If you could, would you abolish taxes?

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: charrison

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

Well you don't have to buy certain things but you pretty much have to work so that's not the best comparison.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: charrison

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

Well you don't have to buy certain things but you pretty much have to work so that's not the best comparison.

Most states that have a sales tax, do not tax food and such. So I would say it is a fair comparison.

Taxing income does keep people from working. Take a family that could be 2 income, but by the time taxes and other expenses of working are added in, it is not worth it.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: charrison

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

Well you don't have to buy certain things but you pretty much have to work so that's not the best comparison.

Most states that have a sales tax, do not tax food and such. So I would say it is a fair comparison.

Taxing income does keep people from working. Take a family that could be 2 income, but by the time taxes and other expenses of working are added in, it is not worth it.

Well that's why the income tax should be designed to tax these people less

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: charrison

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

Well you don't have to buy certain things but you pretty much have to work so that's not the best comparison.

Most states that have a sales tax, do not tax food and such. So I would say it is a fair comparison.

Taxing income does keep people from working. Take a family that could be 2 income, but by the time taxes and other expenses of working are added in, it is not worth it.

Well that's why the income tax should be designed to tax these people less

The example I gave are often the higher income earners or ones that live in expensive areas. Making it easier, would only tax the "rich" less.

 

[digitalsm]

Id get rid of all regressive and progressive taxes, and replace them with proportional taxes that NO ONE, business or persons can get out of.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

That would put an unfair burden on the the lower wage earners and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. The only way this would be fair is if there is a sliding scale of credits given to low income people, given as a percentage of income.

This country ran for almost 150 without an income tax. Rmember sales taxes and property taxes are all voluntary, i e the consumer get to decide when and how much tax they are going to pay. INcome taxes are also a loss of free privacy and freedon for citizens.

Don't kid your self with this voluntary junk. You have no choice. If you want to purchase a service. You have to pay it. That's not voluntary. Everyone has to purchase goods and services, therefore everyone has to pay. All this does is require poorer people to pay a higher percentage of thier taxes versus wealthier people that don't need to spend all thier money.

For most items there would be a choice on how much and if tax is paid. I have little problem with food/basics being left off the taxable items.

So how does affect the amount of taxes paid in fact?

How will the tax burden shift? Remember if you do away with income taxes, sales taxes will skyrocket.

Most purchasing is done not by the wealthy, but on the middle and lower economic classes. At some income point, there is a break even point and from there up, most people of that income and up benefit. Those below it suffer. That might as well be the intent, because it's certainly the result. Of course it's good for the economy to price goods out of reach too. :roll:

It is they who will bear the brunt, who can least afford it. Unless there is some sliding scale, then the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer even faster.

The peasants have no bread, so let them eat cake!

Another regressive tax scheme.

And while only a few pay the taxes of this country, the rest will continue to vote themselves the treasury. The cost of goverment must be carried by in a fair manner.

Who's voting themselves the treasury? The last tax reform bill benifited the upper middle class to wealthy the most. I think they're quite capable of voicing their opinion. I'm sure most people would traded places with them in a heart beat despite the tax strife they overcome. And speaking from the upper middle class, I can tell you that the tax demands places on me aren't bad at all. I don't feel unfairly treated. But perhaps that's because I grew up poor so I realize what it takes to overcome socio economic disadvatage.

If you want to know who's voting themselves the Treasury, look no further than SENIOR CITIZENS and WELFARE BUMS.

The two combined take over one TRILLION dollars EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

Jason

Well, I would like to see some welfare and social security reform. Personally, I think switching SS so that it is a personal account is a fantastic idea that I would be willing to pay a little more in taxes now temporarily (to get the monket of the current system off our backs) so that we could make the switch. That will be a hard fight with the strenght of the retired people lobbying groups. It also won't wit well with people nearing retirement. This is the one thing that I really would like to see bush push through.

As for welfare. There is no denying that there is quite a bit of waste in the system. For example, an in law of mine recenetly lost his job and as such gets 6 months of unemployment. Is he spending the time looking for a jon... no. He's taking a 6 month vaction at our expense and plans on looking for a job at the end of the 6 months. There are people that honestly need the help. Maybe we should consider just giving out food supplies and low cost loans and not actually handing out cash. We could even make the loans no interest after you get a job. But obviously the current system needs massive reform.

Allthough correct me if I'm wrong but isn't welfare handled at the state level?

