This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]
Big business lobbyist have the U.S. legislature on a leash. Why haven't we put a major tax/tariff on offshore outsourcing yet? Because the corporations don't want that. Obama said he would do this, but I'm still waiting.
trix5817
Because it will causes prices to rise on just about everything....
It's a hit that we would have to take.Funny thing is, alot of Americans think like that :lol:
Any money gained from marijuana will have to be spent on mental health.ignorance, bias, and hopefully sarcasm at its best. None. Ive worked in a mental health hospital and have seen some of the effects of excessive use of marijuana.[QUOTE="Big_Bad_Sad"][QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]we could get rid of our debt by legalizing marijuana! -xPANICx-
[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]
Ummm, we raise taxes on multinational corporations for operating in our country and further raise taxes on the multimillionaires residing in our country, like they do in Europe.
sSubZerOo
Yes, punish the productive people with money that have the power and resources to create jobs. That will stimluate the economy for sure!:roll:
Yeah because Bush's tax plan in which he rewarded the so called "productive" people, worked so well with creating jobs..It actually did. It still wasn't enough though. The Fair Tax is the best way of Federal Taxation.You want to create REAL jobs in this country? Easy. Attract people with money.
Under Bushes 2003 tax cuts, the rich ended up accounting for more of the income from the income tax....this is straight from the IRS, as are these facts.
top 1%-39.89
top 5%-60.14
top 10%70.79
top 25%-86.27
top 50%-97.01
bottom 50%- 2.99
44% of people in this country pay almost nothing in Federal taxes. It's a fact. You can look it up if you'd like.
But yeah, liberals can say "the rich aren't paying their "fair share" (wtf does that even mean?) all they want...
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="trix5817"]Yeah because Bush's tax plan in which he rewarded the so called "productive" people, worked so well with creating jobs.. You're exactly right, but stop saying Bush. America's richest individuals are only taxed 40% of their income, while France's, for example, are taxed roughly 80% of their income. The tax rate on income and/or sales needs to increase drastically, while our governments (Germany and the U.S. to be specific) develop a UN resolution and international law to criminalize the use of "tax havens" and other means of legal money laundering. Raising taxes on multinational firms operating in the U.S. is just...silly, though I know that you didn't propose this, Hot-Tamale did. Anyway, cutting taxes only generates an increase in productivity in theory, not necessarily (and the converse doesn't necessarily have the opposite effect either).Yes, punish the productive people with money that have the power and resources to create jobs. That will stimluate the economy for sure!:roll:
YourChaosIsntMe
Only 40%? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but when a government takes away over half of your income (if you include money from all the other taxes including state taxes) that's just not right. I don't care how rich you are.
You want $13 trillion of money to be flooded back into the U.S. economy instead of being in over-sea tax havens? Easy. Get rid of the income tax and enact the Fair Tax.
[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]
Big business lobbyist have the U.S. legislature on a leash. Why haven't we put a major tax/tariff on offshore outsourcing yet? Because the corporations don't want that. Obama said he would do this, but I'm still waiting.
Ace_WondersX
Because it will causes prices to rise on just about everything....
It's a hit that we would have to take.Take an economics class. That's all I have to say. Don't feel like explaining this to you.
You're exactly right, but stop saying Bush. America's richest individuals are only taxed 40% of their income, while France's, for example, are taxed roughly 80% of their income. The tax rate on income and/or sales needs to increase drastically, while our governments (Germany and the U.S. to be specific) develop a UN resolution and international law to criminalize the use of "tax havens" and other means of legal money laundering. Raising taxes on multinational firms operating in the U.S. is just...silly, though I know that you didn't propose this, Hot-Tamale did. Anyway, cutting taxes only generates an increase in productivity in theory, not necessarily (and the converse doesn't necessarily have the opposite effect either).[QUOTE="YourChaosIsntMe"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Yeah because Bush's tax plan in which he rewarded the so called "productive" people, worked so well with creating jobs..trix5817
Only 40%? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but when a government takes away over half of your income (if you include money from all the other taxes including state taxes) that's just not right. I don't care how rich you are.
You want $13 trillion of money to be flooded back into the U.S. economy instead of being in over-sea tax havens? Easy. Get rid of the income tax and enact the Fair Tax.
