that is correct, which is why you have other tax codes to supplement it. An excise tax isn't necessarily a tax on domestic products, it's just a tax on goods in general. Which is why alot of its opponents are against it.

All I know is that I'd rather have a tax on goods, and services than basing it on income. Again though, you'd have to shrink the federal government considerably to have it work. But since they've already created a federal committee to oversee piracy (a commercial problem), I think there are some cuts that can be made.

johnnyv2003

I like that as well, but i guessi still fail to see how you can create a tax on goods that is fair. If im selling an apple for 1 dollar, and taxing it 22%, the end price is 1.22 for whoever buys it, regardless of whether you make minimum wage, or 250 thousand a year.

But again, i admit my understanding of both the fair tax, and excise tax is pretty limited, and that probably shows.

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ron Paul's policies went out of style in the 1920s.

johnnyv2003

In favor of what? Wealth redistribution or Neo-Conservatism?

I like Ron, but...abolishing the UN? Reverting back to the gold system? Abolishing income tax? really?

Ok this stuff sounds all good and fun but let me explain, America cant feasibly execute these ideas.

Leaving the UN would only isolate America. Look at how much our economy relies on the economy of so many other nations in east asia, Europe… even Iceland. Maybe not directly, but Icelands collapse was a direct result of europes stock market plunges and so on and so forth. the cards keep falling. But by isolating yourself economically and diplomatically, youre only creating threats for America. I.E. Right now if China wanted to disrupt Americas economy, it has to slit the throat of its own first. It also helps regulate prices for resources that, lets face, arent always at an arms length in our own borders.

The gold standard was good, because it backed oru money up with something real. But realistically our economy is too big to be sustained by gold, and wouldn't be allowed to grow if it were. Now obviously there are issues with money being backed by trust, but that's a result of deregulation of the banking system, and ultimately a nationalization of the banking system. The current system is corrupt and flawed, but the gold standard is unrealistic.

Abolishing income tax sounds amazing, but lets be honest, the government needs that money. And instead of taxing people fairly based on the amount of money they earn, they'll tax people in other areas unfairly. (sales tax anyone?)

Actually, the Income Tax needs to be abolished. It should be replaced with the FairTax, which is like a national sales tax. And before you go on about how unfair (pardon the pun) the FairTax is, please do some research on it. I recommend reading Nearl Boortz's FairTax: The Truth.

Oh, and we already pay a sales tax. Economists estimate that 22% of the money that you spend on goods goes to taxes. Corporatations don't pay for their taxes, we do.....

I realize we have a sales tax, im just saying theyd raise it. Which is unfair because it doesnt take into account your earnings.

having an excise tax to supplement the sales tax would do the trick. Do you realize how many goods come into this country, and how many foreign countries rely on us? If we taxed those goods, you could easily shrink the sales tax.

I didnt know excise tax was a tax on goods that came into a country. I thought itwas goods produced inside the country. In which case i dont understand how that would help?

-And with the FairTax. Im really not too familiar with that, its pros or cons. The way i understand it is thati ts regressive in nature simply because the poor/middle class would be paying more. Iisnt it like people making under 15k pay less under the fair tax and those making more than 15k a year pay more?

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="helium_flash"][QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ron Paul's policies went out of style in the 1920s.

trix5817

In favor of what? Wealth redistribution or Neo-Conservatism?

I like Ron, but...abolishing the UN? Reverting back to the gold system? Abolishing income tax? really?

Ok this stuff sounds all good and fun but let me explain, America cant feasibly execute these ideas.

Leaving the UN would only isolate America. Look at how much our economy relies on the economy of so many other nations in east asia, Europe… even Iceland. Maybe not directly, but Icelands collapse was a direct result of europes stock market plunges and so on and so forth. the cards keep falling. But by isolating yourself economically and diplomatically, youre only creating threats for America. I.E. Right now if China wanted to disrupt Americas economy, it has to slit the throat of its own first. It also helps regulate prices for resources that, lets face, arent always at an arms length in our own borders.

The gold standard was good, because it backed oru money up with something real. But realistically our economy is too big to be sustained by gold, and wouldn't be allowed to grow if it were. Now obviously there are issues with money being backed by trust, but that's a result of deregulation of the banking system, and ultimately a nationalization of the banking system. The current system is corrupt and flawed, but the gold standard is unrealistic.

Abolishing income tax sounds amazing, but lets be honest, the government needs that money. And instead of taxing people fairly based on the amount of money they earn, they'll tax people in other areas unfairly. (sales tax anyone?)

Actually, the Income Tax needs to be abolished. It should be replaced with the FairTax, which is like a national sales tax. And before you go on about how unfair (pardon the pun) the FairTax is, please do some research on it. I recommend reading Nearl Boortz's FairTax: The Truth.

Oh, and we already pay a sales tax. Economists estimate that 22% of the money that you spend on goods goes to taxes. Corporatations don't pay for their taxes, we do.....

I realize we have a sales tax, im just saying theyd raise it. Which is unfair because it doesnt take into account your earnings.

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ron Paul's policies went out of style in the 1920s.

helium_flash

In favor of what? Wealth redistribution or Neo-Conservatism?

I like Ron, but...abolishing the UN? Reverting back to the gold system? Abolishing income tax? really?

Ok this stuff sounds all good and fun but let me explain, America cant feasibly execute these ideas.

Leaving the UN would only isolate America. Look at how much our economy relies on the economy of so many other nations in east asia, Europe… even Iceland. Maybe not directly, but Icelands collapse was a direct result of europes stock market plunges and so on and so forth. the cards keep falling. But by isolating yourself economically and diplomatically, youre only creating threats for America. I.E. Right now if China wanted to disrupt Americas economy, it has to slit the throat of its own first. It also helps regulate prices for resources that, lets face, arent always at an arms length in our own borders.

The gold standard was good, because it backed oru money up with something real. But realistically our economy is too big to be sustained by gold, and wouldn't be allowed to grow if it were. Now obviously there are issues with money being backed by trust, but that's a result of deregulation of the banking system, and ultimately a nationalization of the banking system. The current system is corrupt and flawed, but the gold standard is unrealistic.

Abolishing income tax sounds amazing, but lets be honest, the government needs that money. And instead of taxing people fairly based on the amount of money they earn, they'll tax people in other areas unfairly. (sales tax anyone?)

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Ron Paul's policies went out of style in the 1920s.

-Austin-

In favor of what? Wealth redistribution or Neo-Conservatism?

I like Ron, but...abolishing the UN? Reverting back to the gold system? Abolishing income tax? really?

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"]

[QUOTE="jointed"]:lol: at the reactions I got. Desperation much? ;) I'm not even American.jointed

Im not even conservative. Im just tired of people making comments attacking one side or other without contributing anything meaningful.

The topic was answered at the first and second page. And contribution is not the word you'd want to use as a standard when you're talking about OT's political debates, mate.

haha that made me laugh.

Aside from what was answered though, it doesnt mean a debate cant continue. :P

:lol: at the reactions I got. Desperation much? ;) I'm not even American.jointed

Im not even conservative. Im just tired of people making comments attacking one side or other without contributing anything meaningful.

Can't we get this over with already, so that these conservatives will quit their whining.jointed

Unless youre going to post something worth meddling over on your, im assuming, liberal ideas, than shhhhhhh....

[QUOTE="Buddha_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="septemberluc"]

Don't forget, McCain eventually hijacked the "Change" motto.trix5817

You avoided the question. I hear McCain speak of his change. I don't know what the hell Obama wants besides more taxes, national healthcare, and programs that do nothing but waste money.

How is making healthcare more affordable a waste of money?

More affordable is fine. That's the companies job, not the gov't. That's why it'll be a waste; that's all that the gov't has proven to us. They rarely efficiently spend money.

What have the companies proven to us? That they are good at filing for bankruptcy? I trust the government which is out for the benefit of the people over the companies that are just out to make a buck.

Exactly. The government is under judicial review in its practices. Private companies..not so much.

:lol::lol:

The government has waaaaay too much power. Remember, government are the only ones that can legally use force and legally kill. Government has the power to be coercive. Business don't. When government needs more money, they just ask for more. When businesses need more money, they have to actually work for you and try to get you (non-coercively) to give them your dollar. The Judicial system today regards the Constitution as a "guideline". It's become a joke.

Let me ask you this then. Are you going to, or will you ever, vote for a president? Because you make i sound ilke its pointless.

I agree with you the government has a lot of control, because theyve let the big corporations squeeze their way into their back pocket. But not ever politician wants to stab the people in the back.

And youd be suprised how big business can coercively get you to buy their product. Advertising is directly related to our biology, and what makes us tick.