Switching to private accounts has no real bearing on those nearing retirement age(50 and up), it would only potentially effect those in the 30-50 age bracket. And even then, there likely wouldnt be an issue.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
[ ... ]
Your scare-tactic claims of the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer are in no way founded on reality.

While I disagree with much of your post, the part above is objectively and factually untrue. Charrison inadvertently provided a very helpful link in another thread that confirmed the poor are indeed getting poorer, and the rich are indeed getting richer. It is a very sad reality. ...

Just for the record.

You know, the vast majority of people I know fall into the "Poor" or "lower middle class" category. Largely this is because I'm back into college now and most of my day-to-day acquaintances and classmates are in the boat where we work during the day and go to school in the evening.

The MAJORITY of people I know own 2 cars, some 3. I don't know of a single person with less than 2 TV's or a computer, and probably due in large part to the nature of the curriculum (Game Art and Design) everyone owns at LEAST one game console and regularly picks up a game or two.

Mind you, these are people who are earning anywhere from minimum wage to maybe $20 an hour (and those are people who've been working IT for awhile; I'm a bit above that, but I've been in IT for a decade). So you'll understand when I say that I don't buy the "poor getting poorer" line. Yeah, we have PO' folk in the US, but our Po' folk live like KINGS compared to the people of most other nations.

Jason

College students aren't the working poor you moron. I've been to college and comparing a college student to the working poor is the most idiotic thing that I've ever heard from you. And that's saying quite a bit.

I think the only moron here is YOU. Yes, many of the students I go to school with ARE the working poor. Most are in their late 20's to early 40's, most have been stuck in crap jobs their whole lives and are making a break for a better life by going to school.

You're clearly a complete fvckhead who isn't paying much attention at all. If your definition of "working poor" is joe-dumbass who wants to raise 10 kids on minimum wage McDonald's labor and doesn't have the ambition to reach higher than the fry-basket, then I have two words about that: Fvck him. If you don't have the ambition to do something FOR YOURSELF I have NO DESIRE to help you at all, and YOU sure as hell don't have the right to STEAL from me to help him.

Jason

Non traditional students(those over 23) make up a TINY precentage of college students.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories.

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

Yes, yes, everyone is "moderate" - but that discussion is for a different thread.

Yes, lots of things can cause problems - that is not at issue here. What is at issue is your assertion that "This kind of system would create a communist, fascist, or a combination of both gov't..." Now please explain how a reasonable revenue collection system like I have outlined(one where people who use - pay) will somehow lead to a "communist" gov't. I've already addressed the fact that fascism is not caused by or inherently part of the revenue collection system. Now please - tell me exactly why a revenue system will cause communism. It's your argument - so please try to back it up.

Now as to your whining about not being left. Well, sorry to say this whole revolution concept is coming from the left and you are trying to use it, so don't whine to me for pointing out that fact. Also, I liked your little snipe about the spelling thing- when exactly have I done that to you?:roll:

Unfortunately for you - your "point" isn't being backed up by you. You have not linked revenue collection to the formation of communism- and no, it has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal - it's just that you haven't backed it up. Now please, stop the obfuscation and diverting and address your assertion.

CsG

I can't spell out the idea much simplier but I'll try again...

order of possible events...

1. put in place a system that creates a huge divide between rich and poor (more poor than rich)
2. wait a while...
3. the poor start to think they are getting hosed
4. wait a bit more....
5. reach a braking point and have a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism attempt to overthrow the gov't

a split in what happens...

a) the rich win out and enact a more or less fascist regime to suppress the pissed off poor
b) the poor win out and go for something quite communist since they are so disenfranchised with the uber-capitalism they've been force to suffer through prior


Now to get this straight I don't WANT communism - I'm just saying that it's possible that if you create a large enough divide that a series of events can happen to cause it to become the new form of gov't/economics.

