why filibuster this thread with such long winded distortions. You constantly have whined that those who pay NO FEDERAL income tax pay state taxes and that somehow cuts against the argument that those who vote to raise income taxes on others don't pay that taxAnd just who is claiming that state taxes relieve you of any duty you may have to pay any other taxes that are due? That is a strawman that has no basis in fact.
What claims about your position are dishonest? Lay it out for us Turtle. I suspect you throw that out as some sort of attempt to save face after many posts in the last week have exposed your position on taxes to be nothing more than a desire for you to get a tax cut. People are taking notice
and so this is your reply.
I laid it out quite clearly in a series of long posts in which I used YOUR OWN WORDS to indict you. YOUR OWN WORDS.
Again, first you took the position that taxation must be based on the amount of government services one used. We even had an entire thread for that purpose. Of course, that plan would have given you a tax cut.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/econom...ing-model.html (Taxation as Retail Shopping Model)
Turtle makes it very clear what his ultimate idea of a system of taxation would be:
Does Anyone Actually Think........ Deficit/Debt
18 #175 6/9/11
That is clear and straight forward and unambiguous. The FAIREST tax system he advocates is one in which "you pay for what you use".
He makes this clear again in this post using much the same words:
The Truth About Who Can Afford To Pay More Taxes
p. 18 #172 1/21/11
Again, his idea of taxation if for people to "pay for what they use".
Yet again, in another discussion of taxation he expresses the same idea
Constant References to Billionaires
23 #228 6/23/11
Here he looks back fondly on the ideal he believes once existed in which people paid for what they used in government services
Brief History of the Bush tax Cuts
25 #243 6/2/11
And once more into the breach
Tax Increase On the Table
4 #37 4/14/11
Here he says that the "standard" used in taxation should be the "value recieved" which is another way of saying what government services you consume
GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION
7 #66 7/4/11
Then, you abandoned not only the plan itself, but you abandoned the principle behind it. Your completely trashed and flushed the idea of connecting taxation to how much consumes in government services in favor of a per capita levy on all persons based on government spending. Your impassioned plea to connect taxation to how much one consumes in government services was trashed and flushed and as gone with the wind. You did a 180 and completely embraced a principle that was opposite of your first. Of course, this new scheme also gave you a personal tax cut.
Then you trashed and flushed the per capita idea in favor of a consumption tax in which the entire idea of how much one consumed or even a per capita levy on it was trashed and flushed altogether in favor of a tax based on consumption.
I guess , to you, the meaning of the word ALWAYS is interchangeable with "of the moment and what I now have retreated to"?
Of course, you would get a tax cut in that scheme also.
Three different ideas, all very different, some 180 degrees opposite the other, all based on very very different principles.
Or are they?
The one "principle" (if one can call selfishness a principle) in all three is that you get a tax cut.
Now that is the most honest presentation of your taxation positions there is and are completely supported by your own words. If you have a problem with that, state it clearly and I will speak to it.