Well here it is in your own words from you own posts giving your own positions that you flip on and make a complete reversal on.
Sadly for your Turtle, there is the record to go to of your own posts, in your own words, explaining your beliefs and views. And that speaks louder than any lies you try to tell to cover your tracks or get out of a tight spot.
Here is your position and your reversals on taxes:
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.
Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Taxation as Retail Shopping Model)
Turtle makes it very clear what his ultimate idea of a system of taxation would be:
ECONOMICS
Does Anyone Actually Think........ Deficit/Debt
18 #175 6/9/11
He makes this clear again in this post using much the same words:
ECONOMICS
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
ECONOMICS
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
ECONOMICS
Brief History of the Bush tax Cuts
25 #243 6/2/11
=====================================
And once more into the breach
ECONOMICS
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
Flat Tax
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.
You reversed, not once but at least twice and that does not even consider any other tax scheme that you signed on to simply because it gave you a selfish tax cut regardless of the principles or methodology behind it.