Well, you are making quite a few assumptions but you still haven't shown how it would lead to communism. Sure, you can make the case under certain scenarios that it could lead to a revolution(provided what your first premise is true) - but that doesn't mean people would choose communism

Now taking your scenario and putting the revenue system I was talking about into it:
1. This would be pure speculation. Infact one could speculate that ANY revenue collection system could lead to this.
2. how long?
3. Is this unique to the proposed system? No. And also, how much prodding by activists would be involved for people to buy into this victim mentality.
4. how long?
5. Again, a breaking point could be reached because of many things and any form of revenue collection.

a) Again, fascism is independent of revenue collection systems. Also, this also relies on the faulty premise that the "rich" are out to screw the "poor".
b) There are plenty of things besides communism that could be chosen and infact they would choose a different form of capitalism, or different degree of it. However - this is merely speculation and has little basis in reality.
I'm not sure how you or anyone can predict that a communist form of gov't would be chosen even if all the other things in your scenario played out exactly as you suggest. What does communism provide for these people that would make it so appealing that makes you claim they would choose it if the revenue collection system I proposed were put in place?

I never said you did want communism, but you made the claim that the people would choose it. Sure, as I've said, your little scenario could play out but it would take every single assumption you make to play out exactly how you molded it and then people would have to find communism appealing over everything else.

Now again, it's not my claim - it's yours. If the above scenario is how you came to make that claim then fine - but you need to realize that you are assuming quite a great deal and basing it on some premises that are unstable at best. That's not what I'd back up a claim with but again - I didn't make the claim.

CsG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

Really bad idea. Property taxs encourages people to use their property which imporves the economy. Sales tax is bad for the economy because it discorages people to purchase items.

Congratulations, you won the most asinine statement of the day award. Property taxes strip a great deal of freedom from citizens as land ownership is no longer possible. When property taxes are levied, property ownership is no more than renting from the state. As result of this, people(most often the old folks) get taxed out of their homes, even though they "own" it.

Property tax is an added business expense, which will raise prices, which by your logic will reduce consumption. That is bad right?

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

This is exactly true. Many people are out taxed of their property, even when the state puts caps on the tax rate, because they then get around that by jacking up the value of the home 5-10% a year. There are plenty of people who have suffered from this.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No, just sh!tcan the entire political party system as it exists today and replace it with something that provides the basic services but doesn't have all the bloat the current system has.

 

[Cerb]

No. Taxes and regulations should be streamlined, reduced, and changed (I'm all for a big sales tax and nothing else), and the IRS' scope and powers reduced, but not abolish taxes.

 

[flyingdagger]

From my economics class, a lot of services are impossible to be provided by private companies..that is why taxes are needed. Imagine who would spend the money to fix the road if it is hard for people pay for the usuage.

 

[digitalsm]

I dont know why both sides insist on progressive or regressive taxes.

Its all about fairness, and that means its all about proportional taxes.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories.

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

Yes, yes, everyone is "moderate" - but that discussion is for a different thread.

Yes, lots of things can cause problems - that is not at issue here. What is at issue is your assertion that "This kind of system would create a communist, fascist, or a combination of both gov't..." Now please explain how a reasonable revenue collection system like I have outlined(one where people who use - pay) will somehow lead to a "communist" gov't. I've already addressed the fact that fascism is not caused by or inherently part of the revenue collection system. Now please - tell me exactly why a revenue system will cause communism. It's your argument - so please try to back it up.

Now as to your whining about not being left. Well, sorry to say this whole revolution concept is coming from the left and you are trying to use it, so don't whine to me for pointing out that fact. Also, I liked your little snipe about the spelling thing- when exactly have I done that to you?:roll:

Unfortunately for you - your "point" isn't being backed up by you. You have not linked revenue collection to the formation of communism- and no, it has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal - it's just that you haven't backed it up. Now please, stop the obfuscation and diverting and address your assertion.

CsG

I can't spell out the idea much simplier but I'll try again...

order of possible events...

1. put in place a system that creates a huge divide between rich and poor (more poor than rich)
2. wait a while...
3. the poor start to think they are getting hosed
4. wait a bit more....
5. reach a braking point and have a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism attempt to overthrow the gov't

a split in what happens...

a) the rich win out and enact a more or less fascist regime to suppress the pissed off poor
b) the poor win out and go for something quite communist since they are so disenfranchised with the uber-capitalism they've been force to suffer through prior


Now to get this straight I don't WANT communism - I'm just saying that it's possible that if you create a large enough divide that a series of events can happen to cause it to become the new form of gov't/economics.

Well, you are making quite a few assumptions but you still haven't shown how it would lead to communism. Sure, you can make the case under certain scenarios that it could lead to a revolution(provided what your first premise is true) - but that doesn't mean people would choose communism

Now taking your scenario and putting the revenue system I was talking about into it:
1. This would be pure speculation. Infact one could speculate that ANY revenue collection system could lead to this.
2. how long?
3. Is this unique to the proposed system? No. And also, how much prodding by activists would be involved for people to buy into this victim mentality.
4. how long?
5. Again, a breaking point could be reached because of many things and any form of revenue collection.

a) Again, fascism is independent of revenue collection systems. Also, this also relies on the faulty premise that the "rich" are out to screw the "poor".
b) There are plenty of things besides communism that could be chosen and infact they would choose a different form of capitalism, or different degree of it. However - this is merely speculation and has little basis in reality.
I'm not sure how you or anyone can predict that a communist form of gov't would be chosen even if all the other things in your scenario played out exactly as you suggest. What does communism provide for these people that would make it so appealing that makes you claim they would choose it if the revenue collection system I proposed were put in place?

I never said you did want communism, but you made the claim that the people would choose it. Sure, as I've said, your little scenario could play out but it would take every single assumption you make to play out exactly how you molded it and then people would have to find communism appealing over everything else.

Now again, it's not my claim - it's yours. If the above scenario is how you came to make that claim then fine - but you need to realize that you are assuming quite a great deal and basing it on some premises that are unstable at best. That's not what I'd back up a claim with but again - I didn't make the claim.

CsG

In the more former posts my intent may not have been clear but I softened it purposefully to make it more clear - the situation isn't a gaurantee but rather a possiblity. I feel the inequity created would almost be gauranteed - what happens after that is speculation but I feel my scenarios aren't so far fetched as similar kinds of events have happened through history given great inequity. You are arguing that I'm saying this is set in stone and trying to force me to "prove" that this would happen - I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. It's an effective arguing technique on your part to try to put me into a position that I didn't intent to make originally and cannot possibly win since neither of us can predict the future in this hypothetical situation.

regarding the rich trying to screw over the poor - it's not this as much as it is the economic system. It's every man for himself so everyone would be trying to screw everyone else over but if some more extreme situation arose it wouldn't be unheard of for those in power (in this case economically) to stick together to some degree to protect each others interests.

edit: as far as me being "moderate" - you are correct - I'm not really a moderate - I'm more of an independent who used to be pretty conservative.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, actually it wouldn't, but I'm interested in how it'd create a "communist, fascist" gov't. Fascism has nothing to do with revenue collection but it's OK, pack it full of straw or whatever you want. Also, consumer based revenue collection encourages communistic gov'ts how?

Sheesh, I can't believe I actually stopped laughing long enough to type this post.

CsG

The inequity would cause revolution which would lead to these less pleasant forms of gov't. I'm thinking further into the future here. You have to look past what happens in the immediate. There comes a breaking point when people won't put up with being stuck at the bottom of the barrel anymore.

Lots of things can cause "revolution". Also, who says that we would choose a communist form of govt? People want to be free, not indentured to "society". As long as I am alive we will not have a communist form of gov't, and I'm sure most Americans would stand up to keep communism out. But hey, keep going with this whole civil war/"revolution idea you on the left seem to be infatuated with since you keep losing. Voters love to hear people like you with your wild stories.

CsG

I'm not on the left at all - I'm pretty moderate on most things. I know it'd be easier for you to paint me over into that direction so you can spew garbage at me since you don't seem to be capable of thinking outside your party (I'm glad I don't have one). If you don't think extreme inequity and a lot of people in economic hardships doesn't lead to problems look back into history. When people are in a poor situations (pre-WWII Germany for example) they are much more willing to buy into something (like the Nazi Party and their ideals) which would otherwise be seen as completely unacceptable. There is nothing partisian about my argument or my viewpoints so I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of such. I'll let you look through this for spelling mistakes so you can point them out and appear witty. I've made my point quite clear I think and fortunately am not overly concerned if I convince you at this point. At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say but now it's fairly obvious that your eyes are closed since everything has to be a liberals vs conservatives argument which I'd rather not get involved in.

Yes, yes, everyone is "moderate" - but that discussion is for a different thread.

Yes, lots of things can cause problems - that is not at issue here. What is at issue is your assertion that "This kind of system would create a communist, fascist, or a combination of both gov't..." Now please explain how a reasonable revenue collection system like I have outlined(one where people who use - pay) will somehow lead to a "communist" gov't. I've already addressed the fact that fascism is not caused by or inherently part of the revenue collection system. Now please - tell me exactly why a revenue system will cause communism. It's your argument - so please try to back it up.

Now as to your whining about not being left. Well, sorry to say this whole revolution concept is coming from the left and you are trying to use it, so don't whine to me for pointing out that fact. Also, I liked your little snipe about the spelling thing- when exactly have I done that to you?:roll:

Unfortunately for you - your "point" isn't being backed up by you. You have not linked revenue collection to the formation of communism- and no, it has nothing to do with Conservative or Liberal - it's just that you haven't backed it up. Now please, stop the obfuscation and diverting and address your assertion.

CsG

I can't spell out the idea much simplier but I'll try again...

order of possible events...

1. put in place a system that creates a huge divide between rich and poor (more poor than rich)
2. wait a while...
3. the poor start to think they are getting hosed
4. wait a bit more....
5. reach a braking point and have a bunch of people pissed off at capitalism attempt to overthrow the gov't

a split in what happens...

a) the rich win out and enact a more or less fascist regime to suppress the pissed off poor
b) the poor win out and go for something quite communist since they are so disenfranchised with the uber-capitalism they've been force to suffer through prior


Now to get this straight I don't WANT communism - I'm just saying that it's possible that if you create a large enough divide that a series of events can happen to cause it to become the new form of gov't/economics.

Well, you are making quite a few assumptions but you still haven't shown how it would lead to communism. Sure, you can make the case under certain scenarios that it could lead to a revolution(provided what your first premise is true) - but that doesn't mean people would choose communism

Now taking your scenario and putting the revenue system I was talking about into it:
1. This would be pure speculation. Infact one could speculate that ANY revenue collection system could lead to this.
2. how long?
3. Is this unique to the proposed system? No. And also, how much prodding by activists would be involved for people to buy into this victim mentality.
4. how long?
5. Again, a breaking point could be reached because of many things and any form of revenue collection.

a) Again, fascism is independent of revenue collection systems. Also, this also relies on the faulty premise that the "rich" are out to screw the "poor".
b) There are plenty of things besides communism that could be chosen and infact they would choose a different form of capitalism, or different degree of it. However - this is merely speculation and has little basis in reality.
I'm not sure how you or anyone can predict that a communist form of gov't would be chosen even if all the other things in your scenario played out exactly as you suggest. What does communism provide for these people that would make it so appealing that makes you claim they would choose it if the revenue collection system I proposed were put in place?

I never said you did want communism, but you made the claim that the people would choose it. Sure, as I've said, your little scenario could play out but it would take every single assumption you make to play out exactly how you molded it and then people would have to find communism appealing over everything else.

Now again, it's not my claim - it's yours. If the above scenario is how you came to make that claim then fine - but you need to realize that you are assuming quite a great deal and basing it on some premises that are unstable at best. That's not what I'd back up a claim with but again - I didn't make the claim.

CsG

In the more former posts my intent may not have been clear but I softened it purposefully to make it more clear - the situation isn't a gaurantee but rather a possiblity. I feel the inequity created would almost be gauranteed - what happens after that is speculation but I feel my scenarios aren't so far fetched as similar kinds of events have happened through history given great inequity. You are arguing that I'm saying this is set in stone and trying to force me to "prove" that this would happen - I wasn't trying to "prove" anything. It's an effective arguing technique on your part to try to put me into a position that I didn't intent to make originally and cannot possibly win since neither of us can predict the future in this hypothetical situation.

regarding the rich trying to screw over the poor - it's not this as much as it is the economic system. It's every man for himself so everyone would be trying to screw everyone else over but if some more extreme situation arose it wouldn't be unheard of for those in power (in this case economically) to stick together to some degree to protect each others interests.

edit: as far as me being "moderate" - you are correct - I'm not really a moderate - I'm more of an independent who used to be pretty conservative.

Ah, but you did make that assertion. If you would have clarified it when I first challenged you on it - all would have been good but you kept insisting on defending it. I know it is a "possibility" but it is also possible that I will marry Jennifer Aniston! Oh wait that'd mean....and then.... and then... and then if... and....

Sure, people form coalitions based on many things, however being "rich" doesn't make one want to screw the poor.

Someday I'll address this "moderate" and "independent" garbage - but it's too soon after an election -because people are still licking their wounds or celebrating= for that discussion to take place.

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
however being "rich" doesn't make one want to screw the poor unless they are trying to make cash.
Then it's good old American capitalism.

CsG

Fixed

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Fixed

Do you have a job? Serious question. Who do you work for?

CsG

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someday I'll address this "moderate" and "independent" garbage - but it's too soon after an election -because people are still licking their wounds or celebrating= for that discussion to take place.

CsG

I wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't start throwing these terms around in my direction. I'd rather discussions like these didn't get brought down to namecalling. Whatever your political persuasion shouldn't matter - the points you are making do. The moment someone says "you liberals are all the same" or "you conservatives are all the same" the whole thing stands to go downhill fast. This kind of arguing gets us no where. So don't try to push this BS like you are so much smarter than everyone as to know some secret about "moderate and independent garbage." With an attitude like this you are really starting to look like the engineer stereotype - be careful.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Fixed

Do you have a job? Serious question. Who do you work for?

CsG

Who do you work for? Serious question.

He was only pointing out that when it comes down to it the rich will indeed screw over the poor to make money. They don't do it for the the hell of it but it def happens.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Fixed

Do you have a job? Serious question. Who do you work for?

CsG

Who do you work for? Serious question.

He was only pointing out that when it comes down to it the rich will indeed screw over the poor to make money. They don't do it for the the hell of it but it def happens.

I work for a Control Automation firm.

OK, but the premise that because you are rich you want to screw the poor or did screw the poor to get rich is shaky at best.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someday I'll address this "moderate" and "independent" garbage - but it's too soon after an election -because people are still licking their wounds or celebrating= for that discussion to take place.

CsG

I wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't start throwing these terms around in my direction. I'd rather discussions like these didn't get brought down to namecalling. Whatever your political persuasion shouldn't matter - the points you are making do. The moment someone says "you liberals are all the same" or "you conservatives are all the same" the whole thing stands to go downhill fast. This kind of arguing gets us no where. So don't try to push this BS like you are so much smarter than everyone as to know some secret about "moderate and independent garbage." With an attitude like this you are really starting to look like the engineer stereotype - be careful.

:roll: I love how people whine about being "labeled". Grow up and get over it. What else are people supposed to do - never use "left" or "right"?:roll: From what you've posted here on this site you are clearly on the left side of the aisle(this ofcourse assumes you are posting truthfully). My pointing that out isn't "namecalling" but sorry to make you have to wash your sheets.

Yes, there is an issue with the self-proclaimed "moderates" or "independents" - but this isn't the thread for that. It has nothing to do with who's "smarter" - it's just who is more in touch with their own thinking and opinions. But anyway, I'll embrace the Engineer stereotype - logical thinking, problem solving, forward conceptualizing type people. Yes, label me that all you want - I'm not afraid of people's labels

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have heard that people who don't like our war should move to Canada.

So, in like spirit, those who can't handle progressive taxation should move to South America.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someday I'll address this "moderate" and "independent" garbage - but it's too soon after an election -because people are still licking their wounds or celebrating= for that discussion to take place.

CsG

I wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't start throwing these terms around in my direction. I'd rather discussions like these didn't get brought down to namecalling. Whatever your political persuasion shouldn't matter - the points you are making do. The moment someone says "you liberals are all the same" or "you conservatives are all the same" the whole thing stands to go downhill fast. This kind of arguing gets us no where. So don't try to push this BS like you are so much smarter than everyone as to know some secret about "moderate and independent garbage." With an attitude like this you are really starting to look like the engineer stereotype - be careful.

:roll: I love how people whine about being "labeled". Grow up and get over it. What else are people supposed to do - never use "left" or "right"?:roll: From what you've posted here on this site you are clearly on the left side of the aisle(this ofcourse assumes you are posting truthfully). My pointing that out isn't "namecalling" but sorry to make you have to wash your sheets.

Yes, there is an issue with the self-proclaimed "moderates" or "independents" - but this isn't the thread for that. It has nothing to do with who's "smarter" - it's just who is more in touch with their own thinking and opinions. But anyway, I'll embrace the Engineer stereotype - logical thinking, problem solving, forward conceptualizing type people. Yes, label me that all you want - I'm not afraid of people's labels

CsG

I was more referring to the "I went through an engineering degree at school so I'm entitled to a job and to think I'm smarter than everyone else b/c they are stupid attitude."

I studied a related field so dealt with engineers all the time. I am now an engineer only by job title so I deal with engineering types all day.

Some of my views fall to the left but it's silly to say I'm "part of the left" b/c I decide how I feel about every issue on my own and don't just fall in line. I think everyone should do this and then political labels would become obsolete.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: charrison
taxes are a needed evil.

The income tax should be done away with.
Property should be done away with as well(however people do get to choose their level of taxation).

sales tax and use fees should be the main vehicle of taxation.

Really bad idea. Property taxs encourages people to use their property which imporves the economy. Sales tax is bad for the economy because it discorages people to purchase items.

Congratulations, you won the most asinine statement of the day award. Property taxes strip a great deal of freedom from citizens as land ownership is no longer possible. When property taxes are levied, property ownership is no more than renting from the state. As result of this, people(most often the old folks) get taxed out of their homes, even though they "own" it.

Property tax is an added business expense, which will raise prices, which by your logic will reduce consumption. That is bad right?

Also if sales tax keeps people from making purchases, the same logic dictates that income taxes keep people from working.

This is exactly true. Many people are out taxed of their property, even when the state puts caps on the tax rate, because they then get around that by jacking up the value of the home 5-10% a year. There are plenty of people who have suffered from this.

yeap this is what happened to my grandmother. She has lived in the same house for over 30 years. but they kept raising her taxes. Well a few years ago they put a cap on them. Well suddenly her house started gaining value. at LEAST 10k a year.

finally her taxes were about $5300 a year and she could not afford to pay it. Heck she was on a $17k a year budget.

Sad that she lost a house that was PAID for.

Heck my father (retired now but has a lot in the bank) is thinking of moving out of IL because of the taxes. He had a really nice house but was paying 8k a year in taxes. Got tired of that and moved into a tiny 2 bedroom house and is still paying 3k a year. He is thinking of moving to a souther state to get away from it.

I live in a small farming town. There are maybe 100 people IN town. We are taxed hard! my home is not expensive $149k BUT i pay over $5k a year in taxes and they are talking about raising it AGAIN! it has doubled in the last 5 years.

I agree homeowners need to pay a tax. But sometimes i think we get taken advantage of.

heh when you pay more in taxes then mortgage something is wrong!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Someday I'll address this "moderate" and "independent" garbage - but it's too soon after an election -because people are still licking their wounds or celebrating= for that discussion to take place.

CsG

I wouldn't have brought it up if you didn't start throwing these terms around in my direction. I'd rather discussions like these didn't get brought down to namecalling. Whatever your political persuasion shouldn't matter - the points you are making do. The moment someone says "you liberals are all the same" or "you conservatives are all the same" the whole thing stands to go downhill fast. This kind of arguing gets us no where. So don't try to push this BS like you are so much smarter than everyone as to know some secret about "moderate and independent garbage." With an attitude like this you are really starting to look like the engineer stereotype - be careful.

:roll: I love how people whine about being "labeled". Grow up and get over it. What else are people supposed to do - never use "left" or "right"?:roll: From what you've posted here on this site you are clearly on the left side of the aisle(this ofcourse assumes you are posting truthfully). My pointing that out isn't "namecalling" but sorry to make you have to wash your sheets.

Yes, there is an issue with the self-proclaimed "moderates" or "independents" - but this isn't the thread for that. It has nothing to do with who's "smarter" - it's just who is more in touch with their own thinking and opinions. But anyway, I'll embrace the Engineer stereotype - logical thinking, problem solving, forward conceptualizing type people. Yes, label me that all you want - I'm not afraid of people's labels

CsG

I was more referring to the "I went through an engineering degree at school so I'm entitled to a job and to think I'm smarter than everyone else b/c they are stupid attitude."

I studied a related field so dealt with engineers all the time. I am now an engineer only by job title so I deal with engineering types all day.

Some of my views fall to the left but it's silly to say I'm "part of the left" b/c I decide how I feel about every issue on my own and don't just fall in line. I think everyone should do this and then political labels would become obsolete.

Ah, but I don't have an Engineering degree, don't have the "entitled" attitude, nor do I think I'm smarter than everyone.

Again, the whole notion that "labels" shouldn't be used or can be wiped out is absurd. They are descriptive terms for groups of people. Some "labels" are more defined than others, however this whole "I don't want to be labeled" BS is absurd. Embrace who you are and let people group you as they wish as it really doesn't affect your personal life - does it? Does it change who you are? Anyway, the main point is, without these EVAL "labels" you couldn't identify groups of people.

CsG