Already found the tax loopholes...

[Kushinator]

more nonsense.

You've not been capable of establishing a coherent rebuttal of my point.

if the income tax was eliminated the built in cost of that tax on goods would disappear.

No it wouldn't... it would be made up on the consumer level. And in order for the consumption tax to be deficit neutral, it would need to be in excess of 34% (29% to meet current revenues).

you never ever want to deal with the power angle of the income tax and that is what I want to eliminate and the ability of congress to pander with the tax

This isn't the first time you've put forth your little theory, nor is it that last time it is rejected on the basis of invalidity.

 

[Kushinator]

There is no argument that will sway him because his position is not founded in sound logic.

Still, we can't have him putting forth false information.

 

[TurtleDude]

You've not been capable of establishing a coherent rebuttal of my point.



No it wouldn't... it would be made up on the consumer level. And in order for the consumption tax to be deficit neutral, it would need to be in excess of 34% (29% to meet current revenues).



This isn't the first time you've put forth your little theory, nor is it that last time it is rejected on the basis of invalidity.

you're not capable of being able to discuss the issues of tax outside an extremely narrow window where you can substitute rational argument with silly "greater good" faux macro nonsense. you want to force all conversations into this very narrow window where you won't have to actually defend a parasitic system that you like

 

[Kushinator]

you're not capable of being able to discuss the issues of tax outside

:lol:

Calm down killer.

an extremely narrow window where you can substitute rational argument with silly "greater good" faux macro nonsense.

First and foremost, so far you've failed to refute me and instead resort to personal comments.

Secondly, my position is simply a matter of what is or is not... where you're all hung up on what should or should not. Therefore, attempts to substitute your opinion as fact have been ineffective.

you want to force all conversations into this very narrow window where you won't have to actually defend a parasitic system that you like

It's not a narrow window... it's a big fat glaring hole in your argument that you lack the courage to account for.

 

[TurtleDude]

:lol:

Calm down killer.



First and foremost, so far you've failed to refute me and instead resort to personal comments.

Secondly, my position is simply a matter of what is or is not... where you're all hung up on what should or should not. Therefore, attempts to substitute your opinion as fact have been ineffective.



It's not a narrow window... it's a big fat glaring hole in your argument that you lack the courage to account for.

more nonsense. Your arrogance is not a good substitute to deal with the fact that you are trying to pretend a greed based tax is meritorious. The income tax was passed to give congress more power. If you bother to read the legislative history you would see that. One senator noted that a NST would be far more efficient than an income tax and he was told that a NST didn't give congress the power that an income tax would. You have never ever dealt with the fact that the current system demands government grows and grows.

 

[Kushinator]

Your arrogance is not a good substitute to deal with the fact that you are trying to pretend a greed based tax is meritorious.

Please address my position... not your convoluted opinion of my position.

The income tax was passed to give congress more power.

The income tax was passed because it was a very effective means at obtaining revenue. The progressivity schedule is just a reflection of math and economic logic.

One senator noted that a NST would be far more efficient than an income tax and he was told that a NST didn't give congress the power that an income tax would.

A NST isn't more efficient... i have explained why. You now want to make the claim that NST is more efficient because a senator said it didn't give congress enough power?

Wow

You have never ever dealt with the fact that the current system demands government grows and grows.

Government does grow as the economy becomes larger and more specialized.

 

[LesGovt]

You need your own island where you can make laws that are radically different than almost every nation that I know of in this world.

No - its not called GREED .....Actually that is called a decent working civilization that recognizes it is not all about ME ME ME ME ME ME at the expense of everybody else.

So before we had any sort of income tax system both government and the poor were supported at todays levels?

Greed by any other name is still greed. As for the island, I love the idea and I have often thought it would be great to get away from the mess that Americans have created for themselves.

As for the poor prior to the welfare state, we had something even better than the welfare state. We had people who had compassion and who cared for those in need. It is far better to help someone than to give money that you never see to a faceless government who gives it to a faceless person in need. How sanitized! And you don't even have to get your hands dirty.

 

[Absentglare]

talk about triggered and lying. I have no problem with the rich paying taxes. They shouldn't pay additional taxes given they don't get any additional citizenship benefits from the government. we get your envy

So you admit that you were lying? Interesting. That does explain the flip flop.

They do get additional benefits. That's what wealth is, a benefit. The wealth isn't held in John Wayne Individual GodKing bucks, it's held in US dollars. US dollars only have value because of the productive power of the system they represent. That system actually requires the contributions of the poor more than it requires the contributions of the super rich. This is because the value of the dollar is out of wack when the rich push the system in their favor through things called "laws."

 

[Absentglare]

I agree with that. I despise the attitude that the government deserves a cut

Yes, you are admitting that your governing economic philosophy is "more for me, **** the economy, and **** everyone else." It's hilarious to watch you fail to objectively justify it at every turn, as your entire basis is both subjective and selfish.

 

[Absentglare]

the income tax penalizes spending and worse it penalizes savings

That is so completely wrong, it is clear that you have no concept of what several of those words mean.

 

[haymarket]

Greed by any other name is still greed. As for the island, I love the idea and I have often thought it would be great to get away from the mess that Americans have created for themselves.

As for the poor prior to the welfare state, we had something even better than the welfare state. We had people who had compassion and who cared for those in need. It is far better to help someone than to give money that you never see to a faceless government who gives it to a faceless person in need. How sanitized! And you don't even have to get your hands dirty.

