2

9/13/2008 11:32:50 PM

TOUCHDOWN DANCE

9/13/2008 11:36:20 PM

I would have liked to see us build an interstate highway, develop our military, develop nuclear technology, send probes to explore our solar system, and a great deal of other things without taxes.

I can't tell if eyedrb was joking, but I don't see how any reasonable person could think we could do away with income taxes.

Not to mention calling a "flat tax" fair. The flat tax is inherently UN-fair, otherwise you'd have more than a few fringe nutjobs advocating for it.

9/13/2008 11:36:36 PM

he's not saying do away with taxes. he's saying do away with income taxes.

btw, what is more fair than taxing everyone equally?

9/13/2008 11:41:13 PM

Quote :

"equally"

doesn't necessarily mean an equal percentage.

9/13/2008 11:44:23 PM

Moron, if we did away with the income tax completely, didnt replace it with any new taxes we would take in the same amount of money we took in the year clinton took office. We dont have an income problem, we have a spending one. I consider all the things you listed as being the job of our fed. And I bet we could fund them all without an income tax if we cut out the other BS they are doing that isnt their job.

How do you consider a flat tax as being unfair? Why does one deserve more of thier earnings than someone else?

I, personally, like the fairtax and think its the only thing that can stop the spending. Once EVERYONE becomes a taxpayer it will be much tougher to get shit passed.

Well moron, you already have such a small percentage of the population funding the country. We have over 300million, and only 140M taxpayers. Of those, the top 20% pay the largest portion of taxes. Fair?

here is an analogy of how this works. You walk into a bar on saturday night. The bar all votes to have you pay for everyones drinks. Now that fair, look at all the people who benefitted and you, well you didnt need all that money anyway. right

9/13/2008 11:44:52 PM

^^ umm, that would be exactly what it means. thx for trying, though

9/13/2008 11:46:59 PM

^^Maybe if you all could ever make an honest analogy, I'd take you people seriously.


^ I've discussed this ad nauseum. The fact is: 25% for a family income of $25,000 is not the same as 25% of a family income of $250,000.

[Edited on September 13, 2008 at 11:57 PM. Reason : ]

9/13/2008 11:55:06 PM

we all should be proportionally to what we use, which is why the fair tax makes the most sense.

9/13/2008 11:55:24 PM

embed plz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogKUx_q7ig


And speaking of Freddie Mercury:

8. Banning Gay Marriage: unconstitutional and blatantly political.

9/14/2008 12:00:20 AM

^^^^^^^ equally by what metric?

It's "more equal" to match tax rate to average cost of living, a concept our gov. (and most gov. on the planet) has understood since the inception of taxes, which results in a progressive tax.

Let's say it works out in our society that it takes $18,000/person/year to live, and the rest is luxury. For someone making $20k/year, in a "flat tax" of 15%, they pay $3k, which means they only have $1k LESS they need to live on vs. the average cost of living. While someone who makes $100k still has $85k above this margin. This "flat tax" pushes one person out on the street, while the other guy is not affected that much. Why not tax the guy making $100k a little bit more so that the poor guy can have at least the cost-of-living amount of $18k to live?

As you are probably thinking by now, that's why they propose a voucher with the flat tax (because even flat-taxers realize the unfair nature of a pure flat tax), which has its own set of issues. But at least it should be obvious to you know what a flat tax is not really "equal."

Quote :

" Moron, if we did away with the income tax completely, didnt replace it with any new taxes we would take in the same amount of money we took in the year clinton took office. "

Why is this a meaningful metric to you? The US had 25% less people than it does now back then, and in 1992, things were generally worse than they were when Clinton left office. So if you want to revert back to 1992, that's fine, but most people would rather progress than regress.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:03 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 12:00:21 AM

no, you dont want to look at things seriously boone.

