A "FAIR TAX" thread so U_D can "tear me to shreds..."

[Pookie]

Yeah, the last time you talked to me about economics was the value of insurance as a means to testing that will save us money, MEANWHILE, several studies have come out that show testing actually increases costs due to false positives and the repercussions of erroneous diagnoses...

I never discussed any such thing with you. Oh, you tried your best to put that argument in my mouth ... but you failed with that just as you did with this thread.

Rob isn't playing semantics. You've had your hat handed to you. Leave the thread before it becomes any more embarrassing.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Yeah, the last time you talked to me about economics was the value of insurance as a means to testing that will save us money, MEANWHILE, several studies have come out that show testing actually increases costs due to false positives and the repercussions of erroneous diagnoses...

Throb's merely trying to play a semantics game.

And the purpose of the thread wasn't at all about the FairTax but U_D constantly trying to claim that I put him on ignore not for being a vile, mean-spirited, I have to win at any cost just like LT poster but because he "tore me to shreds" over the FairTax by using babble of the sort employed by Throb...

Babble of course meaning anything that paints your precious "FairTax" in an unflattering light.

You've been torn to shreds, again, on this issue and I hardly had to post in it at all. Now do a little search back to when you put me on ignore and you will find it was right after I created my account, within a month or so, and spent the better part of that month painting and repainting your pet issue just as it has been in this thread. You then spent the better part of two years nurturing your scraped ego by sniping at me from the relative safety of ignore like a coward.

But I'm the "vile, mean-spirited" one..

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I never discussed any such thing with you. Oh, you tried your best to put that argument in my mouth ... but you failed with that just as you did with this thread.

Rob isn't playing semantics. You've had your hat handed to you. Leave the thread before it becomes any more embarrassing.

Sure, it pays for them when they're in the emergency room. When they could've been treated for a whole lot less if they'd been seeing a doctor for preventive care. And guess who pays for that expensive care through higher premiums.

AJ, this isn't rocket science. Even you can do the math. Heh.

search=Pookmark

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Babble of course meaning anything that paints your precious "FairTax" in an unflattering light.

You've been torn to shreds, again, on this issue and I hardly had to post in it at all. Now do a little search back to when you put me on ignore and you will find it was right after I created my account, within a month or so, and spent the better part of that month painting and repainting your pet issue just as it has been in this thread. You then spent the better part of two years nurturing your scraped ego by sniping at me from the relative safety of ignore like a coward.

But I'm the "vile, mean-spirited" one..

I'm here. You're still vile and mean. You think it's perfectly okay because of the relative safety of your keyboard...

I'm only "torn to shred" in the eyes of people who think that calculating a tax exclusively or inclusively changes the dollar amount.

So far that's just about the only charge I've had to deal with other than the typical class envy arguments of losers who want to vent their frustrations on the rich and "get even."

Well, we're seeing the results now of "get even" governance as we learn that a headshot doesn't cure a splinter...

 

[Pookie]

And the purpose of the thread wasn't at all about the FairTax but U_D constantly trying to claim that I put him on ignore not for being a vile, mean-spirited, I have to win at any cost just like LT poster but because he "tore me to shreds" over the FairTax by using babble of the sort employed by Throb...

A thread about the fair tax wasn't meant to be a thread about the fair tax. Hmm .... oooookay. The rest of that is about as coherent as your fair tax argument.

Exit stage right (notice I didn't say left), AJ. Just do it.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I'm here. You're still vile and mean. You think it's perfectly okay because of the relative safety of your keyboard...

I'm only "torn to shred" in the eyes of people who think that calculating a tax exclusively or inclusively changes the dollar amount.

So far that's just about the only charge I've had to deal with other than the typical class envy arguments of losers who want to vent their frustrations on the rich and "get even."

Well, we're seeing the results now of "get even" governance as we learn that a headshot doesn't cure a splinter...

Poor Cap'n.. I'm so mean.. Don't worry, I wouldn't post anything to you or anyone else here that I wouldn't say to their face. I don't need the relative safety of anything to hide behind. You have demonstrated more of a tendency in that direction though haven't you?

That's the entire point isn't it? "FairTax" proponents like to use the inclusive method of calculation because 23% sounds so much better than a 30% exclusive sales tax (the way we have always calculated sales tax). Also neglecting to mention all of the items that are tax-free now will be subject to the "FairTax" and taxed at the exclusive rate of 30%.. Much higher than that if you look at studies by the CBO using anticipated evasion rates.

The fact that the "FairTax" is extremely regressive in nature because it impacts the bottom line of the middle and upper-middle class by MUCH more than it does the wealthy just seems to sail right over your head. I guess that fancy mathmatics (sic) degree didn't cover basic economics.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Take the money and run...


Bye Pookie.

PS Throbby

The FairTax will not be revenue neutral (i.e. bring in the same revenue as the current system) at 23%

The truth: The FairTax rate of 23% (when calculated inclusively like income tax rates) has been thoroughly researched to provide all the revenues now collected under both the income tax system and through FICA payroll taxes. Reports otherwise are largely based on the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform which declared the rate would have to be much higher. What the Panel failed to make clear in an amazingly shameless sleight-of-hand is that they never studied the FairTax legislation as it exists in pending legislation. They ignored $22 million of FairTax research and, instead, quietly devised their own national consumption tax which they loaded with the exemptions and deductions they felt were "politically realistic". They also failed to calculate the effects of elimination of the FICA tax on annual taxpayer burdens or on the distributional effects of the FairTax across the income spectrum. Upon completion--and after declaring a national consumption tax flawed--they then refused to publish their underlying assumptions.

For more information on this topic, see these research papers.

Taxing Sales Under the FairTax - What Rate Works?
A Comparison of the FairTax Base and Rate
Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation

 

[Pookie]

search=Pookmark

Dude, where is the argument --- "value of insurance as a means to testing that will save us money"? I never engage in any such argument. As I recall, you posted a study that didn't even support what you claimed it did. Then what I said morphed into some kind of grand discussion on "about economics was the value of insurance as a means to testing that will save us money" that never happened. Oh, you wanted me to debate you. But I knew what it would result in ... a thread like this one.

If I wanted to make that argument and carry on a discussion, I'd do it. But it would result in a thread just like this. And I don't have the time to waste on a thread that would generate an argument like the one you've made about the fair tax.

You go, dude! Literally. The door is right over there. Go start a new thread on the evils of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc.. You can make something up. I have faith in your ability to make stuff up.

 

[Pookie]

Take the money and run...


Bye Pookie.

Premature ... as usual.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The middle calls, again, *sigh* already carry the burden of hidden taxation.

The FairTax brings that out into the light and hopefully angers them to the point of being more vigilant and less Laissez-faire in their watch on Congress.

Furthermore, it carries many protections for them FROM taxation should they choose to spend their money more wisely and increase their savings rate (which increases the pool of investment money which grows the economy, unless of course, you let Congress devise the investment scheme, hello CRA).

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.

In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.

How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

For more information on this topic, see Why the FairTax Will Work.

Your problem is that you stopped thinking about the issue and rely on your talking points which you repeat endlessly.

We need to return to a pro-growth environment and as long as our system remains focused like a laser of Progressive re-distribution, that will never happen.
__________________
"[T]he principle of equality is most acclaimed by those who expect to gain more than they lose from an equal distribution of goods. Here is a fertile field for the demagogue. Whoever stirs up the resentment of the poor against the rich can count on securing a big audience."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

 

[Pookie]

The middle calls, again, *sigh* already carry the burden of hidden taxation.

The FairTax brings that out into the light and hopefully angers them to the point of being more vigilant and less Laissez-faire in their watch on Congress.

Furthermore, it carries many protections for them FROM taxation should they choose to spend their money more wisely and increase their savings rate (which increases the pool of investment money which grows the economy, unless of course, you let Congress devise the investment scheme, hello CRA).



Your problem is that you stopped thinking about the issue and rely on your talking points which you repeat endlessly.

We need to return to a pro-growth environment and as long as our system remains focused like a laser of Progressive re-distribution, that will never happen.
__________________
"[T]he principle of equality is most acclaimed by those who expect to gain more than they lose from an equal distribution of goods. Here is a fertile field for the demagogue. Whoever stirs up the resentment of the poor against the rich can count on securing a big audience."
Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises

So, is this post about the fair tax or ... "U_D constantly trying to claim that I put him on ignore not for being a vile, mean-spirited, I have to win at any cost just like LT poster but because he "tore me to shreds" over the FairTax by using babble of the sort employed by Throb..."

Just askin'

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Your problem is that you stopped thinking about the issue and rely on your talking points which you repeat endlessly.

Fucking hilarious coming from You Cap'n Echochamber.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Pooks, preventive medicine leads to defensive medicine and false positives.

It simply increases costs.

When you insist insurance cover it, then no one directly pays the cost and this exacerbates preventative medicine and every mother with a snot-nose running to the doctor for "treatment."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Pooks, preventive medicine leads to defensive medicine and false positives.

It simply increases costs.

When you insist insurance cover it, then no one directly pays the cost and this exacerbates preventative medicine and every mother with a snot-nose running to the doctor for "treatment."

Preventative medicine is "bad" now too?

Good lord.. next you'll be telling us all that AIDS is a myth.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

This is U_D's chance to prove that by winning the argument, I'll put him on ignore, so I suffer the name-calling...




If I put the answers in my own words, then I'm an idiot who doesn't understand that which I post about. If I then turn to the source and quite it, I'm an idiot who can't think for myself. If I can't convince you your fallacy is, indeed a fallacy, then I don't understand math...

Hell, Throb quotes FairTax researchers to discredit me, but when I use the same researchers to return the discredit in its proper context, then the researchers are a "biased" source, and how dare I quote a biased source!

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Preventative medicine is "bad" now too?

Good lord.. next you'll be telling us all that AIDS is a myth.

When you don't "pay" for it, then yes, because then to you cost is no object.

Furthermore, if your doctor is scared shitless of a lawsuit lest he miss something, no matter how rare, and you're not paying for it, he's going to test the living shit out of you...

 

[Pookie]

Pooks, preventive medicine leads to defensive medicine and false positives.

It simply increases costs.

When you insist insurance cover it, then no one directly pays the cost and this exacerbates preventative medicine and every mother with a snot-nose running to the doctor for "treatment."

Kind of like your answer to $1.00 * 1.30?

 

[Pookie]

This is U_D's chance to prove that by winning the argument, I'll put him on ignore, so I suffer the name-calling...

Well, if you can't win the fair tax debate with him, being stubborn not to do what you otherwise would typically do is at least a moral victory.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

When you don't "pay" for it, then yes, because then to you cost is no object.

Furthermore, if your doctor is scared shitless of a lawsuit lest he miss something, no matter how rare, and you're not paying for it, he's going to test the living shit out of you...

WTF do you mean I don't pay for it? Do you think my insurance is provided to me free of charge?

Do you think that my insurance company would be losing more money because of preventative medical testing and treatment or because of catastrophic emergency care because of a lack of preventative medical care?

Your argument seems to be that maintenance raises operating expenses, and neglect to notice or care that catastrophic failure ends up being much more expensive than had you performed routine maintenance over time. I'm speaking from a mechanical point of view, an area where I am very comfortable. Except where health care is concerned that doesn't just cost money to replace failed equipment, it costs lives which can't be replaced.

 

[Pookie]

Pooks, preventive medicine leads to defensive medicine and false positives.

It simply increases costs.

When you insist insurance cover it, then no one directly pays the cost and this exacerbates preventative medicine and every mother with a snot-nose running to the doctor for "treatment."

Oh, and I have insurance. The people who have it pay for the cost of it through premiums. It's pretty good insurance too. I've yet to see this defensive medicine you speak of though. Maybe it is just me. When I go, I have to pay a co-payment at a minimum. I don't go for just a runny nose though. Why? I don't like paying co-payments for the doc to tell me to take over the counter medicine.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

WTF do you mean I don't pay for it? Do you think my insurance is provided to me free of charge?

Do you think that my insurance company would be losing more money because of preventative medical testing and treatment or because of catastrophic emergency care because of a lack of preventative medical care?

Your argument seems to be that maintenance raises operating expenses, and neglecting to notice or care that catastrophic failure ends up being much more expensive than had you performed routine maintenance over time. I'm speaking from a mechanical point of view, an area where I am very comfortable. Except where health care is concerned that doesn't just cost money to replace failed equipment, it costs lives which can't be replaced.

You pay a premium and a deductible. If you actually payed the bill, you would be more involved in when you saw the doctor, what you saw the doctor for, and what tests might be the most cost-effective and reasonable.

Mechanically, the block isn't going to sue you for damages if you fail to see the small flaw in the cam because you didn't daily dissemble and x-ray every single part.

John Edwards will sue your doctor if he fails to notice a slight heart murmur when he's treating your reaction to a bee sting, or if he fails to notice a 1 in 200,000 million disease during a routine physical. So, your doctor orders a bevy of tests, pays an outrageous premium to protect him from you, and then, in a lot of cases, has to accept whatever your insurance, or your government wants to pay him so you can enjoy the savings...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oh, and I have insurance. The people who have it pay for the cost of it through premiums. It's pretty good insurance too. I've yet to see this defensive medicine you speak of though. Maybe it is just me. When I go, I have to pay a co-payment at a minimum. I don't go for just a runny nose though. Why? I don't like paying co-payments for the doc to tell me to take over the counter medicine.

You aren't a mommy...

You aren't one of the mouth-breathers.

You can't pretend that you're the mean example of behavior.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Kind of like your answer to $1.00 * 1.30?

The $1.30 was a number pulled out of thin air based upon a fallacious reading of the FairTax and a confusion with microeconomics as opposed to macroeconomics.

As I pointed out the first time he invented this equation, one times anything is anything and this is just an anything that Throb invented out of his less-then-fertile imagination...

 

[Pookie]

You aren't a mommy...

You aren't one of the mouth-breathers.

You can't pretend that you're the mean example of behavior.

You can't pretend that you know the mean example of behavior. I mean, you can't even correctly do this ... $1.00 * 1.30.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You aren't a mommy...

You aren't one of the mouth-breathers.

You can't pretend that you're the mean example of behavior.

*chuckle*

Of course, any example that points to a flaw in your reasoning isn't applicable because you're talking about those "other people"..