Equality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.



We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

---

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

---

How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

---

For the basis of clarification.

Income tax occurs currently. If I have money I have saved from now, that is post-tax money, and I have paid income tax on it. If fair tax were to be implemented and I go out and spend that money, I am being double taxed on it, no ifs and ands about it.

So while UnfairTax terminates income tax it doesn't do so retroactively and hence doesn't solve this double taxation problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

---

The person in example 2 defrauds the government and keeps the tax money for themselves. In an income tax model you are taxed on profits, so choosing to cheat on taxes is a matter of reducing profits.

In a sales tax model you are taxed on revenue, so the cheaters can easily drive the honest people out of business by offering far lower prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.

---

Lets make the math less messy on the example.

Person A charges you:

$1000 + $300 in sales tax for $1300 total and reports the sale properly and sends the amount on to the government.

Person B charges you:

$770 + $230 in sales tax for $1000 total and doesn't report the sale properly, and doesn't send the amount on to the government. On your bill it appears as sales tax, but it doesn't get reported to the government that way, they just pocket it. It also appears to you as if the government got paid and you have no easy way of knowing they haven't.

So by going with person B for better price for the same quality customers are driving person A out of business. Why? Because he was being honest on his taxes.

As for poker tournaments, the typical entry for big live events is $10,000 + $100. The entry fee is 1% of the prizes + television and spectator revenues. If they were to take 50% of the entry as fees the industry would die, because no pros could make a profit on that. Paying 23% of an entry fee out of the 1% taken is a rather difficult thing to do! I also dispute that 23% is the actual correct number. It's far more likely to be 30%+, unless you want to increase the deficit dramatically.

For every economist claiming that this tax does better I can give you nine who disagree. The problem is the analysis assumes a fraud free model. If there is no fraud in either model then the UnfairTax drives the economy more aggressively, by forcing unprofitable and less profitable companies to pay a larger tax burden, which includes making marginally profitable companies unprofitable, and resulting in companies that are struggling slightly, going outright under. If you assume the government isn't going to bail out any of these companies (pretty big if given the track record), then the ones that succeed can drive the economy. However in any model where companies are allowed to defraud the taxation, the economy is driven almost entirely by fraudsters bankrupting honest taxpayers. This leads to needing to raise taxation as revenues decrease and further hurts the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?

"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans

"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.

"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )

Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

---

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

---

You can't lose your car unless you have used it as colateral on a loan.

You can't lose a house unless it is involved in a loan.

So by anything you have you actually mean 'Assets not protected under the law'. And those assets are generally rather limited.

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

As to the legitimacy of that argument, if you think anything violating small government is bad you'll never be convinced. I will point out the countries with the smallest governments and no income taxes are among the worst off in the world. I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break. It's worked well since the 80's after all there isn't this authoritarian regime called China threatening to overtake the US as a superpower in the next 20 years.

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

---

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

Quote:

---

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

---

People are being forced to buy something they don't want, just because Congress, and the President, thinks they should have it. What's next? Will we have to pay a fine if we don't buy a GM car made by the government? What if we don't even drive a car? Do we still pay the fine? And this fine, if I remember, will be something to the tune of $350 per MONTH! Which means that the cost of the mandatory health care will be higher, no doubt. Can everyone here afford that extra $350+ per month? I know I can't!

Quote:

---

I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

---

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?

Quote:

---

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break.

---

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

---

I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

---

With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?

---

You are talking about a far more free market system than that of Britain, Canada, Australia, France or Germany yet you continuously try and compare it to the USSR. Doesn't that seem slightly disingenuous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

---

You're also not understanding the beauty of the United States. If you choose to live in Florida which is a "No Fault" state and feel as you do; that a person should pay restitution if they don't have car insurance - then you can simply pack up and move to a state that is NOT a no fault state. There are plenty of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.

---

applause

I SO agree!

We are being tricked into believing that redistribution of wealth is charitable...one cannot be charitable with another's money.

For the life of me I can not understand how you can harbor such a basic misunderstanding of what we are talking about. Especially when in the very message you respond to it clearly states the FairTax terminate income tax. Yet your claim of double taxation is based on paying income tax and the FairTax.
In addition to the income tax the FairTax eliminates:

• Social Security Tax
• Corporate Taxes
• All other payroll taxes
  
• estate
• gift
• capital gains
• alternative minimum
• Medicare, and
• self-employment,
  

Again THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

For the basis of clarification.

Income tax occurs currently. If I have money I have saved from now, that is post-tax money, and I have paid income tax on it. If fair tax were to be implemented and I go out and spend that money, I am being double taxed on it, no ifs and ands about it.