Bird, correct. The fairtax treats EVERY citizen equally. The individual has the choice on how much taxes they pay through their spending habits. It also doesnt tax income. So you make 50k, you take home 50k, what you do with it is YOUR decision not the govts. It does away with ALL coorporate taxes which will encourage businesses to come here.. gasp.. and put people to work...double gasp.

It also benefits citizens, to get the prebate check, as opposed to the current system that rewards not being a citizen to avoid taxes.

I gotta laugh. Its amazing how much libs are for equality on one issue, but oppose it so strongly on others. Im for equality across the board. Where do you stand boone, moron?


Moron, I disagree with your flat tax affecting one more. Its simply unfair to say someone needs deserves more of their money than someone else. They have made decisions in thier life, but those arent the fault of others, which you wish to penalize. why? For me to say how much you need or deserve out of what you work for is morallly wrong, I dont care how you look at it. Surely you can see that view

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 12:01:31 AM

in your system, then, it should be incumbent upon government not to tax the piss out of it's constituents, then, wouldn't it? I'm all for it.

9/14/2008 12:03:03 AM

Quote :

"Im for equality across the board. Where do you stand boone, moron?"

I guess our already-stated stance is too mind-blowing for you to respond to?

Quote :

"and put people to work...double gasp."

Will we count people dealing in 25%-sales-tax-free black market goods as "employed?"

9/14/2008 12:05:37 AM

boone, ive seen no points youve made, just childish remarks.

People will be ducking taxes? Well shit, lets throw out the income tax then, if this is your measuring stick. LOL

You see boone, we pay the second highest coorporate tax rates in the world. Couple that with our high standard of living/wages and its damn hard to stay competitive in a global market. Now, not only reducing, but eliminating the coorporate tax will cause companies to come into the country instead of leaving it. savvy? (sorry just watched pirates)

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:11 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 12:09:03 AM

it's funny. Liberals argue that people will avoid taxation in the consumption-tax system, but they ignore how much people try to avoid taxes in the current system. of course, that is part of the point of the current system: tax the middle class into oblivion so the democrats can have an even larger base for their class-warfare politics

9/14/2008 12:09:38 AM

^yep, promise more programs, which we cannot afford, to get elected and push the costs on an increasing minority. "dont worry, you wont have to pay for it.. only the rich will." Thats how they pitched the first income tax, btw. You see where that got us.

9/14/2008 12:12:48 AM

Quote :

"The fact is: 25% for a family income of $25,000 is not the same as 25% of a family income of $250,000."

decreasing marginal utility, holmes.

Quote :

"but they ignore how much people try to avoid taxes in the current system"

I'd imagine it's a pretty small percentage of the population. At least compared to what it would be with a 25%+ sales tax.

But that's the point, though, isn't it? Create a system so unsustainable that the inevitable result will be to slash the federal government? I wish that just once one of you all would admit that that's the real goal of the flat tax, rather than any overinflated desire for equality. At least I'd be able to respect your opinion.



[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:17 AM. Reason : BUT FOR REAL. TOUCHFREAKINDOWN. STOP ASKING THE REFS TO REVIEW THE PLAY]

9/14/2008 12:16:07 AM

Quote :

"Moron, I disagree with your flat tax affecting one more. Its simply unfair to say someone needs deserves more of their money than someone else."

It is also simply unfair to tax someone below what they need to live, isn't it? Do you not agree that there is such a thing as the "poverty line"? Do you not believe that by averaging the cost of housing and food, you can determine what people need in order to live?

Quote :

"They have made decisions in thier life, but those arent the fault of others, which you wish to penalize. why?"

Do you think it is possible for everyone in society to be educated and have good jobs? Are all people that are poor merely a result of "bad decisions"?

Quote :

"For me to say how much you need or deserve out of what you work for is morallly wrong, I dont care how you look at it. Surely you can see that view "

How do you get around this with a flat tax of any kind though? By putting the poor and rich in to the same tax bracket, you inherently are telling the poor person they must work harder than the rich person for the same basic necessities. This is why there is always a voucher program proposed with those types of tax systems. I take it you are against the vouchers too?