If you are talking about the supposed level tax.. It doesn't work you either overtax the lower class or under tax overall to which the government doesn't make enough money about it.. And I really could care less what you think, taxes are not about being fair.. They never were to begin with.. They were created to help fund the government as well as other beneficial things such as protect certain businesses etc..[QUOTE="-xPANICx-"]ignorance, bias, and hopefully sarcasm at its best. None. Ive worked in a mental health hospital and have seen some of the effects of excessive use of marijuana.no, you've seen the effects of chronically ill people who happened to use marijuana. its not a rare thing to see. your assuming just as if a cop would say the person was high on marijuana so therefor if he hadn't used it he wouldn't have gotten into a car crash. its bs bias and just people trying to give it a bad name. just as you did in your original post.[QUOTE="Big_Bad_Sad"] Any money gained from marijuana will have to be spent on mental health.Big_Bad_Sad
A value-added tax, or "Fair Tax" as it is so objectively referred to by it's supporters (note the sarcasm), is unrealistic without an income tax. A marginal value-added tax would be exceptional, provided the income tax rate either remains as is or is only diminished marginally. Only 40%!? You're blinded by your subconscious adherence to rigid Keynesian principles that have become ingrained within American culture. There is a reason why our average standard of living is so low compared to the rest of the post-industrial world. Anyway...I'll edit this later, my girlfriend is home.
It's a hit that we would have to take.[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"][QUOTE="trix5817"]
Because it will causes prices to rise on just about everything....
trix5817
Take an economics class. That's all I have to say. Don't feel like explaining this to you.
Not to sound rude, but I am an economics major. I could say the same to you. (Yes, I disagree with him too.)A value-added tax, or "Fair Tax" as it is so objectively referred to by it's supporters (note the sarcasm), is unrealistic without an income tax. A marginal value-added tax would be exceptional, provided the income tax rate either remains as is or is only diminished marginally. Only 40%!? You're blinded by your subconscious adherence to rigid Keynesian principles that have become ingrained within American culture. There is a reason why our average standard of living is so low compared to the rest of the post-industrial world. Anyway...I'll edit this later, my girlfriend is home.
YourChaosIsntMe
Wow. So much ignorance in one post. No, I am not a Keynesian whatsover. Far from it. They're the ones who got us in this mess. I go by what the Austrian school of economics says.
Our standard of living is not low compared to other industrialized nations. I don't know where you've gotten your facts from...
And no, it has been calculated that the Fair Tax would provide enough funds for the Federal government (but not the way it's spending right now, which it shouldn't be). Money in the hands of the private sector will create a much higher standard of living and wealth than the government can even dream of.
It seems like you don't even know how the Fair Tax works and what the details are. Read please.
[QUOTE="trix5817"]
[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"] It's a hit that we would have to take. YourChaosIsntMe
Take an economics class. That's all I have to say. Don't feel like explaining this to you.
Not to sound rude, but I am an economics major. I could say the same to you. (Yes, I disagree with him too.)That explains everything.
I'm sorry, are you implying that the opinions of lay persons developed through inconsistent subjective research devoid of third party criticism for said developed opinions is superior to those formulated through formal education? Of course you're not. That would be in contrast with logic and reason, wouldn't it? Your constant use of the phrase "Fair Tax" explains everything, dear. It places your bias and malleability on your sleeve.That explains everything.
trix5817
Wow. So much ignorance in one post. No, I am not a Keynesian whatsover. Far from it. They're the ones who got us in this mess. I go by what the Austrian school of economics says.Out of curiosity, could you explain the impact that the Austrian School has had on modern economic theory? There is no ignorance in my post - only objectivity. I understand that this concept is hard for you; it's hard for 90% of the people in this world. What you don't seem to realize is that the Austrian model shares many traits with Keynesian economics, and is also inadequate when applied unilaterally. Such heterodox economic theories are only applicable in concert with other major economic theories. You want to talk about ignorance? Ignorance is making a statement like "I go by the ______ economic theory." No economist supports one specific economic theory, because modern economic theory is an amalgamation of various economic theories, given the dynamic nature of the global economic system and sociocultural (or sociopolitical) circumstances. Furthermore, Keynesian economics did not "get us in this mess." Rather, an exploitations of the circumstances which a Keynesian model can create did. One of the primary problematic aspects of modern economics (or capitalism primarily) is a relatively unregulated laissez fair market system; this problem would not have been addressed by the Austrian model. Why? Well, I already gave you both of the simple answers to this question, didn't it? If you're informed on economic theory, you should know the answers already anyway.Our standard of living is not low compared to other industrialized nations. I don't know where you've gotten your facts from...
