• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fair and Simple Tax Act. David Dreier

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't agree with any of those 3 areas.

moral - how is taking more from someone who earns more - "moral"? IMO, it's theft and/or jealousy.
It's been explained to you repeatedly that you have to choose to take it from the very wealthy or from someone else. You say that it's 'theft' from the wealthy, and by implication that it's not theft, that it's moral, to take from people other than the very wealthy instead. Not much of an argument.

pragmatic - IMO, the pragmatic way to do this is have a flatter tax/consumption tax as it allows for individual choices. This whole "wealth concentration" falls under the emotional "moral" arguement.
You dodge the issue of pragmatism, not even touching on the issues in my post, other than to falsely call the concentration of wealth issue 'emotional', which is not the case.

What a lackey you are for the ideology you are fed. I guess the desire for yet more wealth by the wealthy has no 'emotion' and is just good policy, while others are just 'emotional'.

Idiocy.

political - again, flat or consumption tax would take the politics out of the tax code to a certain extent. But taking your argument of the wealthy voting it's own interests is no different than you "poor people" peddlers trying to take more and more of people's earnings to redistribute.
IMO, the founding fathers were smart not to put a cap on wealth. They seemed to understand the idea of freedom from an oppressive gov't. They seemed to understand that people needn't be under the thumb of the gov't - which is what higher and higher taxation does to people.
Again, you call it 'redistributing' when it's one group and not another, when it's the government and not the private sector, more blind ideological flufffy nonsense from you.

You confuse the motivation of the founding fathers, which reflected the very different economic situation they were in.

While any sort of 'cap' is debatable, you are in fact praising the founding fathers for doing the pretty much the opposite of what they did. We always here those in your camp spouting about the 'government taking your money at gunpoint' for every dime you disagree with, yet the founding fathers are the ones who set up that very power of taxation - after having been too soft on their first try in the Articles of Confederation. They put people 'under the thumb of the government', while balancing that with the vote and some basic constraints on the government's power - constraints which liberals agree with at least as much, and probably more, than the right. The issue the right is arguing against isn't those basic protections, it's the very act of the government taxing backed up by force, whether indirectly with higher prices of goods from tariffs in their day, or more directly through income tax for the last century.

Your post is, sorry, just hot air, IMO, and so lacking in substance as not to be a discussion. You get the last word, next, until you can offer more for discussion.

I note in particular the lack of any answer to my asking if you will go read some books.
Wrong, I stated it was theft for the gov't to unequally take. In this case it is in the form of "progressive" taxation of labor.

Yes, "concentration" is an emotional issue and falls more on the moral side. You are assigning "harm" to this supposed concentration. :roll: I did not say the desire for more wealth wasn't emotional. However, who are YOU to say someone shouldn't be able to act on that desire? I do not desire the wealthy to have more wealth, but then again, I'm not obsessed with what others have so I won't impede them. It's their choice - not yours or the gov'ts.

So you don't think taxes are redistribution of wealth? :confused: Wow, talk about "
What a lackey you are for the ideology you are fed." :laugh:
I do not oppose taxation - I oppose taxation that is unequal and lacks choice. The founding fathers seemed to understand this...

BTW, I have no desire to read a book by a guy who basically promotes class envy. How do you like that shot? Nope haven't read his books, don't care too because I've read things by people like him. I would not even comment on it except you think you had to make a point of it. Likewise - I suggest you refrain from comment if you are only going to shoot the messenger like you did in this thread - which was my original point here.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: superstition
Pay people to cure cancer, and cancer tends to get cured.
I just have to make a comment on this, because we've paid a lot into cancer cure research, and all they ever came up with are very expensive treatments and therapies. So, greed ultimately trump all.

From a pure numbers perspective, people that make more will pay more taxes, regardless of what bracket they're in.

Just as an example:

Guy makes 160K will pay 4K+13.5K+3K = 20.5K

Guy makes 1Mil will pay 4K+13.5K+255K = 272.5K

What are you guys bitching about now?
The bitching has to to with the fact that many on the right want to reduce the progressivity of the tax system. So although the rich pay more - a lot more, they'll pay less more if our right-wing friends get their way.
 

superstition

Platinum Member
Feb 2, 2008
2,219
216
101
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: superstition
I prefer my one sentence version. ;)
No accounting for taste, but there is accounting for counting. It was two sentences.:)
Not really. The first sentence is all that one needs. The second merely helps to explain the "money makes money" part.

Also, people need to correct their quotations because I never posted anything about cancer.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wrong, I stated it was theft for the gov't to unequally take. In this case it is in the form of "progressive" taxation of labor.
The government is always going to 'unequally' take, if for no other reason than that people differ on what the definition of 'equally' would even mean - but even if not for that reason, than for the one that probably over 95% of Americans are in favor of some level of 'inequality' in taxation.

Yes, "concentration" is an emotional issue and falls more on the moral side.
No, it's not. Like pretty much any issue, it can have emotions occur with it, but it's not 'an emotional issue', other than in your propaganda. It's a factual issue, with effects.

Calling it emotional is merely your attempt to pretend you have shot it down without actually having anything to say of importance on the issue.

You are assigning "harm" to this supposed concentration. :roll:
Yes, that's an opinion that can be debated, not an 'emotion'. You apparently argue that there's harm in restricting the concentration. That, too, is an opinion.

I did not say the desire for more wealth wasn't emotional.
No, but you didn't try to pretend you had disproven the argument in favor of unlimited wealth (let's be accurate, the dispute is about unlimited wealth, not merely 'more' wealth, which both sides agree is good) by calling it 'emotional'. You display a double standard on the use of the word.

Now, let's watch you try to switch the topic from my pointing out your inconsistency, to you trying to put words in my mouth that I said people shouldn't be able to act on their 'desire':

However, who are YOU to say someone shouldn't be able to act on that desire?
I do not desire the wealthy to have more wealth, but then again, I'm not obsessed with what others have so I won't impede them. It's their choice - not yours or the gov'ts.
As I said, I'm all in favor of there being a certain level of inequality, which is productive for society. I'm against extreme concentrations of wealth that harm society, for the reasons I've stated. You are apparently so bad at political discussion, that the best you can do are weak, transparent attempts to misrepresent what others say so you can argue against straw men, such as the child-like fallacy that concerns about excessive concentrations of wealth are 'obsession' and 'jealousy' - you are lyijng and slandering with such statements.

So you don't think taxes are redistribution of wealth?
There's always an element of re-distribution, but it's not the primary purpose.

And it can be complicated to trace the effects. For example, universal healthcare for workers would also help the wealthy by cutting their business expenses for healthcare, through giving them a healtheir workforce, by improving the consumer base to spend more, and so on.

I do not oppose taxation - I oppose taxation that is unequal and lacks choice. The founding fathers seemed to understand this...
Your side frequently indulges in hyperbole by referring to any tax they don't like as 'taking their money at gunpoint', a phrase that refers to all taxation.

But let's take you at your word and discuss what you say - can you define "equal" taxation? Does that mean everyone pays the same dollar amount? Or the same percent of income? Income from all sources, including capital gains? How about exemptions for things like blindness or home mortgages? Why is your definition of 'equal' right over others'? Why do you defend shifting taxes yet further off the wealth, which is what most supposed 'equal' tax structures would do?

You keep trying to pretend the founding fathers are on your side, but you haven't even articulated any theory about this. What do you mean they 'understood' equal taxation?

And what do you mean by 'choice' in taxation, much less what the founding fathers did to agree with you about it? Are you referring to the 'choice' of purchasing under a sales tax?

Since when is 'choice' some essential element of a tax system? I'd think that that's pretty irrelevant, compared to it being efficient, 'fair', and so on.

BTW, I have no desire to read a book by a guy who basically promotes class envy.
You never get tired of spouting your straw man, do you?

David Cay Johnston is the Pulistzer-Prize winning tax reporter for the New York Times. His book is not promoting class envy, it's informing the read about our tax system.

Your passion for remaining ignorant is despicable.

How do you like that shot? Nope haven't read his books, don't care too because I've read things by people like him.
I think I answered the first question, but the second is no surprise, and reflects why you spout such ideologically-based ignorance.

I would not even comment on it except you think you had to make a point of it.
Yes, I make a point that you would benefit from getting a little idea what the hell you're talking about, and the point stands.

Likewise - I suggest you refrain from comment if you are only going to shoot the messenger like you did in this thread - which was my original point here.
I'll shoot messengers that deserve shooting, and he does. You STILL have yet to provide any evidence that the attack on the messenge was wrong.

And as you do constantly, you misstate the issue. The phrase 'shoot the messenger' refers to not wrongly directing the consequences for a bad message at an innocent messenger who had nothing to do with the message, instead of at the proper target, the source of the message.

In this case, Deier is not some innocent messenger being attacked, he's the CONGRESSMAN who is ESPOUSING the view himself. There is no 'innocent messenger' involved; it's not as if I blasted some newspaper who reported his comments. I'm blasting the policymaker himself.

The fact is you are implicitly asserting that he's some reasonable policymaker who is simply putting out a well-intentioned idea for discussion, and by doing that, you are in opposition to my claim that there is an entire industry - see the Cato Institute for one - around trying to reduce the taxation on the wealthy, who use propaganda institutes to create plans to try to trick the public, and they have agents like Deier who are charged with pushing them through our democratic system. I'm pointing out the pattern of behavior involved, that they put out countless variations of the same basic thing, plans to cut taxes for the wealth, with any color of makeup applied to try to sell it.

The thing is, my claim is correct, and denials are not. You don't argue with any facts, because of that - you have not answered my challenge to show me the (R) tax plans since GWB took office which do not cut taxes for the very wealthy, and stand up to scrutiny on that point, rather than parrot the lies of the Cato types who try to say that 'lower tax rates on the wealthy actually costs them more in taxes' and such other propaganda.

I'm saying that people like Deier have lost any benefit of the doubt to have their 'tax proposals' taken as if there was no history of putting out bad faith plans for the one purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthy. Since he acts as a paid agent for the very wealthy and behaves so predictably, as do his cohorts on the right, he deserves to have that said about him and not to have a 'clean slate' pretending his proposal might be something completely different each time.

You're so confused that you can't tell the difference between pointing out patterns, with claiming patterns for no reason; between shooting messengers, and shooting bad leaders.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: SSSnail
Originally posted by: superstition
Pay people to cure cancer, and cancer tends to get cured.
I just have to make a comment on this, because we've paid a lot into cancer cure research, and all they ever came up with are very expensive treatments and therapies. So, greed ultimately trump all.

From a pure numbers perspective, people that make more will pay more taxes, regardless of what bracket they're in.

Just as an example:

Guy makes 160K will pay 4K+13.5K+3K = 20.5K

Guy makes 1Mil will pay 4K+13.5K+255K = 272.5K

What are you guys bitching about now?
The bitching has to to with the fact that many on the right want to reduce the progressivity of the tax system. So although the rich pay more - a lot more, they'll pay less more if our right-wing friends get their way.
And many on the left feel that they should have what others have worked for.

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And many on the left feel that they should have what others have worked for.
I disagree. I think that's one of the most pervasive, misleading myths the right falls for.

The fact is, a lot of wealth is created not by something 'deserving', but by the structure of our system.

And yet, the right is often in the position of trying to equate someone who has a lot of wealth for no better reason than the exploitation of power, with taking candy from a baby.

This is the fallacy that time allows, since we have reduced the problem of the medival power structure, people forget what it is.

Did King George III 'earn' every cent in his name?

Were the elite of England, the nobility in parliament and the Hoiuse of Lords, who conspired with the crown to arrange for economic structures benefitting them, deserving of all the resultant wealth it caused? Is there something especially important about the fact that part of the scheming involved co-opting the power of government, such that the same types of abuse of power outside of government are perfectly ok, no matter how exploitave?

Are actions taken by the most wealth in our society today free of any wrong, in setting up policies and structures to increase their wealth?

And yet, you lump all issues with the policies together into 'wanting to take someone else's things'. How child-like in its simplicity, its naivete, as if the very wealthy get wealthy any other way than by finding ways to 'take other people's things', in part. These issues are more complex.

The worker is both the backbone of the economic system - and the guy who can be quite unreasonable, if allowed, with crazy union rules allowing him to cripple the economy with a strike and demand unreasonable wages. The factory owner is both an important part of the economic system, typically increasing productivity in the economy, and he's also the same person who can buy off politicians to allow for slave labor overseas to continue without interference and undercut wages at home, to increase his profits.

No one is voting to confiscate the mansions of the wealthy and use a lottery to award them to working stiffs - as you would see if your statements were true.

Rather, there are legitimate issues raised by the left which you choose not to discuss, but instead to merely try to dismiss with a fallacy.

That's the whole damn sum of your 'argument', which doesn't deserve the word. See the tiny line at the top of this post? There is it. 'Those leftists just want to steal'. Nonsense.

It's no more helpful to lump the left's position into 'they want to steal' than it is to whine about every tax with 'the government stole your money at gunpoint'.

If you can't have a grownup discussion, you aren't going to get very far with the discussion on these issues.

Posts like that one just serve to muddy the waters, not help the discussion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY