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

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm under no illusion that that post will be changing his heart or mind, it was obvious long ago that that is beyond anyones capability. I merely wanted to lay out the philosophical concepts in as concise a way possible rather than get buried in a pile of bull shit minutea.

Show me a man consummed with process and minutea and I'll show you a failed leader.

Ishmael

Show me that, and as per his book, I'll show you a community organizer!


__________________
Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

 

[firespin]

You guys are funny.

You don't even understand what this proposal will really do, but because you think it will ensure an idealistic tax code, you put on the blinders and pay attention only to the sound bites that say what you want to hear.

And that is why, if you go back and re-read the thread, you can't rebut any specific claims with any specific answers. All you can do is, well, cut and paste sound bites that say what you want to hear, and then impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach.

You poor misguided sheep, as you might say.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You guys are funny.

You don't even understand what this proposal will really do, but because you think it will ensure an idealistic tax code, you put on the blinders and pay attention only to the sound bites that say what you want to hear.

And that is why, if you go back and re-read the thread, you can't rebut any specific claims with any specific answers. All you can do is, well, cut and paste sound bites that say what you want to hear, and then impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach.

You poor misguided sheep, as you might say.

Then, since you understand what it will do, enlighten us.

Will it take us down the same road as Greece?

http://article.nationalreview.com/426405/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I didn't do ANY cut and paste for most of the thread until it became a cut and paste challenge by Throb.

 

[Ishmael]

You guys are funny.

You don't even understand what this proposal will really do, but because you think it will ensure an idealistic tax code, you put on the blinders and pay attention only to the sound bites that say what you want to hear.

And that is why, if you go back and re-read the thread, you can't rebut any specific claims with any specific answers. All you can do is, well, cut and paste sound bites that say what you want to hear, and then impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach.

You poor misguided sheep, as you might say.

I'm sorry, you're still delusional. The is no such thing as an idyllic tax code. There are merely tax codes that are less intrusive than others.

If you believe that the tax code should be used to direct peoples lives, intrude into their privacy to the extreme, and grant favors to some chosen few, then by all means fight the idea with your best effort. And if your best effort is the bull shit minutea that you have used up to this point, well, so be that as well.

Ishmael

 

[firespin]

Axiom:

All you can do is, well, cut and paste sound bites that say what you want to hear, and then impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach.
.

Step one:

Will it take us down the same road as Greece?

http://article.nationalreview.com/426405/when-responsibility-doesnt-pay/mark-steyn

"cut and paste sound bites"

OK, a link, not a cut and paste. There's a lemma for that.

Step 2:

I'm sorry, you're still delusional. .... And if your best effort is the bull shit minutea that you have used up to this point, well, so be that as well.

Ishmael

"impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach"

QED.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Sean]

Facts=bullshit minutiae. Got it.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I didn't do ANY cut and paste for most of the thread until it became a cut and paste challenge by Throb.

Comprehend much?


That was like two pages ago.

 

[firespin]

I didn't do ANY cut and paste for most of the thread until it became a cut and paste challenge by Throb.

Well, yes, I should have given you extra credit for initial banter, then acting like you never heard of inclusive vs. exclusive tax rates, being unable to figure the actual tax due on a widget under the fair tax system, and claiming people keep their whole gross paycheck.

But I thought you would prefer it if people just forgot about those things.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Well, yes, I should have given you extra credit for initial banter, then acting like you never heard of inclusive vs. exclusive tax rates, being unable to figure the actual tax due on a widget under the fair tax system, and claiming people keep their whole gross paycheck.

But I thought you would prefer it if people just forgot about those things.

I had heard of that, it's one of the first things mentioned in every discussion. I tried to explain to you what was being done, but you were having none of it, even when Ishmael "spelled" it out for you, you still tried not to get off the fallacy finally forcing me to get out the book and type out an answer you might be able to understand.

I did do the math properly and most people WILL get to keep their entire paycheck for reasons I just explained.

It's in the explanation that you begin to, in turn, simply ignore what you do not want to hear/read.

You, like U_D and Throb are looking at the problem as a fixed zero-sum game, then try to compare inclusive to exclusive, which you cannot, and even if it fails, then you decide, okay to get the same amount from each widget, we have to make the new inclusive tax 30% instead of 23% now that you have shown that all tax can be calculated by both methods, but it doesn't change the underlying numbers. You ignore the economic reality that lower prices (lower tax rate) increases economic activity which always increases tax revenue.

Your second fallacy is that you assume "employer greed" is going to over-ride market forces and common sense.

Then you began thinking of all the ways in which people could cheat the tax system and deduced that no one would ever pay taxes under any circumstances.

Most people simply aren't that motivated. I know Walmart's not...

 

[firespin]

Frisco, as I said, you can believe whatever you want...but right there, you made several claims that either not what I said, or are directly at odds with what even the Fair Tax book and authors have to say. Why should anybody bother trying to have a debate with you, when you act like that? It's like talking to Drixxx.

And, btw, I know you don't like Rob, and there's things he does that bug me too. I just take each arguments on its own merits. I tend to agree with you on global warming, e.g., but your comments on AIDS/HIV denial are among the most irresponsible claims I've ever heard anybody make here, far worse than anything by Rob, UD, or even Drixxx if only because somebody who believed them puts their life at risk unnecessarily. So if there was anybody that people here should shy away from agreeing with on the basis of character alone, well...connect the dots.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You said the authors are at odds with what I said, but when we examined it, it was only a degree of difference in that perhaps I tend not to be as generally gray (as they weren't in their original writings either) on some of the aspects, for example, SOME people will not reduce their prices, but then MACS are more expensive than PCs due to a business model. SOME employers might choose to underpay their employees by as much as possible, well, HELLO! it takes all types, but these, because people want to actually succeed at what they do, are, like your FairTax cheaters, going to be a definite minority of business owners.


As for AIDS and the science of political "consensus" and the learned behavior of creating a panic for financial reward,

I said the same damned thing at the outset of the swine flu pandemic...

You a doctor AND an economist now?
__________________
"As the 20th century drew to a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part because of the rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact."
Michael Crichton, 2003 lecture at Caltech "Aliens Cause Global Warming."

 

[RobDownSouth]

Note then how you ignored the answer to your crap...

"crap"?

Let's review the discussion so far:

1. You presented a spurious "Have your cake and eat it too" scenario where goods would cost less (due to 23% savings) AND worker pay would be increased from net to gross.
2. I pointed out that you couldn't have it both ways, that worker pay would be reduced to current net pay
3. You challenged me to prove that worker pay would be reduced
4. I gave you four cites to back up my case
5. You responded with a random non-sequitur cut and paste
6. Both Firespin and I pointed out your lack of acknowledgement
7. You insinuated that my facts had no merit and that we had a "difference of opinion"
8. You then whined that I had flooded this thread with cut and paste
9. Now you're claiming my position is "crap"

That's pretty poor debate technique, AJ.

I'll state the facts once again, AJ:

• The so-called FairTax claims to be revenue-neutral...you will NOT pay less money out-of-pocket on purchased goods despite your claims to the contrary...and certain commodity items (gasoline) will cost much more.
  
• In order to achieve the purported 23% savings that makes the so-called FairTax revenue neutral, worker wages MUST be reduced to essentially what their take home pay is now. If wages are NOT reduced, then the 23% savings cannot be realized and the so-called FairTax rate MUST be increased in order to be revenue-neutral.

AJ, you may feel the second point above is open for debate, but I've shown you previously how Neil Boortz, both FairTax authors AND the official FairTax blog have agreed with my position.

If you want to dispute that position, I will ask you very nicely to provide documented evidence to support your position. To avoid accusations of non-sequiturs again, please highlight in bold any facts in your cut-and-paste that you feel support your position. If you choose not to do that, We will take that as evidence that you cannot find any concrete evidence to support your position and that you are trying to deflect the issue.

Consider this a challenge.

 

[firespin]

Rob puts his challenge in plain terms. I'll do likewise and examine one specific claim in detail, to show that Frisco is wrong and lying about it, the below "shades of gray" notwithstanding.

You said the authors are at odds with what I said, but when we examined it, it was only a degree of difference in that perhaps I tend not to be as generally gray ...

OKay, let's make it black and white. This is wrong:

I did do the math properly...

And this is a lie:

then you decide, okay to get the same amount from each widget, we have to make the new inclusive tax 30% instead of 23%

Here's your math. Note in bold where you add back 23% EXCLUSIVE tax, i.e. taking 23% of the base price of the item, not the cost of the transaction....that's the definition of exclusive, and is how most sales taxes are calculated...

No, the widgets are CHEAPER!

*sigh*

$1.00-$1.00*.23= $0.77
$0.77*.23= .1771
Fairtax Widget = $0.95

So....that's wrong.

At the time, I pointed out to you your error, and noted that you need to use either a 30% EXCLUSIVE rate or a 23% INCLUSIVE rate, your pick, they result in the same answer...

The new tax rate is 30%, not 23%, if the hidden cost is 23%. Sorry. It goes down by 23 cents, and up by 23 cents. (External vs. internal computations, if that makes sense.) Even the proponents admit to this.

I know the math is hard for many.

Then later you decided that "you decide, okay to get the same amount from each widget, we have to make the new inclusive tax 30% instead of 23%". which is of course a lie. At no point was a 30% inclusive rate used.

So I hope that clears things up for you, as to why I think you are not worth debating on the fair tax topic...you are either incompetent or mendacious, and it's not worth my time to figure out which it is.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When almost half the taxpayers pay nothing, and even receive gifts from the rest of us (EITC), any system that gets them to pay at least something is a step in the right direction. Under the FairTax, if you don't want to pay taxes, don't buy unnecessary stuff. Your call - you have the power. Food and necessities get you a rebate.

& food and necessities will cost more. So what are you saving?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The goal in NOT to get back 23% in taxes, which is what you and Throb keep assuming. The goal is to increase business activity and in THAT manner raise the tax revenues, again, the above logic is the result of zero-sum thinking, that that pie is what it is and never grows, but the fact is that it's a pie TREE and the freed up money is like water to it.

