• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

fairtax, the only way to go.

liblady said:
it seems money doesn't buy class.
Click to expand...

apparently some here have neither

but class envy oozes from many on the left

your existence is not my fault nor do I have a duty to fund it
 
TurtleDude said:
more envy and spite hidden by self righteous nonsense

you have no idea of what my property is worth but it is YOU who started whining about a facade like this
Click to expand...

I have a pretty good idea because it was YOU who posted about it in the thread on property taxes. How else would I know about this? You love to brag..... and are doing it again. It seems to be your favorite activity about your favorite subject.

Nothing else you said in your post related to what I said in mine correcting your false impressions of the property tax system and education. Your inability to respond is duly noted and recorded for all to see.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
I have a pretty good idea because it was YOU who posted about it in the thread on property taxes. How else would I know about this? You love to brag..... and are doing it again. It seems to be your favorite activity about your favorite subject.

Nothing else you said in your post related to what I said in mine correcting your false impressions of the property tax system and education. Your inability to respond is duly noted and recorded for all to see.
Click to expand...

Yawn

why won't you address the main issue

when people who want more government spending don't have any feedback as to its costs they continue to drive that spending higher and higher
 
TurtleDude said:
a property tax has more validity than income taxes-its in the nature of a use tax
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. The Fairtax is highly unlikely due to the need to repeal the 16th amendment but I imagine with the rapid increase in consumer spending over the internet that we will see a Value Added Tax in the United States within this decade and a strong call to reduce income taxes as a result. As such, we will probably end up with a mixed model whereby the federal government is funded in part by income tax and in part by a consumption tax.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
apparently some here have neither

but class envy oozes from many on the left

your existence is not my fault nor do I have a duty to fund it
Click to expand...

in this particular instance, i think you're confusing envy with disdain.
 
TurtleDude said:
Yawn

why won't you address the main issue

when people who want more government spending don't have any feedback as to its costs they continue to drive that spending higher and higher
Click to expand...

Main issue? Hardly. It is only the main issue to you and a few right wing extremists motivated by greed and selfishness who are attempting to take away Americans Constitutional rights in the name of one party rule.
 
liblady said:
in this particular instance, i think you're confusing envy with disdain.
Click to expand...

No. He means envy. It is an all purpose catch-all and trump card designed to allow him to answer everything with the same simplistic answer and never ever have to present any actual date, verifiable information or authoritative research to support his 'ideas'.
 
CriticalThought said:
Interesting perspective. The Fairtax is highly unlikely due to the need to repeal the 16th amendment but I imagine with the rapid increase in consumer spending over the internet that we will see a Value Added Tax in the United States within this decade and a strong call to reduce income taxes as a result. As such, we will probably end up with a mixed model whereby the federal government is funded in part by income tax and in part by a consumption tax.
Click to expand...

the dems want higher income taxes on the rich to appeal to class warfare and a VAT to fund more buying of votes from the lower classes

anyone who supports both sort of taxes is a fool

we all have seen what has happened with the income tax and the promises its proponents made when it was enacted
 
haymarket said:
No. He means envy. It is an all purpose catch-all and trump card designed to allow him to answer everything with the same simplistic answer and never ever have to present any actual date, verifiable information or authoritative research to support his 'ideas'.
Click to expand...

the posts of several tax hike advocates ooze envy and spite for the most productive tax payers
 
TurtleDude said:
the posts of several tax hike advocates ooze envy and spite for the most productive tax payers
Click to expand...

Thank you for perfectly illustrating what I just said in response to Liblady. You are as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun... or the arrival of Spring.

No. He means envy. It is an all purpose catch-all and trump card designed to allow him to answer everything with the same simplistic answer and never ever have to present any actual date, verifiable information or authoritative research to support his 'ideas'.
Click to expand...

You cannot even help it when it is right in front of you as an indictment.
 
TurtleDude said:
the dems want higher income taxes on the rich to appeal to class warfare and a VAT to fund more buying of votes from the lower classes

anyone who supports both sort of taxes is a fool

we all have seen what has happened with the income tax and the promises its proponents made when it was enacted
Click to expand...

Your rampant partisanship aside, I foresee a compromise in the near future. The income tax will be converted to a flat tax and will be limited to increases only during times of war or emergency and the value added tax, which is harder to confiscate, will be the the primary source of funding for the federal government. No matter how much you hate the income tax, it is not going away in your lifetime. That is the pragmatic reality whether you ideologically are opposed to it or not. Given a generation or two, if the value added tax proves its worth then the income tax may be done away with, but the income tax is going nowhere in this generation.
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for perfectly illustrating what I just said in response to Liblady. You are as predictable as the rising and setting of the sun... or the arrival of Spring.



You cannot even help it when it is right in front of you as an indictment.
Click to expand...

your posts are well known as foolish among those who matter
even libs note that. your posting of facts do not help your opinion

you want the rich to pay more because it helps the party you work for
 
CriticalThought said:
Your rampant partisanship aside, I foresee a compromise in the near future. The income tax will be converted to a flat tax and will be limited to increases only during times of war or emergency and the value added tax, which is harder to confiscate, will be the the primary source of funding for the federal government. No matter how much you hate the income tax, it is not going away in your lifetime. That is the pragmatic reality whether you ideologically are opposed to it or not. Given a generation or two, if the value added tax proves its worth then the income tax may be done away with, but the income tax is going nowhere in this generation.
Click to expand...

I want less government and that means defunding it. and this country will end up like Greece-sooner or later

there are too many parasites and they are ever expanding
 
liblady said:
in this particular instance, i think you're confusing envy with disdain.
Click to expand...

If you only stopped at insulting, that would be fine. I mean, it shows the time of person one is, but it doesn't tangibly bother most people.

When people take that disdain, and attempt to coerce others out of their money with their own personal feelings as justification...that's another problem altogether.
 
CriticalThought said:
Your rampant partisanship aside, I foresee a compromise in the near future. The income tax will be converted to a flat tax and will be limited to increases only during times of war or emergency and the value added tax, which is harder to confiscate, will be the the primary source of funding for the federal government. No matter how much you hate the income tax, it is not going away in your lifetime. That is the pragmatic reality whether you ideologically are opposed to it or not. Given a generation or two, if the value added tax proves its worth then the income tax may be done away with, but the income tax is going nowhere in this generation.
Click to expand...

You know, given that the income tax was expressly forbidden by the Constitution in the first place, I wonder how many people said they'd never see an income tax in their lifetime prior to the 16th Amendment being past? I for one prefer to be optimistic (although not blindly so) and continue to strive for the Fair Tax Act in my lifetime.
 
TurtleDude said:
your posts are well known as foolish among those who matter
even libs note that. your posting of facts do not help your opinion

you want the rich to pay more because it helps the party you work for
Click to expand...

"among those who matter"!?!?!?!?!?!

and just who would that me .... don't look now but your snobbish elitism is showing.

you are the only person who I expresses a disdain for the facts. Truly amazing and it speaks volumes about you Turtle. Volumes.
 
haymarket said:
"among those who matter"!?!?!?!?!?!

and just who would that me .... don't look now but your snobbish elitism is showing.

you are the only person who I expresses a disdain for the facts. Truly amazing and it speaks volumes about you Turtle. Volumes.
Click to expand...

man I like you and even if I can't agree with you on some things, I can respect you and even concede to any logical conclusion from what I may see as a faulty premise. But why do you continue to feed and encourage him?
 
maquiscat said:
man I like you and even if I can't agree with you on some things, I can respect you and even concede to any logical conclusion from what I may see as a faulty premise. But why do you continue to feed and encourage him?
Click to expand...

I wish I know Maquiscat. I wish I knew. Maybe I am a distant relative of Don Quixote? But thanks for the kind words.
 
MrVicchio said:
Probably help if you clicky the link and read up instead of making wild assumptions.

Everyone get's a probate check equal to tax up to the poverty line.

The "wealthy guy" with millions in "old money" doesn't pay income tax. Now, suddenly, every time he buys something, he's taxed. He's paying MORE now then he did before.

Why this bothers you is beyond me.

(and it's 23%, not 50%.)
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Scammy Fairtax's claimed rate is "23% tax inclusive" which is 30% they way everyone else understands and pays now. A $100 item will cost $130. FairYtax calls that 23%. (see link below)

Credible Independent scoring put's the real rate at 56%/57%
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/91437-fairtax-only-way-go-9.html (Top 2 posts, pg 9)

Still in favor?
If you didn't even understand the claimed "23%" scam.. no doubt you are.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Incorrect.
Scammy Fairtax's claimed rate is "23% tax inclusive" which is 30% they way everyone else understands and pays now. A $100 item will cost $130. FairYtax calls that 23%. (see link below)
Click to expand...

To be fair if you are to compare an inclusive tax to an exclusive tax you have to look at them in the same manner. It's similar to trying to compare miles with kilometers. You have to convert one to the other to make an accurate comparison. If you look at the Fair Tax as if it were the same as the income tax it replaces, then it is 25%. If you look at it as a sales tax, then you have to convert the income tax rates to look like sales taxes, which will increase their numbers as well.

Credible Independent scoring put's the real rate at 56%/57%
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/91437-fairtax-only-way-go-9.html (Top 2 posts, pg 9)
Click to expand...

I will go back and look at the link in a bit here, but most independant scoring I've seen out there makes exceptions for things like food and/or medicine and/or other things that are exempted from sales taxes now. Basically changing the premise of the argument to make it look worse than proposed.
 
maquiscat said:
You know, given that the income tax was expressly forbidden by the Constitution in the first place, I wonder how many people said they'd never see an income tax in their lifetime prior to the 16th Amendment being past? I for one prefer to be optimistic (although not blindly so) and continue to strive for the Fair Tax Act in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

Expressly forbidden? The United States had an income tax during the Civil War and later in peace time with the Wilson-Gorman Tarriff. In 1895 the Supreme Court didn't rule that income tax was unconstitutional but that it had to be apportioned which made it impractical, hence the need for the 16th amendment in 1916. Assuming you were born before the Civil War you would have seen the income tax come and go several times before the 16th Amendment.

Feel free to support the Fair Tax Act. Of course, the existence of the internet and the rampant progression of globalization ensures that it will never see passage. Furthermore, entitlements and defense spending could not possibly be funded by a consumption tax of less than 50% no matter what optimistic estimate people try to fodder off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom