Your Vision For America

[DiamondDave]

You call that fair?

No that's not really that simplictic fairness that you so strive for.

Childish fairness isn't that every dollar is taxed equally, childish fairness is that every person pays exactly the same amount of taxes regardless of income.

In 2007 every persons FAIR SHARE of the taxes would have been about $9,100.

A family of four would have owed $36,400.

Now THERE'S your childish FAIRNESS in action.

That solution, much like your flat tax is completely undo-able, but it does satisfy that childish concept of fairness that some of you are clinging to.

So then I guess flat rate sales tax is not 'fair'... I guess stores selling at a set price, and not a price based on your income, is not 'fair'...

No.... it is why it is a tax rate and not a tax lump sum..

Flat taxes are not undo-able... they are just not wanted by those who want a punishment of success.. .they are just not wanted by people who want something more at the expense of others.. they are just not wanted by those who only deem it fair when it benefits them...

Yet another lib that only wants subjective equality

 

[editec]

So then I guess flat rate sales tax is not 'fair'...

Oh if one thinking simplictically flat tax is just not fair enough.

I guess stores selling at a set price, and not a price based on your income, is not 'fair'...

You do? What an interesting theory.

No.... it is why it is a tax rate and not a tax lump sum..

Exactly, you want an UNFAIR tax where those poor rich people pay a different amount that those lucky poor people.

I just gave you a completely FAIR tax system and here you are (you commie!) rejecting it.

Flat taxes are not undo-able... they are just not wanted by those who want a punishment of success.. .they are just not wanted by people who want something more at the expense of others.. they are just not wanted by those who only deem it fair when it benefits them...

I gave you a truly FAIR tax. You rejected it. You are a fucking communist who hates rich people

Yet another lib that only wants subjective equality

Shut up, Pinko.

 

[Bern80]

No doubt housing is beyond the limits of any reasonable value and has been for some time now.

Housing only accounts for a portion of the problem. Daily living expenses and few viable means of employment that produce goods are a very large problem.

Some have yes, but as I said we need to find bottom. Gas I think could be considered a daily living expense and that has been cut by about 60% in the last couple months where I live. Which isn't a bad silver lining?

This is a portion of what this country is facing: Should a former Maytag worker take a three dollar an hour cut in pay and be expected to leave her family and go overseas for three to four months to train employees over seas? She and her husband both formerly worked for Maytag earning fifteen dollars and hour. Now her and her husband's jobs have been sent overseas. They need to support their family so she stayed on with the new Maytag owners (japanese if I recall properly).

If this is what you are all calling a free market I cannot go along with it. I do not imagine there will be to many other Americans that will either if they know fully what is happening.

Can things like that happen in a free market? Certainly. This gets back into the major philopshical debate we had about what an employers obligations to his/her employees are. I don't know how much we want to rehash that at this point. There are certain realities that we need to face however. We can't pretend that this isn't a global economy anymore. We can't dig our heals in and pretend we can keep every job in America IN America. To pursue that course of action would lead to our downfall.

I think free trade can work, but only if everyone plays fair. Right now the U.S. is kind of taking it in the ass. Europe and Asia have ridiculous tariffs on our products while ours our relatively lax on the things we import from them. Either we need to start playing hard ball back or we need to diplomatically engage with these countries to reach a fairer trade agreement.

I think placing certain obligations on the business that do still operate in America will ultimately harm them, which will utltimately harm employees. Things you have advocated such as that it is the obligation of all businesses to provide a living wage. This is where we disagree philosophically because the reality of such a position is that the burden of providing for you is now predominantly on your employer rather than yourself, which is simply wrong. Logisitcally it has ramifications I'm fairly certain you haven't considered (i.e. wouldn't that mean employers are not allowed to lay people off as economic conditions warrant?)

As to the indivduals. I have harped on you extensively about overly playing the victim. In this particular case that position would be warranted. Idealistically I believe people are obliged to understand and deal with risks of the choices they make. Ideallistically one could argue tough shit for these people. They chose a career path where they wound up working for Maytag, or working FOR somebody for that mater. Working for somene else runs the inherent risk that your livlihood is dependant upon the decisions of someone else. As a private business owner they have the right to run a business as they see fit. Some like the company I work for bend over backwards to protect their employees, some don't. At the end of the day your employer doesn't owe you anymore than what YOU agree to when they hire you. At the end of the day, sad as it may be, Maytag doesn't owe these people anything. Adaptation is what makes organisms stronger. The same is true of society. Those peole will either adapt through any number of measures like going work overseas for a time, or they could quit,take some unemployment while they find new job, retrain themselves etc. or they will fall to the wayside. We have a multitude of social programs in place to help people adapt, which I think are good and have no problem with.

 

[DiamondDave]

Oh if one thinking simplictically flat tax is just not fair enough.



You do? What an interesting theory.



Exactly, you want an UNFAIR tax where those poor rich people pay a different amount that those lucky poor people.

I just gave you a completely FAIR tax system and here you are (you commie!) rejecting it.



I gave you a truly FAIR tax. You rejected it. You are a fucking communist who hates rich people



Shut up, Pinko.

Yawn

We have a rate system... a wish to bring equality to a progressive/punishment based rate system is not being unfair... it is indeed bringing fairness to the % rate system... flat taxes are workable, doable, or whatever other term you wish to use... but the progressive/punishment system draws benefits from playing people and classes against each other, and the DEMs certainly love that

Remember that we are taxing portions of earnings... we are not taking portions of people... you tax, by rate, the earnings and spending... it is an income tax, not a a tax because you exist

 

[editec]

Yawn

We have a rate system... a wish to bring equality to a progressive/punishment based rate system is not being unfair... it is indeed bringing fairness to the % rate system... flat taxes are workable, doable, or whatever other term you wish to use... but the progressive/punishment system draws benefits from playing people and classes against each other, and the DEMs certainly love that

Remember that we are taxing portions of earnings... we are not taking portions of people... you tax, by rate, the earnings and spending... it is an income tax, not a a tax because you exist

You want a fair tax I gave you one.

You rejected it.

Communist

 

[DiamondDave]

You want a fair tax I gave you one.

You rejected it.

Communist

And you simply have no interest in how taxation is being assessed.. and you have no interest in doing away with a punishment aspect to the system in place for taxation on income by rate

You are indeed the one being childish.. while trying to declare the concept of equal rate taxation as childish

 

[editec]

And you simply have no interest in how taxation is being assessed.. and you have no interest in doing away with a punishment aspect to the system in place for taxation on income by rate

You are indeed the one being childish.. while trying to declare the concept of equal rate taxation as childish

You just want to rip off the poor rich people to help your loser friends.

The only truly FAIR TAX is one where every person pays exactly the same amount.

Communist!

 

[Skull Pilot]

You call that fair?

No that's not really that simplictic fairness that you so strive for.

Childish fairness isn't that every dollar is taxed equally, childish fairness is that every person pays exactly the same amount of taxes regardless of income.

In 2007 every persons FAIR SHARE of the taxes would have been about $9,100.

A family of four would have owed $36,400.

Now THERE'S your childish FAIRNESS in action.

That solution, much like your flat tax is completely undo-able, but it does satisfy that childish concept of fairness that some of you are clinging to.

fuzzy math Ed

children in a family of four don't earn income and would not be taxed on it.

 

[DiamondDave]

You just want to rip off the poor rich people to help your loser friends.

The only truly FAIR TAX is one where every person pays exactly the same amount.

Communist!

Again... it is not taxing on a portion of a person... it is taxation on income, money, the portion of the earning.... hence you are taxing the dollars earned... hence you tax per the dollar

 

[RodISHI]

Some have yes, but as I said we need to find bottom. Gas I think could be considered a daily living expense and that has been cut by about 60% in the last couple months where I live. Which isn't a bad silver lining?

Food si still double of what it was before the gas crunch. Diesel is still sixty cents a gllon higher even though it cost less to make. Propane for heat is still double. More people will lose their homes before the whole thing is over. The gas lower it is nothing more than a bandage on a gapping wound that is stilll bleeding profusely.

Can things like that happen in a free market? Certainly. This gets back into the major philopshical debate we had about what an employers obligations to his/her employees are. I don't know how much we want to rehash that at this point. There are certain realities that we need to face however. We can't pretend that this isn't a global economy anymore. We can't dig our heals in and pretend we can keep every job in America IN America. To pursue that course of action would lead to our downfall.

So in other words it is perfectly acceptable to take all of America's manufacturing overseas and tell the American worker FU. "Buy our shit because no one in your country can make it any longer. we already bought your factories and we are moving them overseas. Your government wanted to globalize your economy so lump it. By the way come train our workforce for us would you."

I think free trade can work, but only if everyone plays fair. Right now the U.S. is kind of taking it in the ass. Europe and Asia have ridiculous tariffs on our products while ours our relatively lax on the things we import from them. Either we need to start playing hard ball back or we need to diplomatically engage with these countries to reach a fairer trade agreement.

People do not play fair Bern that is why all the people get together and agree on a democracy by the people for the people. To many have already sold out and took their share and said FU to the rest. I declined to do that so I was simply removed from it by illegitamate illegal means. You have very few manufacturing type jobs left in this country because those who do not play fair took over long ago bern. What you are seeing today is the results of that philosophy of "every man for himself".

I think placing certain obligations on the business that do still operate in America will ultimately harm them, which will utltimately harm employees. Things you have advocated such as that it is the obligation of all businesses to provide a living wage. This is where we disagree philosophically because the reality of such a position is that the burden of providing for you is now predominantly on your employer rather than yourself, which is simply wrong. Logisitcally it has ramifications I'm fairly certain you haven't considered (i.e. wouldn't that mean employers are not allowed to lay people off as economic conditions warrant?)

I already told you I depended on myself to make my own living. Fact is it was stolen from me so do not for one minute tell me that I have no right to make a bitch and put it right back on the people who perpectrated the theft and assisted in taking my brothers and sisters jobs and shipping them overseas.

As to the indivduals. I have harped on you extensively about overly playing the victim. In this particular case that position would be warranted. Idealistically I believe people are obliged to understand and deal with risks of the choices they make.

You do harp bern no doubt about it.

Ideallistically one could argue tough shit for these people. They chose a career path where they wound up working for Maytag, or working FOR somebody for that mater. Working for somene else runs the inherent risk that your livlihood is dependant upon the decisions of someone else. As a private business owner they have the right to run a business as they see fit. Some like the company I work for bend over backwards to protect their employees, some don't. At the end of the day your employer doesn't owe you anymore than what YOU agree to when they hire you. At the end of the day, sad as it may be, Maytag doesn't owe these people anything. Adaptation is what makes organisms stronger. The same is true of society. Those peole will either adapt through any number of measures like going work overseas for a time, or they could quit,take some unemployment while they find new job, retrain themselves etc. or they will fall to the wayside. We have a multitude of social programs in place to help people adapt, which I think are good and have no problem with.

These are not organisms Bern they are family. These are the people that are working everyday together with each other trying to improve each others lives. Maytag does not owe them anything but the fact is their government does. They are owed some protection by their government and it has not been provided to them. No more than it was provided to me to stave off illegal take over attempts at my business so some corporate slob could keep telling his share holders what a good job he was doing for them while raking in an extra 20 percent for government contracts. It is not up to me or any other working class stiff out here to make a corporation profitable so these assholes can fly around the world in their corporate jets!!!

 

[Bern80]

You just want to rip off the poor rich people to help your loser friends.

The only truly FAIR TAX is one where every person pays exactly the same amount.

Communist!

Actually both would be true. But every person paying the same amount simply isn't feasible. Even I would submit the dollar figure that would be affordable for all probably would not be enough for government to function.

So we do the next most fair thing that yields enough for government to actually work with, which would be an across the board equal percentage from everyone. I am up in the air as to whether that should be in the form of sales tax or income tax personally.

I think what needs to happen is to start thinking outside the box. What is the REAL problem? The real problem to me is that the government (we'll confine this to the fed for the moment) thinks it needs x amount of dollars. So the first thing (which will be the hardest part) is for government to figure what it truly NEEDS to spend money on. Cover all of those things first. Then maybe the things that while they don't need to, are in societies best interest to provide, things from industry regulation, social programs, etc., but have some type of oversight in place where we don't go overboard. THEN things get easier, we have a number and all we have to do is figure out the simplest most equitable means possible of getting that money. If a reasonable number can be agreed upon start with the simplest means possible of getting to it. Will taxing x percent on all sales get us there? Maybe. That would eliminate all the loopholes, etc.

 

[editec]

And you simply have no interest in how taxation is being assessed..

I have every interest in how taxes are assessed.

You want to change our system to one that you think is FAIR.

I gave you the MOST FAIR tax system imaginable.

You rejected it.

Why do you hate rich people, DD?

Class envy, I expect.

Losers like you don't want to pay your fair share of the taxes.

Your FAIR SHARE of the 2007 tax bill was about $9,100.

And if you have kids their FAIR SHARE was also $9,100.

Why you insist that wealthy people pay MORE than THEIR fair share just because you cannot afford $9,100 for every member of your family is obvious.

You are a Communist.

 

[DiamondDave]

I have every interest in how taxes are assessed.

You want to change our system to one that you think is FAIR.

I gave you the MOST FAIR tax system imaginable.

You rejected it.

Why do you hate rich people, DD?

Class envy, I expect.

Losers like you don't want to pay your fair share of the taxes.

Your FAIR SHARE of the 2007 tax bill was about $9,100.

And if you have kids their FAIR SHARE was also $9,100.

Why you insist that wealthy people pay MORE than THEIR fair share just because you cannot afford $9,100 for every member of your family is obvious.

You are a Communist.

No.. you ignorant fuck..

Again... income is taxed.... not lump worth and not a portion of any person... income is derived in value by the dollar and is counted in increments by the dollar... hence you tax by the dollar, by the income of that dollar into your possession

You just cannot stand being pwned.. and have decided to try and save face by resulting to inane statements and trying to assert that I am comparable to that which I am diametrically opposed to..

Perhaps try and educate yourself about how we tax and what we tax... and then try and understand the concepts of communism.... then try and comprehend the ideal of equality in a given system...

 

[editec]

No.. you ignorant fuck..

Not so ignorant that I can't sniff out a commie like you, dude.

Again... income is taxed.... not lump worth and not a portion of any person... income is derived in value by the dollar and is counted in increments by the dollar... hence you tax by the dollar, by the income of that dollar into your possession

Yeah more of your fancy social engineering.

You don't want taxes to be fair, you don't want to pay your FAIR SHARE of the bills.

The only truly totally FAIR system, is a PER CAPITA tax.

Every person pays the same amount.

Everything else is just some kind of liberal commie plot to fuck over rich people and make them pay YOUR SHARE.

Perhaps try and educate yourself about how we tax and what we tax... and then try and understand the concepts of communism.... then try and comprehend the ideal of equality in a given system...

Why don't you go back to Russia, Commie?

You can screw the rich there by making them pay taxes based on some commie FLAT tax.

Us real AMERICANS, we who love freedom and understand what the word FAIR means, know that losers like you don't want to pay your FAIR SHARE.

A per capita tax is my modest proposal to solve this problem of the United States screwing over those poor put upon billionaires that YOU so obviously hate.

In 2007, in a FAIR SYSTEM, Bill Gates tax bills would have been $9,100 JUST like YOURS should have been.

What could possible be more FAIR than that?

 

[midcan5]

A1: The current tax is fair, as it takes from those who use the nation's resources knowledge and infrastructure the most

A2: Meaning what? That can could go from fascism to communism in the minds of some.

A3: Especially military spending but increase educational and people oriented spending.

A4: Or maybe build better smaller homes, and live sensibly.

A5: Waste of time not enough to do much given current needs.

A6: Trivial and already protected. Non issue.

A7: Only way to do that fairly is to tax fairly as this large and complex infrastructure costs money.

A8: The free market is the sole reason behind the bailouts, greed, stupidity, and money are a potent mix.

A9: Yes, and add to that children, the elderly, and the poor.

A10: And that money comes from where and contradicts the other silly suggestions from this naive site.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I would say the poor use government services the most. the rich put their kids in private schools, pay their hospital bills, don't use food stamps etc etc etc etc

 

[midcan5]

I would say the poor use government services the most. the rich put their kids in private schools, pay their hospital bills, don't use food stamps etc etc etc etc

That is caused by the bubble life, the echo chamber, the lack of thought. The DMS is being revised to include those under the spell of voodoo economics in the latest edition. Blaming the poor for everything is one of the major symptoms, you have a serious case and may need medical help. Good luck on finding your heart.

The Conservative Nanny State

 

[pegwinn]

I'm glad folks jumped on this thread. I wonder how many went to the site and registered and made their own lists. I noticed that some went after the wording of my set of priorities. I merely endorsed what was there. You can create your own, and debate them at the site. For example there are half a dozen "fairtax" priorities listed. I endorsed the one that I agreed with the most. If you make your own it will go into the mix to get voted on by others.

I would change replacing the income tax with a fair tax, to abolishing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

Great idea if we can cut spending.

not gonna sign anything that wants to protect gun laws when its those damn laws that are the problem

Interesting. Which laws are you talking about? Some are blatently anti-second amendment and others are not.

"8. Stop the Bail outs and implement free market solutions" What would these proposed solutions be?

Have the .gov get out of the way and let the consumer and darwin take their course.

That solution, much like your flat tax is completely undo-able, but it does satisfy that childish concept of fairness that some of you are clinging to.

Actually a flat tax is very do-able. My complaint with it is that your privacy and civil liberties are more at risk than with a sales tax.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not so ignorant that I can't sniff out a commie like you, dude.






Yeah more of your fancy social engineering.

You don't want taxes to be fair, you don't want to pay your FAIR SHARE of the bills.

The only truly totally FAIR system, is a PER CAPITA tax.

Every person pays the same amount.

Everything else is just some kind of liberal commie plot to fuck over rich people and make them pay YOUR SHARE.




Why don't you go back to Russia, Commie?

You can screw the rich there by making them pay taxes based on some commie FLAT tax.

Us real AMERICANS, we who love freedom and understand what the word FAIR means, know that losers like you don't want to pay your FAIR SHARE.

A per capita tax is my modest proposal to solve this problem of the United States screwing over those poor put upon billionaires that YOU so obviously hate.

In 2007, in a FAIR SYSTEM, Bill Gates tax bills would have been $9,100 JUST like YOURS should have been.

What could possible be more FAIR than that?

again.. you ignorant libtard

Income is taxed.. parts of income, parts of the dollars earned as income are taxed... not parts of a person or part of their things they own.... try and get it through your think libtard skull

The infrastructure, including roads, schools, etc are there for equal use and equal benefit... anyone can ride on any public road.. anyone's child can attend public school anywhere in the nation... nobody is there to use any more or any less.. equal access

again... try an understand how taxes are used and collected... and try and educate yourself what communism is

You are quickly becoming bobo-esque in your idiotic little rant on this

 

[Tech_Esq]

not gonna sign anything that wants to protect gun laws when its those damn laws that are the problem

No, you have to have some laws. You can't go around getting rid of ALL the gun laws, what do you want the old west?