So while UnfairTax terminates income tax it doesn't do so retroactively and hence doesn't solve this double taxation problem.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

So the provider of the goods or services is defrauding the Government by charging a lower price for his product?
Um if he charges a lower pirce for hias product the tax is less and still gets paid.
That is in fact on of the goals of the FairTax, lower prices and bigger paychecks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

The person in example 2 defrauds the government and keeps the tax money for themselves. In an income tax model you are taxed on profits, so choosing to cheat on taxes is a matter of reducing profits.

In a sales tax model you are taxed on revenue, so the cheaters can easily drive the honest people out of business by offering far lower prices.

---

So you are taking the position that all business that currently charge a lower price are defrauding the States of their sales tax revenue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Lets make the math less messy on the example.

Person A charges you:

$1000 + $300 in sales tax for $1300 total and reports the sale properly and sends the amount on to the government.

Person B charges you:

$770 + $230 in sales tax for $1000 total and doesn't report the sale properly, and doesn't send the amount on to the government. On your bill it appears as sales tax, but it doesn't get reported to the government that way, they just pocket it. It also appears to you as if the government got paid and you have no easy way of knowing they haven't.

So by going with person B for better price for the same quality customers are driving person A out of business. Why? Because he was being honest on his taxes.

As for poker tournaments, the typical entry for big live events is $10,000 + $100. The entry fee is 1% of the prizes + television and spectator revenues. If they were to take 50% of the entry as fees the industry would die, because no pros could make a profit on that. Paying 23% of an entry fee out of the 1% taken is a rather difficult thing to do! I also dispute that 23% is the actual correct number. It's far more likely to be 30%+, unless you want to increase the deficit dramatically.

For every economist claiming that this tax does better I can give you nine who disagree. The problem is the analysis assumes a fraud free model. If there is no fraud in either model then the UnfairTax drives the economy more aggressively, by forcing unprofitable and less profitable companies to pay a larger tax burden, which includes making marginally profitable companies unprofitable, and resulting in companies that are struggling slightly, going outright under. If you assume the government isn't going to bail out any of these companies (pretty big if given the track record), then the ones that succeed can drive the economy. However in any model where companies are allowed to defraud the taxation, the economy is driven almost entirely by fraudsters bankrupting honest taxpayers. This leads to needing to raise taxation as revenues decrease and further hurts the country.

---

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

---

Your "citations" are without foundation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

---

My response to you is being curtailed as I do not think it will pass muster. Everything you needed is in the message.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lion

I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:


With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

For the life of me I can not understand how you can harbor such a basic misunderstanding of what we are talking about. Especially when in the very message you respond to it clearly states the FairTax terminate income tax. Yet your claim of double taxation is based on paying income tax and the FairTax.
In addition to the income tax the FairTax eliminates:

• Social Security Tax
• Corporate Taxes
• All other payroll taxes
  
• estate
• gift
• capital gains
• alternative minimum
• Medicare, and
• self-employment,
  

Again THERE IS NO DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil View Post
You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

---

Income taxes exist now. FairTax doesn't retroactively eliminate previous income taxes.

If I have money in the bank which I have earned and paid income tax on in 2009, and still have that money in the bank that is money that has already been taxed. If we switch to FairTax in 2011 and I spend that money then, I'm now paying 30% sales tax on money I've already paid income taxes on. Despite the fact that because of the switch there is no income tax in 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Your "citations" are without foundation!

---

If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

That will likely be no choice in the future if this stands!
You will receive the amputation, no choice!

---

As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

---

The instances you mention were not done by the federal government against the citizens.

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.

This is why America can have such a diverse population that gets along reasonably well. Those that hate guns can live in communities that ban them...those that are very conservative and believe in the constitution can live in communities that have those same beliefs. It's ironic that it's the constitution itself that allows the people who are against it to speak out and fight it.

Well the reasoning is sound. But that is a poor reason to object to an improvement in the tax system.
I mean the very thing you complain about in reference to the FairTax exists now. Everyday! In spite of what Harry Reid says the FairTax is a true voluntary tax! If Mr Nature did not desire to pay any tax, he need not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

Income taxes exist now. FairTax doesn't retroactively eliminate previous income taxes.

If I have money in the bank which I have earned and paid income tax on in 2009, and still have that money in the bank that is money that has already been taxed. If we switch to FairTax in 2011 and I spend that money then, I'm now paying 30% sales tax on money I've already paid income taxes on. Despite the fact that because of the switch there is no income tax in 2011.

---

And my point is that without specifics it is impossible to discuss the instances.
However, just because a court so rules does not mean the ruling is correct!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

If they were you'd be willing to discuss what's wrong with them, but as usual when you can't you just cry foul, and pretend everything is fine.

I was responding to a post where the original poster describe rights as inalienable things that can't be taken away, and defined privileges as similar things that could. And my point was that under these definitions the US can't really claim superiority, because the courts have routinely taken away the rights guaranteed by the constitution and various amendments.

---

The legislation is engineered in such a fashion as to increase the cost of insurance to a point that business can not afford to carry the burden. As has been demonstrated by the massive increases to business already reported.
Then there is the fact that the Government is to decide what MUST be covered and what the CHARGE for that coverage will be. As is the case with Medicare the Government decides what it will pay irrespective of the charges on the bill. When they have all private providers out of business that will extend to all. As Medicare has shown in spite of total control of the money paid in claims the costs of the program have done nothing but increase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

As you would say,

Your "citations" are without foundation.

---

Would it not be interesting to be able to experiment with the redistribution idea though. I think I can predict the outcome. All wealth is redistributed equally. Some buy new cars, some party, some save some, and a few invest, take risks, gain or lose. In the end two things happen. the investing risk takers employ many, have control of a large amount of the wealth, and strengthen the ecomomy, and those who did not take those chances, demand redistribution.

I think that is why I would prefer the fair tax

How do you get the nice colorful lettering?

Guess I figured it out.

Quote:

---

War protesters were jailed for "disturbing the peace" by getting too loud or disruptive, even though they might not have been violent. It is a state's right, or even a community's right to do that if their laws prohibit loud or disruptive behavior.

The same thing occurs with gun bans. The federal government cannot ban citizens from owning guns, but a community, municipality, state or county can do so. If the citizens don't like it, they can move to a community that allows guns.

The "piece of paper" you refer to prevents the federal government from dictating what citizens can and cannot do within the confines of what the "piece of paper" outlines.

---

The constitution does two things, It enumerates rights, and restricts government, and therefore is the most abused document in our land. I cannot imagine that in courts, presedent takes place over the constitution but it seems too. The only doucment a Supreme Court Judge should read is the constitution, but they seem to read it the least. It is so simple. The "Right of the People to peaceable assemble and petition the government for redress." I agree that the requirement for it to be peaceable is often misused in our system, but certainly a quiet presence and respectful manner cannot be disputed. Here it is plain that the right of the people means all citizens of this nation, at least, if not all people living in it.

"The right of the people,to keep and bear arms,shall not be infringed." Here we have a right the founders equally saw as a right of all Aericans, therefore no municipality or state should restrict it, these are rights given to all Americans. I would rather see the people who cannot be trusted with this right imprisoned, isolated, or even executed, prior to punishing the lawful citizen. If any regulations need to be placed on this right, the federal government should be the only one, and the restrictions, should be minimal, or equally placed on all of the rights of the people. Lose one you lose them all.

In the first amendment we have an intresting restriction, "Congress shall not..." Here is a restriction on government which has been so misinterperted. Its obvious from a simple reading the only one restricted is Congress. Not the states, or municipalities. Several States had state sponsored churches while the founders lived. The most basic thing would be that any restricton concerning the first amendment should apply to all ot its provisions, speech, religion, press, and assembly to petiton equally.

Sadly with courts on power trips, and our representatives more concerned for their adjenda's than the people they represent, I wonder if we will ever see that type of system. Constitutionally we should have a strong central government, but extremely restricted and limited. The true dynamics in American life should be provided at the state level.

The main reason I like the fair tax as a replacement for ALL other taxes is that it is taken at the lowest level of government, counties and cities. Then the State gets its cut, and lastly the Federal government, which only has a very few things constitutionally it is allowed to pay for, like national defence. I keep watching these comercials about the census, so communities can get their fair share. Reminds me of a prayer I heard once. "my name is Jimmy, now gimmy, gimmy, gimmy!" Under the fair tax the money would never have left the area to begin with. Cities would have the money they need to maintain their infrastructure, as well as the States. If you would then either use private companies, not municipal workers, to maintain these things the free market could control costs, and ultimately save money. If you are determined to use public employee's keep costs down by competition. For instance, if the Arizona Department of Transportation could repair roads in California cheaper than CalTrans, they should get the job, not caltrans.

By keeping the money locally, and passing lesser amounts up the 'chain' you empower the local municipalities, and then States, and lastly the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government should be strong but very limited to only those areas given it in the constitution. I'm not necessarily against the idea of universal health care, as my wife was a transplant patient, and we could have never paid for that surgery without SSI, I just think it should not be a legislative act, or the achievement of a president. Something that vast takes powers the constitution never grants the Federal Government. The only way it should be done is by Constitutional Amendment, a complicated, drawn out and intentionally very difficult thing to do, in order to protect the citizens from the rampages of power hungry controlling government.

Remember in some "free" western countries, you have to have permission from the police to move to a new neighborhood. Out of control Government is a continuous, unsatable monster, rampaging on liberty.

The only issue I have with the Fair Tax is that it still allows for Progression. "Tax this, but not this...this service should be taxed more than this one...etc." A Flat Tax doesn't allow for that. No matter where you fall on the economic scale, you pay X amount per dollar on your income...period. No chance for adjustments for this service, or that service.

The only issues I have with flat tax, is the institution of a coorperation with limited liability will be the sole prime benefactors, while all the rest of us who are not super rich will have our taxes nearly trippled to fill the void. So long as faceless corperations are being treated with all of the perks of "personhood" with none of the responsabilities, any such endeavor will do far more harm than good.

If each company was owned by individuals who are fully liable then and only then would I support a fair tax em all you want position. Though I am sure that has its own drawbacks.

As for a full on redistribution of wealth...smh..we havent ever even got close to that in the United States. In fact no one anywhere really has short of a few handfuls of hippie communes and the Hutterites.

Additionally I seriously doubt "global" corpperations of american origin or otherwise will ever allow the politicians that they own lock stock and barrel in several countires to take away their sacred profit margins.

Nor do I believe will the extremely wealthy individuals that are out there support any such endeavor, for they gain nothing by it.

Even the full blown "communist" countries failed to fully redistribute the wealth nor control its redistribution in any kind of productive manner in anything more than "theory" and that was the basis for their very rise to power on the ignorant massess proverbial backs.

Sadely...it is greed..imho...that ultimately rules the day when all is said and done.

Good point steelish, however that could be addressed. A fair tax is the only way to completely tax everything. The flat tax completely misses the underground ecomony, but with a fair tax, if a drug dealer, for instance, wants to eat, he pays the tax. Admittidly we would probably need some type of export tariff to get any tax value from exported items, but, if every comercial transaction is taxed, everyone pays for what they buy.

denuseri, corporations don't pay taxes anyway, that is just a myth. they raise the price of their goods and we, the comnsumers pay the tax they are charged. A fair tax is more honest, especially if you don't allow the tax to be hidden in the price of the goods. The income tax withholding was genius on the part of the government, as, even though you see numbers on your pay stub, it is not real to you, as you never actually have the money. In a fair tax, you could buy 40 dollars worth of goods, and be charged 56 dollars, which would make the tax very real. If it is that real, you have a stake in how it is spent, and by limiting your purchases, you could effectively limit a government that spends unwisely.

It should be set so that at an average year, the government breaks even. This would motivate government to save for a rainy day in good years, or have to make cuts in bad years.

Let me add one last thing to this. The theory that everything the government requires, the government should pay for, (vehicle registration, jury duty, etc...). this would remove the hidden taxes they sneak in on you.

lol Like I said corperations are not equals to us under the law.

So long as they exist...there will be no semblance of economic equality available to anyone.

On the other hand, who would provide essencial services, Government? Remember "Cash for clunkers." Government could not even manage that.


Look at California. Giant employee unions, who's demands have literally bankrupted the state, demanding more and more, while doing less and less.

Corporations are neither good nor evil, but competative. With a little amount of monitoring they would do much better than government.

btw Canyon, I have to say...I love your signature lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canyon

Look at California. Giant employee unions, who's demands have literally bankrupted the state, demanding more and more, while doing less and less.

Corporations are neither good nor evil, but competative. With a little amount of monitoring they would do much better than government.

---

It's much the same in the Postal Service. The unions are the biggest reason why it's bankrupt.

Case in point:
I work there part time. If I work even a single minute over 40 hours, the union dictates that the Post Office must pay the career employees (full time folks) overtime pay for every minute of overtime that I work.

That's not the half of it. Say we have two employees...A and B. If employee B helps out employee A, even if A asked for the help, a "grievance" can be filed and ANYONE who is trained to do the same job that the employee A is trained to do will get paid the amount of hours that the employee B worked while helping employee A. (Also, employee A who asked for help can also file a "grievance" so that he/she is paid for employee B's "helping" hours as well)

The irony abounds in the Postal Service. It's sad that the employees there do not see how it's dragging the system down, yet every day I hear them moan and bitch about how USPS is laying people off and there's a hiring freeze on.

Essential services?

Like Social Security and Medicare?

Like the Military and Police Departments?

Like the Fire department and in some countries all health care?

I think these can all be done quite nicely without having "corporate involvement".

(and btw I include Labor Unions in the same catagory as their corperate counterparts becuase , well historically speaking, one is a sympton of the other)

Just like they were done (and done quite well I might add) prior to the advent of the modern corporation or it's involvement in politics or its rise to hegemony over the world.

Greed need not be the sole motivating factor used to drive incentive...and one day I hope that mankind will find it a necessity to rise above it's strangle hold before we end up in another dark age or worse as we scramble to "acquire" control over the worlds dwindling resources.