War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[Andylusion]

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

So you are admitting he's a partisan. At least you said one truthful thing this entire thread. That nut case has been discredited so many times, and has said such outlandish unsupported, red herrings, that I had him placed on my ignore list, and clearly I haven't missed anything worth reading, given the fact no one even bothers to debate any of his non-stop puke.

As for you, and your immoral agenda-driven lefties, have been ranting about the same thing since Hoover. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

 

[Boss]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And who is stopping anyone in that 80% from owning more?

No one that's who

Why yes, I'll just go out tomorrow and hand over my 20 bucks for a NY skyscraper...

And therein lies the fallacy in your thinking if we can call what you are doing thinking that is.

Who is stopping you from increasing your net worth (your wealth)?

minimalism

realism.

it is unrealistic to think you cannot increase your net worth.

Wealth is nothing but your net worth that you think it's something like a skyscraper is moronic.

So a skyscraper if owned will not increase you net worth? If net worth was measured in shyts and giggles it would be a better world...

Idiot.

Why start with a skyscraper? Why not start by paying down your debt which will increase your net worth?

So answer my question who is stopping you from increasing your wealth (net worth)

After all that's what this entire thread has been about and none of you moronic sheep has answered that one simple question

 

[RKMBrown]

No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prefer the way consumption tax is handled in FL and TX we just exempt basic necessities like food products and medicine. Prebates will be spent on booze cigs and mj.

 

[Discombobulated]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

 

[Andylusion]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

 

[Andylusion]

Citations?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prefer the way consumption tax is handled in FL and TX we just exempt basic necessities like food products and medicine. Prebates will be spent on booze cigs and mj.

While I do see the value of consumption tax in theory, it's use in practice is less positive.

Thus far I've seen no evidence from around the world, that any country which moved to a consumption taxes, ended up with a consumption tax. Instead they end up with just... an additional tax.

Now at the state level, I'm all for it. States usually can't escape their constituency like the Federal Government can. So places like TN, NV, FL, and so on, can all be forced by the citizenry, to make a go of it without income tax.

But at the Federal level, I just don't see that happening. I'd put down a good wager that if we allowed the Feds to enact a national sales tax, it would be a matter of months, before the income tax would come back, and the sales tax remain. That's what has happened throughout Europe, and I don't want to see that here.

 

[Discombobulated]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

 

[RKMBrown]

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf


Adding up the Fair Tax

SUMMARY: Mike Huckabee says a national Fair Tax will be like a "magic wand." We say magic wands don't exist.

Critics of the Fair Tax are legion: The harshest say the idea is ridiculous nonsense; the mildest say it's an interesting thought experiment that can't work in practice. Few mainstream economists find the idea a worthwhile policy proposal for several reasons.

"At the end of this story, when you add in some state sales taxes, we could be close to 50 percent," Baker said.
Adding up the Fair Tax PolitiFact

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable

Why The Fair Tax is Unworkable Arnold Kling EconLog Library of Economics and Liberty


According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality
Money Magazine Just how fair is the FairTax - Sep. 7 2005

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prefer the way consumption tax is handled in FL and TX we just exempt basic necessities like food products and medicine. Prebates will be spent on booze cigs and mj.

While I do see the value of consumption tax in theory, it's use in practice is less positive.

Thus far I've seen no evidence from around the world, that any country which moved to a consumption taxes, ended up with a consumption tax. Instead they end up with just... an additional tax.

Now at the state level, I'm all for it. States usually can't escape their constituency like the Federal Government can. So places like TN, NV, FL, and so on, can all be forced by the citizenry, to make a go of it without income tax.

But at the Federal level, I just don't see that happening. I'd put down a good wager that if we allowed the Feds to enact a national sales tax, it would be a matter of months, before the income tax would come back, and the sales tax remain. That's what has happened throughout Europe, and I don't want to see that here.

States can't escape their constituency like the feds can? huh? Lost me there.

Sales and property taxes, in combination work very well. Much better in my opinion than income taxes. Income is easier to avoid than consumption and desire for property.

At any rate the real issue is spending not taxing. Cut the size of our government to the % of gdp that it was back in the Clinton era for example. Most government agencies can just be closed.

 

[RKMBrown]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

 

[Discombobulated]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

Oh I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[rightwinger]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

 

[RKMBrown]

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

 

[jillian]

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

Yeah an article by Robert Reich partisan hack extraordinaire.

he's just not one of *your* partisans. but i'll assume he knows a lot more on this subject than you and his opinions are more valuable than agenda-driven righties who have been ranting about the same things since Roosevelt.

