All food is taxed, so we do not have exemptions and we keep away from special interests, but they give families the cost of the taxes on needs each month.

A bit of traction, it is still growing. The book is by co-authored by congressman Linder.

I think many do not like the tax plan because of their attachments to special interests. It also lets the people show exactly how much they are being taxed.

The Fair Tax Book II: The Critics and the Truth : Neal Boortz : ISBN 9780061540462 - Buy.com

There are two, but you could get by with just the second book.

I recommend you get it, I really think you will see the logic of such a plan. If you do get back to me and tell me what you thought of it. There are a lot of blatant lies out there about it, but that is politics right?

No, the rich don't owe the government anything for being rich! Who the hell are you to dictate that the rich must be punished for being rich???? And, yes, punishment is exactly what it is. Where's the incentive to get rich if you're going to have to give most of it to the government in taxes to pay for a bunch of freeloaders who are too damn lazy to work?

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

So what if they don't make it: we have no obligation to ensure that they succeed and you have no damn right to dictate that my money must be taken from me to support a bunch of freeloaders.


FEDERAL social spending is unconstitutional, damn it! The federal government has no right to engage in these wealth redistribution schemes.

Are there no charities, are there no state and local governments? Let THEM provide for the poor.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Maybe I could agree to that.

One social program that I think would be of immense benefit would be some sort of day care system. No idea what the details would be but anything that could enable young mothers to go to school and/or work is a good thing for everyone, in my book.

Overall, much like my views on education and health care, it's all about smarter spending, not necessarily less (or even more). If we're all able to reap tangible benefits, I think there's be less arguments about this stuff.

Quite true. And when they pay it, that's great. When you've reaped disproportionately more benefit, you pay more in taxes to pay for it. Simple.

It's not like I'm advocating for a salary cap....... (although the idea intrigues me....hmm.....)

I think if we got rid of all the dodges, and made corporations pay what they truly owe, as well, things would be greatly improved, I agree.

I dimly recall reading somewhere that GE ended up paying about $100,000 in taxes one year. Tell me that's fair! We're killing ourselves with corporate giveaways, cities compete to NOT tax companies, and we allow them to skip out and outsource. The corporations are who REALLY need some reigning in, here.

Hmm.

I see what you mean, now. I'll have to think about that. But, as you know, I am certainly more autocratic than you are, and am primarily concerned with ends more so than means.

Unless and until we can actually determine what our taxes get spent on, this is all just talk, anyway. I may not like my taxes going over to Iraq, and I'd much rather it be spent on a fellow American, but it's not like we can control that.

Excellent points. I think we're looking at it from very different angles.

My basic question, then, is, what to do about poverty, assuming that in our capitalistic system, there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, by definition? I see your point about the institutionalization of a poverty cycle.

I do applaud recent reforms to conditionalize the welfare system.

That's at least an arguable point. Social spending isn't just direct, actual "welfare".

I wouldn't go that far. And, I think we've agreed that there should be at least SOME level where one doesn't pay taxes, period.

Maybe taxes are simply something that is going to be inherently "unfair" to some degree. If so, I'd rather err on the side of those who can best absorb it.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

Who the hell am I? Why, I am the Supreme Dictator of The United States, that's who! What a silly question.

So, what you are telling me is that if you were offered a promotion that would double your pay, and push you into a higher tax bracket, that you would refuse the promotion, because the higher taxes would be a disincentive?

SC asserts that the rich already pay a disproportionately high percentage of taxes. You tell me that big taxes are a disincentive to work to become rich. Clearly, one of the two is incorrect.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

The tax bracket is one of the things I would consider. As it stands now, I'm not rich but I still paid over $13,000 in federal income tax last year.

I'm asking where the incentive to work is if you're going to keep punishing people for being rich. So, what do the rich do? Either they try to reduce their tax burden by hiding their income in non-profit charitable organizations or other tax deductions and loopholes, or they remove as much of their income from the United States as possible, or they give up being wealthy.

__________________
A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes toward the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

In some cases that might actually be true.

If the raise just pushed someone into a different bracket they may actually make less money because of the higher taxes. The amount of the raise may not cover the new taxes. This is something you would not have to worry at all with a sales tax.

Contrary to many libertarians, I support state-sponsored optional education through high school (many of the fringe guys want it entirely privatized), which if done properly can definitely help the poor advance their children's future. I oppose federal educational spending however, as it is patently unconstitutional. Your "day care" type proposal could be folded into the educational system, perhaps expanding it to include pre-k (some districts offer this, some don't), and expanding after-school activities by paying teachers extra if they double as a coach or club sponsor.

Health care should always remain the responsibility of the individual (save children under the age of majority) because otherwise it risks a government-style fitness regimin, food laws, assigned doctors, and horrible inefficiency. I can however support health care for children whose parents are demonstrably unable to pay for care (meaning, W-2's, paystubs, or other type of evidence required). Hell, if we're going to take care of violent prisoners, surely we can take care of children whose only crime was being born poor. Once you're an adult though, take care of yourself.


Naturally you pay more in taxes as your income goes up, but I propose a flat RATE of taxation that makes every individual a legal equal. We're compromising, but you're not going to get me to budge on the salary cap issue, it already pisses me off enough when my favorite sports collectives can't load the bench with all-stars.


How's this:

Simplify the tax code. No more write-offs, no more exemptions, no more credits. After "x" amount of money in income ("x" can be anything we need necessary via legislation) the remaining income is taxed "y" percent (preferably, "y" would be no greater than 10%). Stiffen penalties for tax evasion and pass legislation that treats companies like Ford (who take advantage of our tax system while making inferior trucks in Mexico) like foreign companies, complete with all manner of duties and excises that would be imposed on any other foreign company. I'd rather do away with all duties and tariffs, but if we're going to have them, why should "American" companies get around them just because their corporate HQ is here?

That's fine, my ideology permits me to tolerate your confusion (joke) so long as you do not violate my rights.

Oh but we can. Following the Constitution strictly and encouraging greater voter interest (not turnout, interest, ie substantive understanding of issues) can yield greater control of government. Since you clearly want more control over the government, let me ask you; is a tiger easier to handle as a cub, or when it is 500lbs of mean? Apply that principle to government, and I'll see you at the next Libertarian ice cream social.
And yet remarkably nobody has been stabbed, don't you love the free exchange of ideas? I doubt you and I will ever vote together given the sharp differences in perception of reality (positive v. negative rights and such), but we're making progress. In this respect we have outperformed many a sitting of the federal legislature. Cheers.

Poverty is relative, so it can't be "cured" or whatever word we use so long as human beings are born unequal (height, strength, health, etc). In Somalia, a rich man is eating every day and might have electricity, here we would see his standard of living as far worse than some hobos. Even if we provided housing, medical, food, water, and clothing to the poor, they'd still be "poor" because they didn't have a car, or the nicest clothes, or enough leisure time. Thus, poverty cannot be eliminated (better word than "cure") regardless of our actions because as society advances, even in entirely communist or egalitarian societies, there will be haves and have-nots.

As do I, but I would still prefer they be handled by private charity. State money should only be paid to state employees or those contracted by the state.


Granted, but I don't think we disagree that the Fire Department or roads are more readily seen as benefits to the community at large than social spending.

I've always had a problem with income taxes in general because they tax the right to live. What I mean by that is you NEED money to pay for rent, food, clothing, and transportation, and you work to get that money. To tax such money would literally be to tax life, which as a libertarian you can imagine I find very offensive. Thus yes, a minimum level of income should be left untaxed (again, number to be determined by SIMPLE legislation), so long as no benefits are paid to the taxpayer like food stamps or housing assistance(since the whole purpose of not taxing them would be so that THEY could buy food and pay for shelter). That's really what irritates me about the current system; the poor are allowed to "double dip" via nontaxation AND welfare benefits while the rest of us pay taxes and still have to pay for expenses. One or the other, but not both.

And I'd rather err on the side of legal equality. That's where we differ, and I think that's where each of us becomes intractable. I had planned to finish my post from earlier, but I think we're starting to understand each other (plus I'm about to fall into a cheesesteak-induced coma, lunch was nice). Still, if you want any of the points you made earlier addressed, let me know and I'll be sure to address them appropriately. I'll say that this discussion has been very civil and coherent, a welcome change from that which usually occurs on this board (and we're all guilty of it). I thank you for that sir, you've renewed my faith in polite discussion.

__________________
"Bring me that horizon".

I'd tangle with you over the "optional" part, but hey, at least we're closer than most.

I don't recall any sort of item in the Constitution that prohibits it....not that I've memorized it or anything. My think is more about the ability of the Feds to establish consistent standards, so that nobody is allowed to get away with substandard. I can't really imagine a situation where the Feds are actually "providing" the education, though. Guiding & regulation is what's needed.

But, again, that's way off the topic.

I think people confuse responsibility for provision. I see the gov't as more or less an insurer, taking private insurance accountants out of the equation. Like with eduaction, I can't envision these big, dour, soulless hospital complexes staffed with Federally-employed drone-doctors. We've GOT the infrastructure, it just needs some direction and tweaking to work better. Doctors should feel comfortable making decisions without having to play the insurance coverage game, and it shouldn't be up to some accountant to decide if you live or die. I want to put into the doctors hands again. If you need a CT scan, then dammit, you get one.

But that's again, off this topic.

And people do, generally. Perhaps in the case of conditions arising from poor decisionmaking, like smoking, hospitals should be able to have a surcharge or something. But, I am still very keen in the idea of eliminating the insurance industry, and having the people (society) insure themselves.

The emphasis, meaning what should be free for all, is preventative care. Any doctor would tell you that if people came in just twice a year, they'd catch all sorts of things and save millions of lives AND dollars. Even just lots of "free" checkup clinics would be an amazing boon to society, and very pennywise.

Kidding about the salary cap thing.

Still, I am intrigued by the idea of tying things to the national average. Rather than reliance on "trickle down" theories, which simply don't work well in the real world, the idea of incentivizing could be more effective: If you're a big time CEO, in order to increase your pay or lessen your taxes, you actually create the jobs or whatever to increase the average. Something like that...I'm no economist, obviously.

Flat-tax idea are fine too, except for that tricky "tipping point" problem (make just one more dollar and you pay...)

I like that. (And, we're getting away from expenditure arguments and back onto taxation)

If it proves that the gov's would get just as much or even more under that system, I'd embrace it. Especially getting tough with corps, who get away with murder.

Confusion is kind of my trademark. I send up a lot of trial balloons.

Regarding rights, I tend to think the usage of that term is somewhat too broad,and the attendant responsibilities too often go ignored.

It all depends how autocratic you want to be, my friend. The Constitution's a great guideline, no doubt, but it ain't the be-all/end-all of existence. I'm certainly more open to change and reform than moston here.

Oh, it's all good in the hood. And, learning has occurred. It's not good to surround oneself wth yes-men, it's good to hear the criticisms and other views.

Indeed no "egalitarian" experiement has ever truly lasted. If the elimination of poverty isn;t really attainble, at least we can work on making sure people aren't starving. Noblesse oblige....

No arguments here.

Not sure how I feel about that, and we mightbe coming at to from differnt perspectives. I think I have some moral issues with a strict "sink or swim" paradigm, and food stamps are a far better idea than open-ended monetary asisstance. in my mind.

Anytime. Been good discussion.

__________________
There is no sig. There never was a sig. The sig is a lie.

The rich are hosed.. They are never going to use Medicare and or Social Security.. (slim chance they might use Welfare)..

No, the don't reap from society. They reap from Consumerism. When reaping from Consumerism, they owe nothing then the quality of product provided.

The Consumer makes a choice to buy or not to buy. Nobody forced them to buy.

__________________
Pioneers are walking all around singing songs about Lenin and they should be shot for it.

Handlebars

"If you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror"- V

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

Beagán agus a rá go maith.

Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87