9/14/2008 12:18:04 AM

Boone, Im a fairtax supporter. I would encourage you to read up on it. Its an inclusive tax, of which the cost of good doesnt have to rise at all. It all depends on how businesses spend thier tax breaks and lower costs of employment.

Moron, no. I do NOT believe that you can average what someone needs to survive on. If someone chooses to work, and if the market is allowed to work, people would have to earn a liveable wage inorder for one to show up. Moron, i feel that everyone has a chance to do whatever they want to. I dont think its fair to punish someone for being successful or working harder than someone else MORE simply bc someone didnt want to sacrifice, go to school, or work overtime.

Moron, the flat tax has a prebate. Why do I support it? Because EVERYONE gets the prebate. Equality. gotta love it.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 12:23:09 AM

moreover, eyedrb, taxation in its own right is not an example of the gov't declaring what you need. It is a matter of the gov't declaring that you must support it. Progressive taxation, however, is an example of the gov't deciding how much you really need.

9/14/2008 12:28:07 AM

exactly, which is why its being used as a political tool. I feel we get into trouble when we dont have equality across the board. Its laughable at how much resistance you get from dems when you mention that.

I firmly believe that even if they taxed everyone 99%, they would find away to piss away the money and still run a debt. If you tax it, they will spend it... and then some.

9/14/2008 12:31:08 AM

Quote :

"Moron, i feel that everyone has a chance to do whatever they want to."

An equal chance, or just a chance?

Also, how can you possibly think this? What would society look like if everyone had a college degree? Would would wait tables? Who would pick up trash? Who would drive busses?

Quote :

"Moron, the flat tax has a prebate. Why do I support it? Because EVERYONE gets the prebate. Equality. gotta love it. "

What determines the amount of this prebate? Doesn't this tell someone how much they deserve to make, which is explicitly what you're against? And if you calculate the tax rate post-prebate, you have a marginally progressive tax system. So congratulations, I welcome you to the world of rational people, you support a progressive tax.

Now you can start thinking about the disagreements that characterize our politics, in how exactly progressive the tax system should be.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:31 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 12:31:15 AM

Quote :

"If you tax it, they will spend it... and then some."

9. Republicans: not fiscally conservative

9/14/2008 12:33:21 AM

Quote :

"What would society look like if everyone had a college degree? Would would wait tables? Who would pick up trash? Who would drive busses?"

Those with the shittiest degrees

Quote :

"What determines the amount of this prebate? Doesn't this tell someone how much they deserve to make, which is explicitly what you're against?"

No, this says that everyone deserves the right have at least the bare minimum of subsistence. That's entirely different than saying "you deserve to make this much."

9/14/2008 12:34:33 AM

^ But eyedrb just said that you CAN'T determine what a minimum someone needs to live.

Quote :

"Moron, no. I do NOT believe that you can average what someone needs to survive on"

If you're saying, burro, that eyedrb is wrong, then I agree with you.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 12:35:47 AM

welp, that's his argument, not mine. I'm just saying that there is a marked difference between a progressive income tax which says "you only need 60% of your money if you make this much, but you only need 25% of it if you make this much" and a system which says "everyone must contribute equally, no matter what." And, for the record, I'd be marginally against any kind of "prebate," as well.

9/14/2008 12:38:52 AM

moron, dont act like your name.

an equal chance or a chance? seriously? You can choose what you want to do with your life. Guess what, not everyone wants to go to college. Its an amazing concept. Not everyone wants to go to med school. Not everyone has the ablity to be an NFL qb. But EVERYONE wants to make what they make, just without that trouble of working to achieve those levels. If somone wants to pay you 200k to wash his car, god bless you you lucky bastard. You shouldnt take home less of your income now. Just the same as if you want to work 60 hrs vs 32. Its your decision, live with the consequences. Why do you oppose equality?

The prebate is the check up to the poverty level. So the poor will not pay any federal taxes. The difference is that everyone gets the same amount, every month. So no one pays any taxes up to the poverty line. What you pay over that is up to YOU, not some politician. Big difference my friend.

Burro, the thing with the prebate, which is a good compromise, is that the poor wont be paying any of the new federal taxes up to the poverty line. They dont pay them now, they wont pay them under the fairtax. The difference is EVERY american citizen would get the prebate. So our govt would treat us all equally.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 12:39:56 AM

^ I feel like I have educated you. First you said:

Quote :

""Moron, no. I do NOT believe that you can average what someone needs to survive on""

Now you are advocating a poverty-line based prebate. Here's a wikipedia article on the poverty line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line

So were you just wrong 10 minutes ago when you said you can't determine what someone needs to survive, or did you just come to a new realization?

In either case, it's now clear, as I have always thought, that you haven't thought this issue out that well, and instead your opinions are based more on emotion than reason. I suggest you do some reading on the issue.

Quote :

"Guess what, not everyone wants to go to college. Its an amazing concept. Not everyone wants to go to med school. Not everyone has the ablity to be an NFL qb. But EVERYONE wants to make what they make, just without that trouble of working to achieve those levels. If somone wants to pay you 200k to wash his car, god bless you you lucky bastard. You shouldnt take home less of your income now. Just the same as if you want to work 60 hrs vs 32. Its your decision, live with the consequences. Why do you oppose equality? "

So what causes people to not want to go to school, or achieve their goals? Is it society, genetics, what?

9/14/2008 12:45:16 AM

I understand the stated reason for the prebate. I still think it is bullshit on its surface. You are telling me that I can make no income, buy nothing, but still get the prebate. I know it's farcical to suggest that I would buy nothing, but such a system represents a marginal transfer of wealth, and I'm not down with that.

The only reason I could barely get behind a prebate would be that it is given to everyone. But it's still bullshit. If we are gonna tax, then tax everyone, even the poor. The poor suck up government services, too. They should pay for them, as well. EIther that, or they should get no vote.

9/14/2008 12:47:31 AM

^ in that one post, you have spit on both the Constitution, AND the underlying principles of democracy.

9/14/2008 12:50:34 AM

not really. The Constitution originally said that only land-owners should be able to vote, and with good reason. We only later amended it to say that everyone could vote.

I'd argue that the main reason for the original restriction is that there should only be taxation with representation. If a man isn't taxed, he should have no representation.

9/14/2008 12:52:05 AM

Quote :

"So what causes people to not want to go to school, or achieve their goals? Is it society, genetics, what? "

Free will.


As for the poverty line. The poverty line is determined by our govt. Correct? I still do not believe any program or calculation can accurately determine what an individual needs to survive. I dont see why that is so hard for you to understand. Im not saying we dont have a poverty line, im saying you cant have an accurate average on what an individual truely needs to survive.

Again, you are missing the point on the prebate. The prebate is to insure that the poor/nonworkers, who pay NO federal taxes now, wont pay them under teh fairtax.. to a point. If they decide to spend more than thier prebates, they have now become federal tax payers. But the scenerio is equal for all. The choice is in the peoples hands, not the govt.

Im telling you that if you are bill gates or unemployed you will get the same amount every month. well burro everyone is playing by the same set of rules. If you choose to live well below your means, then you might not pay any taxes. If you choose to live above it, you will pay alot of fed. taxes.

9/14/2008 12:54:59 AM

Quote :

"We only later amended it "

Hence it has become part of the constitution. You realize the original constitution supported slavery too, so amendments aren't trivial.

9/14/2008 12:59:10 AM

no. The original Constitution was silent on the issue of slavery. It simply acknowledged its existence. you lose.

9/14/2008 1:00:11 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "So what causes people to not want to go to school, or achieve their goals? Is it society, genetics, what? " Free will."

So free will is what made Paris Hilton a millionaire? Is Paris Hilton more talented and hard working than you are?