And that's your opinion.

I 'll ask you how treating everyone exactly the same favors any group and is unfair but having different rules for different people is considered fair?

i'd say my "opinion" as validated by legitimate economists and not just rightwing rants, are pretty valid. if I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold to those opinions.

history bears out the failure of mises style Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. and a lot of people fought to right those failures. reactionary rightwingers still have the same axes to grind.

but you're entitled to your opinion, as well. the fact that you think you're not being partisan or only expressing opinion is where the problem is.

but have a great day. I have to get working.

We can discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax if you want.

But it is not an "unfair" tax by any stretch.

If you want to address regressive taxes try the payroll tax or the fact that the government is screwing people by taxing all the gains in their retirement plans as regular income and not capital gains.

There are a lot more egregious things going on in our current tax codes that are actually harmful that no one from either side ever address.

And I do not align myself with any political party so I cannot really be partisan. In fact there are things from both parties that I support and don't support.

I'd rather take that approach than a 2 dimensional either or right or wrong point of view that so many of you seem to hold here.

I'd rather see every person treated exactly the same than have the government make special rules for some and not others.

we can absolutely discuss the pros and cons of a flat tax. everything I read tells me it's unfair, though. I understand you disagree.

and everyone is treated the same way. the first $20,000 in income is tax free for everyone and then is taxed differently as one goes up the income scale. there certainly isn't anything offensive about our tax system except that someone who earns $100,000 in dividend income pays less tax than I pay on that same $100,000.

 

[jillian]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

no. and if you think that, perhaps a basic political theory class would help you understand what Marxism is and how it differs from democratic policies.

but thanks for playing.

 

[jillian]

You keep making these cryptic references to "Marxist Propaganda". Perhaps you can point out the operative phrases so everyone can know what Marxism really looks like......being your field of special expertise and all.

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

nice wingnut delusions.

 

[Toro]

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

Oh I get it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

It's the most intelligent piece of political commentary ever.

 

[RKMBrown]

There's nothing cryptic about Marxist propaganda. I understand some of you are too utterly stupid to realize what it is, you probably slept through history class... if liberals are still teaching history in public schools.

You can go to Amazon and order Karl Marx Communist Manifesto if you need a primer, or ask one of your more intelligent comrades, I'm sure they'd loan you a copy. OR... you can simply read the assorted memes we see here daily from the occutarded left, as most of it represents Marxist philosophy in a nutshell.

Now... Marxism has historically been such an unmitigated disaster when attempted, that leftist "intellectuals" have adopted the practice of naming it something else whenever they trot it back out. Pick a few peanuts out of the poo, make a few tweaks here and there, and present the same old Marxist philosophy by another name.... or sometimes, not labeling it at all, just blanket denials it is Marxism.

The entire 1% vs. 99% bullshit is almost verbatim Maoism, which is Chairman Mao's incarnation of Marxism. He managed to work people into a frenzy much the same as you cats are, over the evil capitalists who controlled all the wealth from the top. He sparked a revolution, came to power, killed the capitalists and took their wealth. He ended up having to kill over 70 million people before it was all said and done, and plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years.

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

no. and if you think that, perhaps a basic political theory class would help you understand what Marxism is and how it differs from democratic policies.

but thanks for playing.

Name one difference.

 

[Andylusion]

Okay... You said: "No CREDIBLE economist thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"
I ask you for a citation and you gave me a left-wing think tank writer who is of the opinion that "few mainstream economists think [it's] worthwhile." (a far cry from no credible economist period)
Then you give me Money magazine which admits MANY economists support the idea! (definitely a far cry from 'no credible economist period'!)

I did not ask you if there were some economists who didn't like the Fair Tax idea. I didn't ask you if there were left-wing bloggers who didn't like the idea. I didn't ask you if there were people who were skeptical of it. I asked for a citation to support your claim that "No CREDIBLE economists thinks the 'FAIR' tax works with it's numbers. Period!"

You have FAILED to present that!

He used the word "credible". I assume he doesn't mean "credible" to you, since you seem to think only rightwing think tanks tell you anything of value.

the reality:

The flat tax is a fraud. It raises taxes on the poor and lowers them on the rich. ... The rich usually pay a higher percent of their incomes in income taxes than do the poor. A flat tax would eliminate that slight progressivity.

Nowadays most low-income households pay no federal income tax at all – a fact that sends many regressives into spasms of indignation. They conveniently ignore the fact that poor households pay a much larger share of their incomes in payroll taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes (directly, if they own their homes; indirectly, if they rent) than do people with high incomes. ...

The truth is the current tax code treats everyone the same. It’s organized around tax brackets. Everyone whose income reaches the same bracket is treated the same as everyone else whose income reaches that bracket (apart from various deductions, exemptions, and credits, of course).

For example, no one pays any income taxes on the first $20,000 or so of their income... People in higher brackets pay a higher rate only on the portion of their income that hits that bracket — not on their entire incomes.

more at link:

Economist s View The Flat-Tax Fraud

You are talking about the "Flat Tax" and I proposed the "Fair Tax" which is not the same thing. My proposal is not based on incomes at all. It replaces income tax with consumption tax. Now.... Don't care who you are, you should have sense enough to understand the wealthy spend more consuming than poor people. Poor people would get a prebate check to cover their taxes on basic needs, so there would be no tax burden for them.

I prefer the way consumption tax is handled in FL and TX we just exempt basic necessities like food products and medicine. Prebates will be spent on booze cigs and mj.

While I do see the value of consumption tax in theory, it's use in practice is less positive.

Thus far I've seen no evidence from around the world, that any country which moved to a consumption taxes, ended up with a consumption tax. Instead they end up with just... an additional tax.

Now at the state level, I'm all for it. States usually can't escape their constituency like the Federal Government can. So places like TN, NV, FL, and so on, can all be forced by the citizenry, to make a go of it without income tax.

But at the Federal level, I just don't see that happening. I'd put down a good wager that if we allowed the Feds to enact a national sales tax, it would be a matter of months, before the income tax would come back, and the sales tax remain. That's what has happened throughout Europe, and I don't want to see that here.

States can't escape their constituency like the feds can? huh? Lost me there.

Sales and property taxes, in combination work very well. Much better in my opinion than income taxes. Income is easier to avoid than consumption and desire for property.

At any rate the real issue is spending not taxing. Cut the size of our government to the % of gdp that it was back in the Clinton era for example. Most government agencies can just be closed.

Well I thought that was obvious, but I'll explain.

State governments can't avoid the consequences of their actions, by simply having a more local voting public.

Say for example that a state passes legislation harmful to the Steel industry. When all the steel mills start closing... in fact, way before the steel mills start closing, the media in that state is going to have that splashed across the headlines, and the general public which would know employees of the mills, and even the media would be far more educated, having covered the mills for decades.

There is no way the state government could escape the wrath of their constituency.

Now the next state over, may think the legislation is great and wonderful, because their media doesn't know anything about the steel mills, and none of the public knows any mill employees. However... it doesn't matter, because State B, doesn't have anything to do with the policies and legislation of State A.

At the Federal level, things are completely different. You pass a policy at the Federal Level that harms steel mills. That legislation would affect State A, but not affect State B or C or D, none of which have Steel Mills. As a result, playing off the ignorance of the public in State B, C, and D, you can proclaim your policy a massive success, and only the people of State A, who actually have Steel Mills, know the truth. And the national Media, isn't likely to know any better, assume they are non-partisan enough to care.

You can completely avoid the wrath of the Constituency.

Take for example Nevada, and the Clyde Bundy deal. For a second, let's back away from that specific issue, and look at it with a broad view.

Many ranchers in other states have said openly, they don't support Bundy, and he should just pay his bills.

But nearly 85% of ALL land in NV are owned by the Federal Government. The highest of any state. Further, only a fraction of the 15% not owned Federally, is grazing land. Meaning a much higher percentage of Grazing land in NV is Federally owned.

Further, the Feds have been cutting back on Grazing rights in NV, supposedly to protect some wild turtle. An action that hasn't been happening in other states that don't have the stupid turtle.

Thus the population in 49 other states, that know nothing about cattle ranching in NV, are supporting policies that are harming people in NV, which they know nothing about.

And what exactly does the national media know about cattle ranching in NV? Or Cattle ranching at all? Or what effects Federal policies have generally in NV, when the Feds own 85% of all land?

Truth is... not much. And they don't care to, depending on their political bent. As a result, the vast majority of the public can support a policy, heavily harmful, and the Feds can get away with it.

You simply can't do that at the state level. Too many media sources that care about what's happening in their own back yard. Too many citizens know what's happening in their own areas, to be fooled by the national media.

 

[rightwinger]

So then no specific examples of Marxist propaganda, just sort of a generic knee jerk response.

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists