[notamoocher]

He who says, "I am a self-made man relieves the Almighty of a tremendous responsibility." Is that what you're saying? Karl Marx? ...and there you go again. What "jesus" is suggesting, in reality, has more to do with the "Source" of all blessing, really, and some sort of ultimate "accounting" process. Progressive taxation is not communism or The Communist Manifesto. Your grasping, there, my friend. The government's taxation system of private individuals and enterprise is not government ownership, state-owned and operated industry and the like.

So the Almighty is responsible for all wealth. Then is He responsible for all poverty? As far as Marx progressive taxation was one of his 10 points. A government with enough power doesn't have to own it to control it.

[thecavemaster]

So the Almighty is responsible for all wealth. Then is He responsible for all poverty? As far as Marx progressive taxation was one of his 10 points. A government with enough power doesn't have to own it to control it.

"Blessed are the poor... but woe unto those who are rich now...." Spin it as you like, Pseudo Judaeo-Christian Consumer Culture Man, spin it as you must. Karl Marx also thought the diapers of infants should be changed. By your reasoning, anyone who changes the diaper of an infant is a communist. Give me a break.

[TheRealVille]

The same low income earners and moochers who pay no federal income taxes now would pay none under the Fair Tax. People who spend large amounts on luxuries would be hit the hardest with the tax. How does it favor the biggest wage earners? If as a middle income earner, I want to live in a tent and put all of my disposable income into stocks, I could escape the tax just like the moocher who refuses to work would. Do you believe that wealthy people would live in tents and forgo all luxuries to avoid being a taxpayer?

Who are those four highly esteemed economists on whose opinions you are substituting for real knowledge on the subject? Are liberal anti-capitalist hacks Krugman and Reich among them? Who are the other two?

I do not believe that the US,will ever adopt the Fair Tax because the IRS, tax preparation industry, tax lawyers, and other deep pocketed lobbies have too much influence on our corrupt elected officials and they have too much to lose if it ever becomes the law of the land.

BTW, many conservatives, such as **** Armey oppose the Fair Tax for various reasons. This is not a strictly liberal v. conservative issue but the liberal opponents generally just want to justify our current Robin Hood tax system.

The side here you are taking is exactly the same approach you were against when I supported higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol users. You were against it when I said the very same thing about them forgoing the tax if they chose, by quitting their vice.

[Hoot Gibson]

The side here you are taking is exactly the same approach you were against when I supported higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol users. You were against it when I said the very same thing about them forgoing the tax if they chose, by quitting their vice.

You are correct - this is the same, consistent approach that I take toward all taxes and regulation. "Sin" taxes supposedly punish people for engaging in legal behavior for there own good. Such taxes are extremely regressive because people with addictions to the targeted substances and behaviors are much more likely to be poor, undereducated, or mentally ill than Americans as a whole.

The fair tax treats all consumers he same. If people who can afford luxuries choose to buy them, then they are free to do so and they are taxed at the same rate as everybody else. The tax encourages saving and investment, which is also available as a choice to those who can afford it. Consumers create markets for investors, so either choice is equally moral and both choices are good for society.

The goal of the fair tax is to slash the cost of administering and complying with the current federal income tax while attracting both domestic and foreign investment. The tax would be less costly for the federal government to enforce and cheaper for businesses and individual taxpayers. There is no downside unless you are an IRS employee, a CPA or tax preparer, or a tax attorney. (There may be a few other losers but the Fair Tax would allow our economy to boom and absorb the displaced employees elsewhere.

The flat tax advocated by Armey, Steve Forbes, and many others would be a vast improvement over the current system, but as long as a federal income tax remains in place, politicians will always create loopholes for themselves.

Like I said, I would enthusiastically support the Fair Tax but the deep pockets of the tax lobbyists will never allow it to happen without a total collapse of our current economic system. Most opponents of the Fair Tax do not even bother to read the proposal for themselves (like you) and depend on some "expert" who agrees with them politically to tell them what to think about the issue.

(I do own two books on the Fair Tax, although I confess that I have read only one of them.)

[TheRealVille]

You are correct - this is the same, consistent approach that I take toward all taxes and regulation. "Sin" taxes supposedly punish people for engaging in legal behavior for there own good. Such taxes are extremely regressive because people with addictions to the targeted substances and behaviors are much more likely to be poor, undereducated, or mentally ill than Americans as a whole.

The fair tax treats all consumers he same. If people who can afford luxuries choose to buy them, then they are free to do so and they are taxed at the same rate as everybody else. The tax encourages saving and investment, which is also available as a choice to those who can afford it. Consumers create markets for investors, so either choice is equally moral and both choices are good for society.

The goal of the fair tax is to slash the cost of administering and complying with the current federal income tax while attracting both domestic and foreign investment. The tax would be less costly for the federal government to enforce and cheaper for businesses and individual taxpayers. There is no downside unless you are an IRS employee, a CPA or tax preparer, or a tax attorney. (There may be a few other losers but the Fair Tax would allow our economy to boom and absorb the displaced employees elsewhere. Luxury taxes punish people who can afford items. it's the same.

The flat tax advocated by Armey, Steve Forbes, and many others would be a vast improvement over the current system, but as long as a federal income tax remains in place, politicians will always create loopholes for themselves.

Like I said, I would enthusiastically support the Fair Tax but the deep pockets of the tax lobbyists will never allow it to happen without a total collapse of our current economic system. Most opponents of the Fair Tax do not even bother to read the proposal for themselves (like you) and depend on some "expert" who agrees with them politically to tell them what to think about the issue.

(I do own two books on the Fair Tax, although I confess that I have read only one of them.)

This could also relate to the luxuries you talk about. Smoking and drinking could just as easily be classified as a luxury item. You talk out of both sides of your mouth Hoot. With you, it all depends on which party supports it, even though it could be considered the same tax. Luxury taxes punish people who can afford to buy said items. Tobacco and alcohol taxes punish the person that uses them. Both classes can do away with the tax buy not buying said items. It's the same Hoot.

[Hoot Gibson]

This could also relate to the luxuries you talk about. Smoking and drinking could just as easily be classified as a luxury item. You talk out of both sides of your mouth Hoot. With you, it all depends on which party supports it, even though it could be considered the same tax. Luxury taxes punish people who can afford to buy said items. Tobacco and alcohol taxes punish the person that uses them. Both classes can do away with the tax buy not buying said items. It's the same Hoot.

No, targeting alcohol and nicotine addicts with specific taxes is not the same as levying a broad based tax that treats everybody the same. The Fair Tax is not an attempt to raise taxes on the poor to influence their morality. Neither are "sin taxes" but that is the excuse liberals use to impose these regressive taxes on the poor in this country. Our federal government should not be using the tax code to punish people for engaging in legal acts.

[TheRealVille]

No, targeting alcohol and nicotine addicts with specific taxes is not the same as levying a broad based tax that treats everybody the same. The Fair Tax is not an attempt to raise taxes on the poor to influence their morality. Neither are "sin taxes" but that is the excuse liberals use to impose these regressive taxes on the poor in this country. Our federal government should not be using the tax code to punish people for engaging in legal acts.

But they should punish people for having enough money to buy a yacht, and tax them more for buying it?

[Hoot Gibson]

But they should punish people for having enough money to buy a yacht, and tax them more for buying it?

People should be free to spend their money as they please. Taxes should not be about punishing people and causing them pain, whether they choose to drink themselves to sleep every night of sail a yacht. Taxes should be levied to support essential government functions and they should not target any subset of people. As long as smoking and drinking are legal activities, then you should have no right to punish people for partaking. It is all about power and control for liberals. Punishment should be reserved for criminals in our society.

[thecavemaster]

People should be free to spend their money as they please. Taxes should not be about punishing people and causing them pain, whether they choose to drink themselves to sleep every night of sail a yacht. Taxes should be levied to support essential government functions and they should not target any subset of people. As long as smoking and drinking are legal activities, then you should have no right to punish people for partaking. It is all about power and control for liberals. Punishment should be reserved for criminals in our society.

What about the societal "pain" caused by smoking? Is making sure black folks have access to corporately owned eating establishments an essential government function, Hoot? What say you? If only going to sleep were the real consequence of smoking and drinking oneself into a state of dis-health.... Shall we recite here the various maladies associated with too much smoke and drink? The exorbitant costs associated with treating same? Lost wages, lost productivity, lost consortiuum? What say you, Hoot?

[Hoot Gibson]

What about the societal "pain" caused by smoking? Is making sure black folks have access to corporately owned eating establishments an essential government function, Hoot? What say you? If only going to sleep were the real consequence of smoking and drinking oneself into a state of dis-health.... Shall we recite here the various maladies associated with too much smoke and drink? The exorbitant costs associated with treating same? Lost wages, lost productivity, lost consortiuum? What say you, Hoot?

Societal pain is caused when our elected representatives strip American citizens of personal liberties and relieve them of personal responsibilities. More taxes, more regulation, and more government is not the answer for societal ills.

[thecavemaster]

Societal pain is caused when our elected representatives strip American citizens of personal liberties and relieve them of personal responsibilities. More taxes, more regulation, and more government is not the answer for societal ills.

While I'm not sure you answered my questions, I agree with most of what you say here, though it seems peasant wisdom ("The skiff is small; the ocean is large.") I believe in a federal government strong enough to tell Woolworth's to let black folks eat at the counter.