Build Your Own Tax Policy

[5stringJeff]

So, exactly how does one get rid of the federal reserve?

Put the dollar back on the gold/silver standard, to start with.

 

[pegwinn]

Put the dollar back on the gold/silver standard, to start with.

Wouldn't that deflate the dollar quick, fast, and in a hurry? We'd have to trade em in at like four to one y'think? Chaos for how long you think? A year, maybe two?

 

[catatonic]

Yeah the Federal Reserve has lots of problems, particularly that there seems to be a mechanism whereby American money or the value thereof in products in services can be embezzled to foreign countries. Also, Greenspan was a liar.

Fair tax woes

1. What is taxed? Goods and services for consumption, but not for taking them out of the ground, as the wealthy are inevitably the highest bidder, not with stewardship of those who repackage them, but by the consumers who simply couldn't afford that land with those resources that were free for the wealthy but taxed on the consumers. All they have left is selling their own body, and there are already 2000 corporations doing that illegally because these poor are on their land which they feel gives them the right to harvest their organs (MSNBC for the 2000 reference; Donny Deutsch of all people).

2. Exactly what taxes are abolished? Just the fair ones and the estate tax. It replaces personal income tax, which we know would kill off half of America if it were flat today(hmm does that not make it a reform. Could this effectively destroy their badly needed opportunity the wealthy take from them (see my last post)?) estate (hey great then couples can buy homes and pass them to their two children, and no one must work; oh wait; didn't the Republicans try it with the wealthiest 5% who had no desire to spend that estate tax. Really now? But fair is fair estate tax removal works), gift (oh yeah look what happened to Lucent Technology. The stock was at 60 and had the most-cutting-edge, practical, useful, world-competitive technology and the CEO embezzled into the ground; the workers had to quit; it was the most actively traded stock so far today and now it's at 2. yeah so with unlimited personal gifts, you can basically give a gift to your most corrupt employee to take profits for himself and he can pay you back with another tax-free gift; because in God we don't trust?) capital gains (same concept, except now it's like that unfair monopoly rule that I can trade two houses on board walk and park place for 8 houses on the light blue and then trade back for no cost; not only will this create an unnacountable frenzy of gasoline expenditure, killing the poor who cannot then afford gas, but it's like charging double rent in monopoly. Since you all seem to love to bring up how much the top 50% make in income, when this money can be reinvested effortlessly with no tax to maximize rent of the bottom 50%, who have no say because they can't invest, that's just destroying all opportunity for the middle class and starving off the poor - oh I'm sorry, failing the hearts and lungs of the poor.), alternative minimum (yeah there certainly won't be that here), social security (humans are engineered genetically to not invest rationally, so this makes everyone but the 10% who get rich off everyone, making their investment worse, never retire if they can find work to survive). It's called the more you got the more you get in long-term stocks, and you get it from the got nots.
self-employment and corporate taxes (yes we just keep the goods and services tax of the corporations, the one thing they want since they trick you into thinking you should pay it when actually they make the good or service out of untaxed finite resources, and yes again all that's left for the poor is selling their own bodies).

How does the rebate work? Instead of guaranteeing the general welfare by guaranteeing an annual consumption available, like the commerce clause states, they have the audacity to limit your consumption and not guarantee it at all.

Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Oh yes. 'Coz it's not like they're going to start graying the issue. The answer is totally, as this is how the poor stay alive.

Is the 23% FairTax revenue-neutral rate higher or lower when compared to income and Social Security taxes people pay today? OMG it's lower. What a big surprise. Of course it's lower... this is all about small government which would kill large populations in big cities where it's already too small because it gets averaged by voters of which these guys are complaining about crosses on the highway and unnecessary speed limit signs while the big city guy is worried about getting jumped.

Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral? NO, but to be life and death neutral you better raise the unfair fair tax on the rich. That's just what our current tax system does, as money is a medium of exchange and since the rich take unfairly the poor have the right to charge them more for their stuff, which is also how they survive.

Does the FairTax rate need to be much higher to be revenue neutral?
It doesn't. Welfare and Libertarians are like protons and neutrons... they fly apart if government can't force them together. Libertarians never hint at some form of welfare; they don't want it unless they are about to need it, so there is simply no protection. And since their almost whole agenda is to take from the poor, it's obvious they want them dead. They no perfectly well I don't need to explain further.
No tax on the poor makes no difference.

Is it fair for rich people to get the exact same FairTax rebate from the federal government as the poorest person in America? OK! Geez! It's not the same! Percentage is not amount!

What about senior citizens, retired people, and anyone on a fixed income?
"Plus, seniors, like everyone else, receive a monthly rebate, in advance of purchases, for taxes paid on the cost of necessities which more than pays for all of the taxes they would pay if they received the average Social Security benefit " Gee, that's funny. What about the part where they pay for those necessities in the first place which costs 1/.23 times that amount to begin with.

How does the Fairtax help seniors who have paid taxes on their retirement savings or invested in Roth IRAs? Like it says, it doesn't. It doesn't help seniors.

How does the FairTax affect wages and prices? It creates an oligolopy by the corporate gains tax removal: the top 50% shift their money into whatever they like, creating unlimited oligolopolies a la shifting your houses on the monopoly board, exploiting the bottom 50% maximally, not minimally.

Why not just exempt necessities from the FairTax instead of providing for a rebate? Because that would make survival easier. Do these people have a clue what equity means. It means everyone is born equal!

Should the government tax services? Oh great, so now your taxed on selling your own body too which for many will be their last resort.

How does the FairTax affect income tax preparers, accountants, and many government employees?

As soon as people start losing jobs, many die.

What about the home mortgage deduction? This is the one good part.

What happens to charitable giving? 95% of charity goes back in the US and half a million are starving. What do you think happens to charitable giving? It gets worse.

Do corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax? Fairtax is not fair. It doesn't answer the question. Yes is the answer.
"The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. "

Tell that to the Democrats who create more jobs and more vibrant economies. Tell that to the 1940s.

The cruel hoax is that this nonexistent corporation can buy up all the more property, take the natural resources for free without oath or affirmation, and tax the consumers silly with the federal what this is tax that ought to be to them.

Does the FairTax burden the retail industry? Aw but you see the retail industry doesn't exist. People in the retail industry exist. And they get harmed.

How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax? State issue.

And when they say most states will probably choose to conform, they mean choose or suffocate economically from the competition.

How does the plan affect economic growth? I don't care if makes it 40% a year, I won't see a dime. Anyway they answer their question: everyone has to work harder and produce more (unless your these rich guys who simply bought the land so you could take its natural resources free in the first place; you don't have to work a minute.) That is the exact opposite of what is healthy. It will lead to massive mental illness epidemics from working harder and environmental catastrophes from producing more. That's the opposite of our goal.

What economic changes come at the retail level with the FairTax? Baby Boomer's are left to their own fate.

What happens to interest rates? Oh great the cost of borrowing funds drops. What can be done with it by the poor?

What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds? It says investors prosper greatly. Oh, you must mean foreign investors who have more to invest. Great way to sell our country to China.

How does this affect U.S. competitiveness in foreign trade? Great, we get a level playing field of 127 hour weeks, no environment protection, no retirement, and unemployment. And the loveliest part, any country with an ounce of a mixed economy must now compete with the cash part, so the whole world gets sucked dry; a few don't work and own everything (and try to tell me how us poor folk can buy their forest or oil field) and the rest are as low as possible.

What about border issues? What borders? You can't escape as what I just posted means the whole world gets forced into it (and by forced I mean otherwise they die so it's the whole world) by a few property owners.

Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax? Nope.

Can the FairTax really be passed into law? Yeah if you want to demonstrate on C-Span that its not an establishment of the religion of Satanism, and you want to destroy the "provide the general welfare clause" from the commerce clause, and you want to destroy the world government by abrogation.

What other significant economies use such a tax plan? Ah Texas and Florida, where there are huge crime rates in rural and urban areas both, because people no longer have the resources to buy the needs for survival. Oh and yes other civilizations that weren't nearly as highly populated (see my argument in how much taxes do liberals want me to pay) at the end.

What about the flat tax? Would it be better and easier to pass? Yeah, just cut out the pretending and make the poor working class unable to afford the opportunity the government must provide them to survive. That's your idea, right? Just do it that way.

Can Congress just simply raise the rate once the FairTax is passed into law?

Ha ha now they quote Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who was keen on a central government, what they want to fight here. Yes government increases with population density.

How does the income tax affect our economy? How does dragging an anchor affect the speed of a ship?

Oh I'm sorry for being the anchor that is the poor class. You can drown us in the ocean now and have your ship be tossed to and fro mercillessly by the wind and maybe it won't crash after all.

What do we experience in the transition from the income tax to the FairTax? The rich getting the first cuts, obviously.

Oh and lastly, they give homosexual couples in one household no limit on consumption but heterosexual couples a $24,500 annual consumption allowance. Fair.

Now I'm not saying all this will happen, but I am saying me and half of America have no way of stopping it legally once you pass fair tax. And why on earth do the wealthy need that kind of legal assurance. If overpopulation is a problem, this just becomes a hedge against what vagina people pop out of at birth, nothing fair about it if that's the game here.

And don't tell me overpopulation can be fixed by human ingenuity. What ingenius invention or discovery can you imagine to stop the overload of the earth's ecosystems.

No proofreading this time! Yes! By saying that I was able to remember to not get timed out.

 

[pegwinn]

[snip]

Fair tax woes

1. What is taxed? Here you answer your own question (I will highlight it in blue for you) and follow with an emotion laden discourse. It doesn't work for me. Too many assertions that you are in no position to prove Goods and services for consumption, but not for taking them out of the ground, as the wealthy are inevitably the highest bidder, not with stewardship of those who repackage them, but by the consumers who simply couldn't afford that land with those resources that were free for the wealthy but taxed on the consumers. All they have left is selling their own body, and there are already 2000 corporations doing that illegally because these poor are on their land which they feel gives them the right to harvest their organs (MSNBC for the 2000 reference; Donny Deutsch of all people).

2. Exactly what taxes are abolished? [snip]

How does the rebate work? Instead of guaranteeing the general welfare by guaranteeing an annual consumption available, like the commerce clause states, they have the audacity to limit your consumption and not guarantee it at all. It's a prebate. It levels the playing field. Can you source the commerce clause comment?

Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple? Oh yes. 'Coz it's not like they're going to start graying the issue. The answer is totally, as this is how the poor stay alive. Sorry. The prebate is paid in advance and is intended to offset the value of "need to have". Doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you need X number of calories to stay healthy. So the prebate ensures that you are reimbursed the tax on that food. But why should't we tax the additional food the wealthy purchase for lavish parties? Do you understand now or do we need charts and graphs?

[snip]

After that I realized you didn't want a discussion, instead you just wanted to get a message out. Fair enough. But, most hard headed folks like me will summarily dismiss your position if you don't have a way to back it up.

 

[catatonic]

I said at the end of my post this was a worst case scenario. But since it is possible, why pass the law to allow for it?

It's taking the control completely out of everyone but the richest... destroying all government... and leaving the fate of the world in the hands of those without representation and often without representation (because the poor do not decide who they are). That is the case in any scenario, and you know I've already backed it up.

Great. Because you'll never get much over 1% of the populace on your side, but you get elected behind the scenes anyway.
Great. Because the soundness cannot be disputed.

Here's how I back it all up.

What's to stop it from happening? Why do they need these laws if they aren't going to use them this way? History shows that when you move towards total capitalism, the divide between rich and poor always increases. Plus, when you lose your middle class, you lose your democracy.

You are allowing the investors free reign to move their money with total freedom and immunity to whatever they can invest in to make the rest poorer.

When some rich guy gets richer, they usually do it by taking from some poorer guy.

No smart guy dismisses that globalization creates a greater gap, punishes workers into demanding they be more productive and work harder, and creates more starvation. The guy who coined the phrase globalization was on Foreign Exchange yesterday saying just that.

What's the point of passing these laws if not to move as close to the effect I described as possible? If the rich wanted to help the poor, charity is already tax-deductible. They don't... they spend 95% of their charity in the US and people die from starvation/lung/heart collapse all the same.

Why would a rich person be rich if they didn't take more from the poor then they gave back to the poor, usually speaking?

This cheap law enables the rich unbridled freedom to get more rich, which, if the poor could really benefit from, would make passing the law inevitable.

 

[catatonic]

Yes I absolutely want a discussion, because libertarians always get elected behind the scenes. Well over 90% of them cannot ever win a debate.

Their general position has never once won in a debate anywhere. So it's obvious that you probably don't want debate and are trying to paint me as the one who doesn't want discussion because you will lose.

You said for food and medicine they get a prebate to buy their food and medicine.

What good is a prebate?
It's a refund of 23% on food they can't afford anyway. Since when have I not been able to buy my food or changed my mind on what to buy or bought less because the food was taxed? Never. Only a King of the Hill episode would suggest that garbage, when sales tax is intended to create opportunity for the poor.

And what kind of philanthropic garbage are you spewing by saying, we should tax the poor's food because if we don't we won't tax the rich's food???

Hello? There's plenty of food! Farmers are paid not to grow it to keep it cheap. We can genetically engineer fish to 40x scale already anyway.
It's hilarious that you would insinuate keeping a rich man from having a lavish party is more important then whether a poor man can afford the food he needs to survive. Is that how the rich see it? "We're generous because we're not making ourselves fat by starving others?"

 

[pegwinn]

We haven't met formally. I am Phil. I don't hide behind a screen name. Which means if you don't like something I say, you are free to track me down and come discuss it person to person. Not that I think you will or anything......

Yes I absolutely want a discussion, because libertarians always get elected behind the scenes. Well over 90% of them cannot ever win a debate. Since I am not a libertarian, what does this have to do with me?

Their general position has never once won in a debate anywhere. So it's obvious that you probably don't want debate and are trying to paint me as the one who doesn't want discussion because you will lose. LOL ok you keep believing that.

You said for food and medicine they get a prebate to buy their food and medicine.

What good is a prebate?

It's a refund of 23% on food they can't afford anyway. Who cannot afford it? Source? Any proof a'tall? Since when have I not been able to buy my food or changed my mind on what to buy or bought less because the food was taxed? Never. Only a King of the Hill episode would suggest that garbage, when sales tax is intended to create opportunity for the poor. So now it's garbage? And you complain because no one will talk to you.

And what kind of philanthropic garbage are you spewing by saying, we should tax the poor's food because if we don't we won't tax the rich's food???

Hello? There's plenty of food! Farmers are paid not to grow it to keep it cheap. We can genetically engineer fish to 40x scale already anyway.
It's hilarious that you would insinuate keeping a rich man from having a lavish party is more important then whether a poor man can afford the food he needs to survive. Is that how the rich see it? "We're generous because we're not making ourselves fat by starving others?" Nope, the prebate means we are taxing the cost of food above and beyond what is needed. Got proof of starvation in America?

Yeah, discussion went out the window. Feel free to go back and re-read what I wrote out loud. If you don't get it, then feel free to come back and ask intelligent questions. I will not engage in a flame war unless we exchange addresses. That way if it gets personal, it'll get waaay personal.

 

[catatonic]

proof of starvation - I gave 6 independent, noncircular proofs that went unrefuted that anyone at usmessageboard.com is reasonably capable of verifying in "How much do liberals want me to pay in taxes?". Mr. Conley claimed he would formally refute one the next day, and hasn't. By the way, the CDC wrote back and officially they do not track that kind of starvation in their reports. And when they stated this, they implied that such starvation existed. That is in fact, proof of starvation, and I can post the e-mail. I can dish out what I can incite... I can make you fat with 6 more independent proofs.

I have proved it by stating you can ask those at ground zero of it, which I said are food bank workers and volunteers with experience in enough states. I have done so.
The board has ignored it by not stating they would do this.
I have proved it by demonstrating the overwhelming problems the homeless face in getting employment and securing the cash they need for survival, the main cause being that companies are too snooty.
The board has ignored this.
I have proved it by showing from the white house's own website, that letting Democrat areas die in case of emergency is not beyond what the white house will go to for political gain, in conjunction with the fact that the government doesn't deny it.
Mr. Conley said he'd formally refute me the next day and didn't.
I have proved it since CDC doesn't cover it. They implied its real in their email response which I can post.
I have demonstrated it since I have shown that the media ignores it when usmessageboard members have implied the public wants to hear about it, like right in Sudan. They cover crime and justice, not mercy. They only cover mercy when its about justice against someone else.
This board has not responded.
I have proved it by a mathematical argument that is not Malthusian that as population density increases, the status quo will result in ever more starvation.
Said1 said she agreed with some of this argument, which is funny, because I state in the argument that it's a work in progress but the conclusion is undeniable, so you can't actually disagree with some of it.

If you are not Libertarian, this has to do with your support of the libertarian fair tax. If you argue for it, you will be arguing for a part of Libertarianism that I was refering to.

I don't wonder why nobody wants to talk to me here... everyone here replies to me... so why would I wonder that?

The commerce clause itself. "provide the general welfare", the colon meaning examples in order to forbid, say, shutting down the free press to promote the general welfare, which the free press fights.

Since when does a black man in Chicago dying to put food on the table say, "I wish there was less government?" He knows there'd be more crime and less opportunity for the poor, exactly why 90% of Blacks vote Democrats. Jews want enough opportunity for the poor, which I believe is the main reason they always vote Democrat. Muslims too. The New Testament and Book of Mormon for that matter warn (and its in lots of places in the New Testament) the place about Churches always and unceasingly getting more corrupt in our day, especially Revelations. So if you want to look at nondemoninational, nonchurch attending Christians I think they vote Democrat too. Every group that seems to not want these people dead either has their own service or would like a safety net, whether welfare or workfare.

The tax rebate may compensate for the cost of survival, but doesn't provide a means to survival. If you don't guarantee someone who wants to work a guarantee of survival, I predict you will lose to me with all the libertarians. If it levels the playing field, you ought to be able to demonstrate that nobody who wants and seeks survival responsibly will starve. All evidence for or against this in these two threads has been against it, and presented by me. The conservatives will not state evidence for it because they don't have any, and I state evidence against it because it is reality.

Corporate tax goes all to the consumer... no, it also can go to the investor whenever the company has fair employment policies and a high enough free cash flow they can't use.

So if the smoker was an adult independent when they started smoking, and they would do anything to quit now (that's what every smoker I've talked to about it has told me), and they are independent now, why don't we mean what we say and provide the means whereby they can be independent of smoking? It's cheaper than the welfare the cigarette company gets when we have to pay for their lung treatment. I can see your point, but it was not about my point.

The fact remains that whether or not corporations pay taxes, they tax everybody else like a bitch through anti-competitiveness and lawsuits to ignore externalities won by funding. They tax you and they get welfare from you, and that was my point.

What do you want my name and address for? If you have moral transparency, you will state your intent with it before and not after. I will state I have no intent to ever use your name and address against you unless you are going to violate society in a critical and major way in the future, for example by running for office on a corrupt platform or doing the same in the media, which is about the only case. If you want to report me to somebody on something, just tell me what to report and I'll do it myself and have them send you a receipt. Your name and address is otherwise useless and I probably gained nothing by it, and providing my name and address is just letting my guard down for no apparent reason.

Also how about cutting the claim that I'm not discussing with you? We are responding to each other's posts directly and fairly. If you can demonstrate what you mean by a flame of mine, I will comply, same as my offer about being a troll.

And if you really want to discuss with me my point instead of changing the subject, you said I had no proof of my statement you quoted. You quoted it out of context, because I said it was a worst case scenario and why I brought it up as a worst case scenario. In my response, which I would like you to address, I started off saying,

It's taking the control completely out of everyone but the richest... destroying all government... and leaving the fate of the world in the hands of those without representation and often without representation (because the poor do not decide who they are). That is the case in any scenario, and you know I've already backed it up.

This is what I want addressed most of all, as it was the point of my post.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Wouldn't that deflate the dollar quick, fast, and in a hurry? We'd have to trade em in at like four to one y'think? Chaos for how long you think? A year, maybe two?

Part of the difficulty would be determining how many dollars are in circulation. No one's exactly sure. Presumably, we'd take all the gold at Fort Knox and divide it by the numbers of dollars. I've heard estimates of $80,000 an ounce, currently it is $650/oz and climbing, as people and other central banks realize the dollar is doomed. Another problem--no one's sure exactly sure how much gold is left. Fort Knox has not be audited since the 1950's. gata.org has produced evidence of government sales of gold, presumably to keep the price down and mask one of the key indicators of inflation. If they're correct, we'll know eventually!

For reference, a 1-oz. gold coin used to be 20 dollars before 1913.