And no, it has been calculated that the Fair Tax would provide enough funds for the Federal government (but not the way it's spending right now, which it shouldn't be). Money in the hands of the private sector will create a much higher standard of living and wealth than the government can even dream of.
It seems like you don't even know how the Fair Tax works and what the details are. Read please.
trix5817
The next portion is interesting. I don't need to point out that you manipulated my words, do I? There are numerous metrics used in gauging the living standards of a given nation. The one most often referred to in the U.S. is incidentally one which is inadequate and inapplicable. Under various metrics used for gauging living standards within the post-industrialized world which are for more dynamic and allow for variability, and are thus more applicable, the standard of living in the U.S. is below that of other nations (such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Canada), something that GDP per capita doesn't reflect. If you are as well-educated as you imply, you should know this. I also didn't miss the fact that you said "industrialized," rather than "post-industrialized." "Industrialized" now includes China, India, and Brazil. Was that a mistake or further manipulation? Interestingly, you failed to use this statement as validation for value-added taxation.
It has been calculated? I'm really tired of the political bandwagons and the type of support that they cultivate. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul is an idiot that is more interested in his political career, libertarianism, and Midwestern pluralism than a rational consideration for fiscal and monetary policy. I have read two of his books, both of which I found myself criticizing consistently for the lack of cogent arguments and borderline fallacious reasoning, and most importantly, for the unrealistic assumptions that Ron Paul and his kind espouse. A pure value-added tax places too much pressure on CPI and the marginal propensity to consume. This is simply a fact. While this can arguably be effective as the sole means of tax revenues in theory, it is not necessarily an option when you consider the circumstances of the American economy, especially in the short term. The only realistic option is to utilize a value-added tax in tandem with an income tax, or reform and increase the income tax. While future circumstances may render the income tax obsolete, that is purely conjecture. In fact, these "calculations" you speak of are soundly criticized, and said criticism is well publicized. Do the research, and stop saying "Fair Tax." It usurps the integrity of any statement that you make, because it turns your ideas into little more than political sloganeering. I give you the product of my burgeoning formal education, and you respond with "No, Ron Paul and the Austrian School says..." Thank you, because I needed someone quoting an idiot and a reactionary fringe economic theory at me.
Yes, as an economics major, I don't understand value-added tax. A statement like that makes you sound confrontational, arrogant, childish, and self-righteous. Stop posturing and have a conversation. It may include polemics, but it need not be disrespectful. I understand the finer points, all of the little ancillary factors and implications that Wikipedia, Ron Paul, and political pundits won't be able to teach you about.
Would you like to know what undermines the validity of your ideas more than anything else? Your use of the word "they." Of everything you said, this word alone undermined the integrity of your statements the most.
I'm sorry, are you implying that the opinions of lay persons developed through inconsistent subjective research devoid of third party criticism for said developed opinions is superior to those formulated through formal education? Of course you're not. That would be in contrast with logic and reason, wouldn't it? Your constant use of the phrase "Fair Tax" explains everything, dear. It places your bias and malleability on your sleeve.[QUOTE="trix5817"]
That explains everything.
YourChaosIsntMe
Wow. So much ignorance in one post. No, I am not a Keynesian whatsover. Far from it. They're the ones who got us in this mess. I go by what the Austrian school of economics says.Out of curiosity, could you explain the impact that the Austrian School has had on modern economic theory? There is no ignorance in my post - only objectivity. I understand that this concept is hard for you; it's hard for 90% of the people in this world. What you don't seem to realize is that the Austrian model shares many traits with Keynesian economics, and is also inadequate when applied unilaterally. Such heterodox economic theories are only applicable in concert with other major economic theories. You want to talk about ignorance? Ignorance is making a statement like "I go by the ______ economic theory." No economist supports one specific economic theory, because modern economic theory is an amalgamation of various economic theories, given the dynamic nature of the global economic system and sociocultural (or sociopolitical) circumstances. Furthermore, Keynesian economics did not "get us in this mess." Rather, an exploitations of the circumstances which a Keynesian model can create did. One of the primary problematic aspects of modern economics (or capitalism primarily) is a relatively unregulated laissez fair market system; this problem would not have been addressed by the Austrian model. Why? Well, I already gave you both of the simple answers to this question, didn't it? If you're informed on economic theory, you should know the answers already anyway.Our standard of living is not low compared to other industrialized nations. I don't know where you've gotten your facts from...
And no, it has been calculated that the Fair Tax would provide enough funds for the Federal government (but not the way it's spending right now, which it shouldn't be). Money in the hands of the private sector will create a much higher standard of living and wealth than the government can even dream of.
It seems like you don't even know how the Fair Tax works and what the details are. Read please.
trix5817
The next portion is interesting. I don't need to point out that you manipulated my words, do I? There are numerous metrics used in gauging the living standards of a given nation. The one most often referred to in the U.S. is incidentally one which is inadequate and inapplicable. Under various metrics used for gauging living standards within the post-industrialized world which are for more dynamic and allow for variability, and are thus more applicable, the standard of living in the U.S. is below that of other nations (such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Canada), something that GDP per capita doesn't reflect. If you are as well-educated as you imply, you should know this. I also didn't miss the fact that you said "industrialized," rather than "post-industrialized." "Industrialized" now includes China, India, and Brazil. Was that a mistake or further manipulation? Interestingly, you failed to use this statement as validation for value-added taxation.
It has been calculated? I'm really tired of the political bandwagons and the type of support that they cultivate. I'm sorry, but Ron Paul is an idiot that is more interested in his political career, libertarianism, and Midwestern pluralism than a rational consideration for fiscal and monetary policy. I have read two of his books, both of which I found myself criticizing consistently for the lack of cogent arguments and borderline fallacious reasoning, and most importantly, for the unrealistic assumptions that Ron Paul and his kind espouse. A pure value-added tax places too much pressure on CPI and the marginal propensity to consume. This is simply a fact. While this can arguably be effective as the sole means of tax revenues in theory, it is not necessarily an option when you consider the circumstances of the American economy, especially in the short term. The only realistic option is to utilize a value-added tax in tandem with an income tax, or reform and increase the income tax. While future circumstances may render the income tax obsolete, that is purely conjecture. In fact, these "calculations" you speak of are soundly criticized, and said criticism is well publicized. Do the research, and stop saying "Fair Tax." It usurps the integrity of any statement that you make, because it turns your ideas into little more than political sloganeering. I give you the product of my burgeoning formal education, and you respond with "No, Ron Paul and the Austrian School says..." Thank you, because I needed someone quoting an idiot and a reactionary fringe economic theory at me.
Yes, as an economics major, I don't understand value-added tax. A statement like that makes you sound confrontational, arrogant, childish, and self-righteous. Stop posturing and have a conversation. It may include polemics, but it need not be disrespectful. I understand the finer points, all of the little ancillary factors and implications that Wikipedia, Ron Paul, and political pundits won't be able to teach you about.
Would you like to know what undermines the validity of your ideas more than anything else? Your use of the word "they." Of everything you said, this word alone undermined the integrity of your statements the most.
Do you want to know what undermined the intergrity of this post? The fact that you claim to understand what the "Fair Tax" is and it's details, when you think that I'm using the words "fair tax" as a synonym for "consumption" tax. The "Fair Tax" is the actual name given to a taxation system that would replace the income tax as well as many others, hence the reason it's capitalized. It is a type of consumption tax. If you want to know more details and actual understand what it is without leftist professors spewing biased BS out of their mouths, read about it.
And when did I once mention Ron Paul? He's not an economist. Like yourself, he just recites what other people tell him. Oh, and buy the way, Austrians predicted the mess were in right now. And no, they are not like Keynesians...
How do you expect me to take anything your saying seriously when everything that comes out of your mouth is just a recitation of what some "idiot" (to use your words) professor tells you is "true".
It's a two-way street buddy.
Wouldn't Fair Tax decrease spending? Given the higher increase in price of goods...Famiking
Wrong. There would not be an increase in the price of goods. With the Fair Tax, there is no more income tax on corporations and businesses. It's been estimated by economists that 22% of the money you spend on a goods goes to corporate taxes.
[QUOTE="Famiking"]Wouldn't Fair Tax decrease spending? Given the higher increase in price of goods...trix5817
Wrong. There would not be an increase in the price of goods. With the Fair Tax, there is no more income tax on corporations and businesses. It's been estimated by economists that 22% of the money you spend on a goods goes to corporate taxes.