Get with the program. We live in the age of outsourcing tasks to others instead of doing it all ourselves. We no longer have to make our own soap, make our own clothes, hunt our own food, build our own homes and furnish them .... and all the rest that goes with a more primitive society. And that includes what we now allocate to government as well.



Really!!!!! Sao the poor were better off in the last half of the 1800's and early 1900's until FDR became President and the New Deal came in. Buy all means - do present that data.

 

[Kushinator]

Yes, you are admitting that your governing economic philosophy is "more for me, **** the economy, and **** everyone else." It's hilarious to watch you fail to objectively justify it at every turn, as your entire basis is both subjective and selfish.

Not to mention self-inflicting.

 

[LesGovt]

For everytime TD says the poor are envious, he really means that the rich are greedy. There is no argument that will sway him because his position is not founded in sound logic.

The poor want what the rich have, but are, for various reasons, unable to achieve wealth. Turtle is correct if he says the poor, and much of the middle class, are envious of what the rich have and they are greedy in that they want to take from the rich that which they have not earned. For those who are mentally and physically capable of working, they need to earn any wealth that they are able to achieve. If they do that, then envy could end and so could their greed.

 

[Absentglare]

Opinion noted and rejected as partisan nonsense. income tax is anti-savings. a NST would reward savings.

The irony of the first sentence cannot be overstated.

Income tax is not anti-savings, you seem to not understand what "savings" is.

A shift to a reliance on a national sales tax would depress our economy even further, redistributing income away from the poor and toward the rich. So you want to slow down the economy so that you can have a bigger slice of the pie.

This is not a valid economic argument. This plan would hurt the economy.

 

[Absentglare]

we'd cut back on crap that is not properly constitutional, and most importantly, the low wattage masses would start voting against politicians who used to pander to them with promises of handouts paid for by tax hikes on the rich

Ironically, what you are demanding is a handout for the wealthy, and you've given no economic basis to do so, whatsoever. It seems entirely based on envy for wealth.

 

[Absentglare]

For everytime TD says the poor are envious, he really means that the rich are greedy. There is no argument that will sway him because his position is not founded in sound logic.

A very poignant and accurate assessment.

 

[LesGovt]

Get with the program. We live in the age of outsourcing tasks to others instead of doing it all ourselves. We no longer have to make our own soap, make our own clothes, hunt our own food, build our own homes and furnish them .... and all the rest that goes with a more primitive society. And that includes what we now allocate to government as well.

Really!!!!! Sao the poor were better off in the last half of the 1800's and early 1900's until FDR became President and the New Deal came in. Buy all means - do present that data.

I don't have to present data. The poor at that time knew that people actually cared for them and had compassion. Today, many just know that a check appears magically in their mail box and they can go spend it, while wanting others to do even more. That is neither caring nor compassion.

As for your outsourcing, you are right. That is indeed part of the problem. We have forgotten how to actually be compassionate and care for people. We let others do it now by taking hard-earned wages from other people.

I repeat myself:
"As for the poor prior to the welfare state, we had something even better than the welfare state. We had people who had compassion and who cared for those in need. It is far better to help someone than to give money that you never see to a faceless government who gives it to a faceless person in need. How sanitized! And you don't even have to get your hands dirty."

 

[Kushinator]

So you want to slow down the economy so that you can have a bigger slice of the pie.

A bigger slice of a smaller pie! :lamo

And TD expects all of us to marvel at his intellectual claims....

 

[Kushinator]

I don't have to present data. The poor at that time knew that people actually cared for them and had compassion. Today, many just know that a check appears magically in their mail box and they can go spend it, while wanting others to do even more. That is neither caring nor compassion.

As for your outsourcing, you are right. That is indeed part of the problem. We have forgotten how to actually be compassionate and care for people. We let others do it now by taking hard-earned wages from other people.

I repeat myself:
"As for the poor prior to the welfare state, we had something even better than the welfare state. We had people who had compassion and who cared for those in need. It is far better to help someone than to give money that you never see to a faceless government who gives it to a faceless person in need. How sanitized! And you don't even have to get your hands dirty."

Are you finished?

 

[Absentglare]

A bigger slice of a smaller pie! :lamo

And TD expects all of us to marvel at his intellectual claims....

Yeah, that's the point i really don't get.

It's like he wants policy that panders to him personally at the expense of everyone else. I can understand the motive behind that, but he cannot then pretend that there's some legitimate economic basis to do so.

 

[iguanaman]

the income tax penalizes spending and worse it penalizes savings

That's correct, we tax money not spent at a higher rate. That is how we maximize growth. Do your part and spend, spend spend. Saving is for suckers.

 

[joG]

That's correct, we tax money not spent at a higher rate. That is how we maximize growth. Do your part and spend, spend spend. Saving is for suckers.

It’s for suckers, till you need it.

 

[haymarket]

I don't have to present data.

And you lose because of lack of any verifiable evidence. Debate is not making pompous personal pontifications. Debate involves supporting your claims with verifiable fact. Something you seem to eschew like a decaying leper avoids roller coaster rides.

 

[Kushinator]

Saving is for suckers.

Nah... there's just quite a bit of savings.

 

[LesGovt]

Are you finished?

Never.