^ Article 1, Section 2... YOU lose

9/14/2008 1:02:51 AM

ummm, that article, as I said, acknowledged the existence of slavery, as I stated before. Acknowledgment of existence is not the same as condoning. I acknowledge that murder exists. I do not condone it. you lose twice now.

9/14/2008 1:05:02 AM

^ It explicitly set out rules on how to tax slaves, which implicitly supports slavery.

9/14/2008 1:06:15 AM

no, it does not implicitly support it. If it said "here is how to get a slave," that would be a support for it. You are seriously failing American history here. The founders intentionally did not say one way or another how they felt about slavery because they could not come to an agreement on it.

9/14/2008 1:07:48 AM

I disagree, but in any case, whether you think it supported or acknowledged slavery, it doesn't make my statement that "amendments aren't trivial" wrong.

9/14/2008 1:09:15 AM

Her father sure as hell was. And who am I to tell him what he can or cannot do with his money?

Wanna make that kind of money, go start a hotel chain. Until then, just whinning about how much money others make isnt helping you get any richer. Oh.. thats right.. your voting for wealth. my bad.

Its my understanding that the south wanted to count slaves to help get more power in the House, the north didnt want to count them to keep the south from gaining more power. I think that is where the 3/5th started later.

Moron, you never answered my question about equality. Or did you finally see my point about a national average cost for survival. LOL

9/14/2008 1:10:08 AM

^ what question about equality?

9/14/2008 1:11:09 AM

Quote :

"1. Evolution: duh agree 2. Bush: bad President too early to know 3. Climate Change: happening, then anthropogenic happening was never in question, anthropogenic is still up for debate 4. Iraq War: not a great idea see #2"

sorry to have a fight in your black panther party

9/14/2008 1:14:06 AM

i'd say "happening" is still actually a question, dude.

9/14/2008 1:14:59 AM

^^ Bush has one of the lowest approval ratings (if not THE lowest) of any president, I can't see history deeming him a success.

You're right about number 4, American history books won't label a war we're involved in a failure. Even much maligned Vietnam isn't taught as a failure (at least I wasn't taught it was back in HS).

9/14/2008 1:17:49 AM

Quote :

"^ what question about equality? "

Quote :

"Why does one deserve more of thier earnings than someone else? "

Quote :

"Im for equality across the board. Where do you stand boone, moron? "

Quote :

"Why do you oppose equality? "

9/14/2008 1:18:31 AM

Quote :

""Im for equality across the board. Where do you stand boone, moron? "

As I have previously demonstrated, you actually are NOT for equality across the board, at least not as it was previously defined in this thread.

So why do YOU oppose equality?

I expect you though to either ignore what you just said, or move the goal posts on what you think equality is.

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM. Reason : ]

9/14/2008 1:22:38 AM

it is certainly arguable that a tax which is imposed upon all with a prebate that is given to all is an example of equality, whether you like it or not.

9/14/2008 1:25:45 AM

hahah, silly me moron. Here I thought equality meant everyone having the same set of rules.

But I guess since the State sucks ass, we should start the game with a 20 point lead.. for equality sakes. That your kind of equality? Fairness?

Equality is exactly how our laws and govt should govern. What you choose to do with your life is entirely up to you. You shouldnt have the govt pulling your strings or a politician, who youve never met, telling you how much of your property you need or deserve.

If ones goal for raising taxes was to simply increase revenue, then why not raise taxes across the board? Ah, but people dont like taking home less of their money, thats political suicide. So, now we draw the lines on what is best politically and not what is best for the country. And this sounds like a good idea for the country to you? come on man

[Edited on September 14, 2008 at 1:30 AM. Reason : .]

9/14/2008 1:26:45 AM

however, moron is suggesting that the prebate is an example of the gov't telling you how much you deserve, at a bare minimum. you've got to address that beyond a simple "everyone gets it" aspect

9/14/2008 1:28:58 AM