The problem in today's society is that people are saving instead of spending. By increasing sales tax and abolishing income tax you are pretty much giving them more freedom to save. And since you'd have to have a huge fat sales tax to make up for the lack of income tax, price of goods would increase. And it's only 22%? That's not that much, y'know...trix5817Again, the "Fair Tax" is effectively a value-added tax (and flat tax). The deviation from the value-added tax is only marginal, and often exaggerated in political discourse. It is capitalized because it's a congressional bill, not because of what it entails. If it were simply a consideration but not a congressional bill, it would not be capitalized. You're still insisting that I read about it. I've been clear on this, I've probably read more about it than you have. You keep referring to it as if it is some complex consideration, which it isn't, at least not for an economist or aspiring economist. "It is a type of consumption tax." You're right. I don't understand why you would say this, because your argument is largely based on the assertion that it is far removed from a value-added tax. Are you implying that because it is not a stereotypical VAT, it is intrinsically different?
You're not an economist any more than he is. Why would you criticize one of the only prominent politicians that supports the bill? Anyway, you did not mention Ron Paul, but the Fair Tax initiative was one of his primary interests during his campaign. By supporting it, and especially through politicizing your support of it, support of Ron Paul becomes implicit (now, if you had avoided words like "left" and "they" my conclusions about your character may have been different). The left and the right? You're one in a million. I have already told you this once. If you wish to have a conversation about economics with me, you should remove the political implications.
You can't recognize the similarities between Keynesian economics and the Austrian School because you don't understand economics. You clearly believe that various economic theories are mutually exclusive in relation to what they propose. This is patently incorrect.
It's not a two way street, buddy. I discuss economics, and you commit slander and express polarized political opinions. Your only reasoning has been that I don't understand the Fair Tax bill and it's relation to value-added tax, and that anyone that I may learn from, be it a professor or The Economist, are idiots.You're arguing an assertion without validation (other than the fact that you personally believe in it), then you utilize ad hominem fallacies to disparage me, my professors, and the "scholarly" research/academic journals that I read (entirely on the grounds of politics), rather than actively responding to my assertions with consideration for your supported economic theory. Do you believe that this is what discourse involves? If you want to criticize someone, or even call them an idiot, you need to back it up with something more than your emotions. Also, to use my words? I was talking about a specific politician, while you're referring to members of academia in general. How do you see a correlation between the two statements? Likewise, f your opinions are not influenced by Ron Paul, then that criticism on my part is invalid and irrelevant.
By the way, the Editor-In-Chief of The Economist predicted this as well, and he's relatively Keynesian and Neoclassicist, as did many others that don't necessarily subscribe to post-Keynesian theories such as those espoused by the Austrian School. What the hell is your point?
Consumption tax, fair tax, left, they...
[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Famiking"]Wouldn't Fair Tax decrease spending? Given the higher increase in price of goods...Famiking
Wrong. There would not be an increase in the price of goods. With the Fair Tax, there is no more income tax on corporations and businesses. It's been estimated by economists that 22% of the money you spend on a goods goes to corporate taxes.
The problem in today's society is that people are saving instead of spending. By increasing sales tax and abolishing income tax you are pretty much giving them more freedom to save. And since you'd have to have a huge fat sales tax to make up for the lack of income tax, price of goods would increase. And it's only 22%? That's not that much, y'know... What you're getting at is the underlying problem with any type of value-added tax or flat tax (or Fair Tax) that exists without an income tax. It is too volatile, and requires a consistent marginal propensity to consume that remains above average, which isn't really realistic in consideration of long run economic expectations...ever.The idea that the Fair Tax or any value-added tax in general (with removal of the income tax) wouldn't raise the price of goods is simply absurd. Any government that has placed emphasis on a value-added tax sees the price of goods increase by roughly 10% or higher in the short run, and presumably the long run (this is a highly variable figure). The problem is that the people that drafted Fair Tax Act have turned into a political movement, which seems to produce an irrational response in people.
One thing that he touches upon, and which the Fair Tax Act addresses, is the transfer of responsibility for corporate taxation, which certainly needs to change. But this can be addressed in other ways, so it does not require the Fair Tax Act.
[QUOTE="CleanPlayer"]we could get rid of our debt by legalizing marijuana! bluezyAnd legalize baby-eating as a method of population control:roll:
wow two very high class activities
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment