslaved by it. I'm guessing that it's maybe because they've built up some sort of immunity to Money enslavement from being around vast quantities of money for such a long time.

Which is why you're fighting to have them pay less in taxes?

Because the wealthy, being too busy serving God, no longer have the motivation to minimize their taxes, so it falls to you, and others like you, to 'look out' for them so that they don't fail to minimize their tax burden?

Taking this to a logical conclusion, the wealthy would lose all of their money via evil government taxation. This would make the wealthy now poor and they would lose their immunity to Money Enslavement.

And here's where I lose you completely:

"...More than the wealthy target of that scorn is bothered? See, the 'rich' will always be among us, too."

Man, it's just like Sarah Palin herself stepped into this thread directly from the Katey Couric interview.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Claims of serving God via clutching at the other guys' money seem a little off the mark to me...
Who claimed to be serving God while clutching at other people's money?
Not me. I didn't claim to be serving God here, just refuting the Fair Tax plan.

I just pointed out that Jesus wouldn't find too much to admire in your regressive tax scheme. No, wait...maybe he does find it admirable for the poor when they will be forced to make greater sacrifices than the wealthy. Then again, maybe not.

Oh, and about "clutching at the other guys' money"; how about those in the top tax brackets who enjoy a tax cut made possible by borrowing from foreign sources against the future incomes of our children? Any 'stealing' going on there? Or doesn't it count when it's the wealthy clutching at the other guys' money?

Or are you going to dodge this question again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Actually, I find that much of Jesus's thought is intended to prod people regarding their own behavior, to discomfit the individual during self-assessment. "Judge not, lest you be judged," seems to apply.
Well, it's obvious to me that you find that Jesus's thought is intended to prod OTHER people regarding their own behavior, but certainly not yours. In fact, you've twisted Jesus's thoughts to miraculously coincide with your opinions and views.

And with the rampant labelling that you throw onto other people (communist-influenced, class warfare proponents, vote buyers, etc.) you certainly do a fair amount of judging yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
I think that is the intent, to prompt folks to look inside their own souls, rather than to provide ammunition to judgementally use against others,or to provide a basis for grabbing power through government.
Judge others, like you've been doing in this entire thread to those who disagree with your views?

Grabbing power through government? Like in the last election? Can't be legit because it didn't go your way?

How about you actually take a look inside your own soul? See what's swimming around deep down in there?


Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Ergo, among my personal favorites from Jesus is his admonition against focusing on the mote in the other feller's eye rather than the timber in ones' own eye.
Rather a forgotten tenet in this day and age, but still one of my favorites.
Take a look at the top of this web page.

See the forum title? It's the "Great Debates" forum.

Not the "Mike Jaquish extolls from the mountain top and everyone must necessarily agree with him" forum.

Don't want to hear people point out the flaws in your arguments and proposals? And point out the hypocricy that you drag along with you?

Then go find a nice, safe neocon web forum where you can have everyone agree with you. You'll be much happier there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohandis Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 10:11 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 4,796,820 times
Reputation: 6677
djmilf,

Instead of dragging this thread off topic, it might be a little more constructive to start a new thread debating the various reasons your 'poll tax' is unconstitutional.

This thread is supposed to be about the merits of the 'fair tax'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2008, 10:31 PM
 
Location: Cary, NC
31,649 posts, read 55,416,037 times
Reputation: 30198
Heck, I refute your contention that your post is not a rant.
The sequel is even more accomplished!

Do we just go all "Neener, Neener" on each other now?

BTW, I promise I won't throw an anchor to you...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 07:38 AM
 
527 posts, read 838,761 times
Reputation: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinegaroon View Post
Would eliminating income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax be a good idea?
I love the fair tax!


The fair tax enables us to keep our entire paychecks!

It enables retirees to keep their entire pensions.

It allows American products to compete fairly.

It abolishes the IRS and closes all loopholes in the taxing system. Which forces it to become transparent and allows us to put accountability onto our tax policies.

It also ensures social security and medicare funding!

It is basically a consumption tax... we are taxed at over 50% already when you figure out all of the taxes we actually pay... this would put a 20 to 29% tax on goods (50% vs. 29%)

This fair tax idea was developed by the best minds in economics and money in the world and across all party lines. Until someone comes up with something better I think that this would be a great start in taking our lives back from the government!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 09:18 AM
 
Location: Yootó
1,307 posts, read 3,194,556 times
Reputation: 791
Some good points and argument here. Some people have gotten a bit off debating and taken to mudslinging, which would be more appropriate in the Politics forum. I would appreciate it if the tone of this thread might remain more respectful of one another's opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,740 posts, read 2,934,208 times
Reputation: 563
This is an excellent post, and I apologize for being several days behind everyone else. That's because it takes me a day or two between visits to recuperate from having read posts from liberal loons who support outrageously selfish, partisan positions that only an immature, uneducated person would generally favor.

My only caveat to promoting or agreeing to a new/different tax is that governments have this nasty habit of promising one thing then delivering something entirely different. They may promise to do away with the income tax after a national sales tax would be imposed, but they would change their minds, saying that the income tax was still essential.

Never trust a politician — regardless of party; trust a liberal Democrat even less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
The devil is in the details, just like the current socialist tax scheme. A flat sales tax is still unfair to those with more money. Every citizen should have an equal share of a government budget. No person is MORE of a citizen than any other. Now I know that no pinko would ever agree to such a thing, much less the brainwashed masses who have been raised on the class warfare mentality, but a "citizen fee" would be the only true fair system.

A flat sales tax is probably the closest that a socialist indoctrinated nation could ever get to fairness though. The pinkos could at least sleep at night knowing that the evil rich were in fact paying far more than the poor in actual dollar amounts. As I said earlier though, the devil is in the details. Once you start making exceptions for certain spending "approved" by the Godvernment you will quickly get back to the same mess we are in now.

The greatest consequences of a flat sales tax are quite obvious. One, the Godvernment will no longer be spying on or punishing individuals that it deems are "evil" for some reason or another. Two, dumb central planning schemes would be nearly impossible to execute. Three, the average idiot American would be forced to actually see and feel the incredible burden that the Federal Regime places upon them directly. Four, the Godvernment would no longer be able to artificially alter people's behavior and restrict their freedoms with a carrot and stick economy.

Just my stupid opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2008, 06:39 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,726,624 times
Reputation: 3062
It would be a great idea. An especially nice aspect of it would be that it would encourage savings on the part of consumers thus helping with our debt problems
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2008, 11:52 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,130,238 times
Reputation: 17979
The good th9ng about it is those that buy mopre would pay more and it would eliminate the huge number of peole that don't claim income that would pay for the deficit.It also would el;iminate those on welfare that buy luxuries from not paying tax has there could be exemptions for food and thenecessities of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top