You are absolutely, unequivocably and undeniably WRONG.

The whole purpose of the FairTax was to replace current taxation methods on a dollar-for-dollar basis with a national sales tax. Best case scenario (promoted by the FairTax folks) claims this can be done with a 23% tax-inclusive rate (which translates to a 30% tax-exclusive sales tax rate) and worst case scenarios (promoted by FairTax detractors) claim a 39% tax-inclusive rate (which would be a crippling 54% sales tax rate).

The goal is NOT to "increase business activity" and not based in any documented study. It is wishful thinking.

 

[Sean]

Good to see AJ's mathmatics degree is paying off.

 

[firespin]

This is pretty funny...a less than complimentary review of the Fair Tax book. While I don't think it's 100% right, it's at least 90% right. You have to admire the writer's ability to make his points clear:

"Besides the fact that it doesn't lower the amount of taxes seized from the taxpayers by the federal government and is based on unsubstantiated claims and ridiculous lies, the FairTax is fraught with other problems. "

http://mises.org/story/1975

I also read over the Fair Tax law of 2009. Did you know that you can sell $10,000 worth of financial intermediary services without collecting tax? And anybody can sell $1200 worth of stuff taxfree, or buy $400 worth of stuff taxfree, without being afoul of the law? (And if you do get caught exceeding these limits, the penalty is only 20% of the sales taxes you were supposed to collect.)

...That employers will still have to calculate and report full social security wage calculations? That the sales tax rate can be expected to change every year, and will likely go up in order to keep it revenue neutral? And the sales tax would go into effect before the 16th amendment is repealed, but, if the amendment isn't repealed in seven years, the sales tax goes away, with nothing specified to replace it. Nice.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ishmael]

Fuck all this shit. I want to see a flat tax on every American. I want to see fiscal discipline imposed on the government.

We had a two tiered flat tax, it lasted 5 months. Get real dude.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

\

"impugn the motives of those who dare to question your faith-based approach"

QED.

Thanks for playing.

So, you do believe that the government should use the tax code to mold the behavior of the population.

Elitest piece of shit.

Ishmael

PS Medical doctors really suck when it comes to political, or social, affairs. It's the 'God' cloak they have taken up and shroud themselves with. Unforunately for them they have an unordinately high suicide rate. They have pitted themselves against death and have lost at every turn. They begin to realize that they will always lose. Eventually it dawns upon them that t hey aren't God's, everyone is going to die, even them, and everything they were taught, all their goals, their entire reason for being is gone.

Doctor, heal thyself.

 

[firespin]

So, you do believe that the government should use the tax code to mold the behavior of the population.

Elitest piece of shit.

Ishmael

PS Medical doctors really suck when it comes to political, or social, affairs. It's the 'God' cloak they have taken up and shroud themselves with. Unforunately for them they have an unordinately high suicide rate. They have pitted themselves against death and have lost at every turn. They begin to realize that they will always lose. Eventually it dawns upon them that t hey aren't God's, everyone is going to die, even them, and everything they were taught, all their goals, their entire reason for being is gone.

Doctor, heal thyself.

Some people get more charming with a few drinks under their belt.

You, not so much.

 

[Ishmael]

Some people get more charming with a few drinks under their belt.

You, not so much.

Considering that I'd not had a drop to drink when I wrote that, you write hollow words based on presumptions. The interesting thing about that is where did that 'presumption' come from?

Further, it is now pretty open that I have no 'charm' towards you. You have NO intellectual acuity, merely the ability to parrott and submit words to search engines without understanding the philosophy behind those words.

In other words, you are a loser. Commit suicide as soon as practicle. (If you choose slitting wrists, do that axially as opposed to radially, make sure you don't cut the nerves. Just a helpful hint.

Ishmael

 

[firespin]

Considering that I'd not had a drop to drink when I wrote that, you write hollow words based on presumptions. The interesting thing about that is where did that 'presumption' come from?

Further, it is now pretty open that I have no 'charm' towards you. You have NO intellectual acuity, merely the ability to parrott and submit words to search engines without understanding the philosophy behind those words.

In other words, you are a loser. Commit suicide as soon as practicle. (If you choose slitting wrists, do that axially as opposed to radially, make sure you don't cut the nerves. Just a helpful hint.

Ishmael

I was giving you an out, but hey, if you want to tell us that words like "Elitest", "Unforunately", "God's" (in a non-possessive situation), "parrott", "practicle" are the best you can do when sober, go for it. Just realize that your opinion about my "intellectual acuity" might not seem very compelling.

For some reason, you reserve the right to make presumptions about others (e.g. the whole "doctor" thing among others), but when it's done to you, you get all "hottie". (Ooops, I meant "haughty".) That whole golden rule concept must have gone over your head, which is odd given your self-described mastery of all things conceptual, which you'll suggest explains your curious inability to spell-check.

But sure, feel free to wax eloquent on why you're the only one in the room that understands what's really going on.

And in return for your kind suggestion endorsing suicide, I offer this for your consideration:

"Signs/Symptoms

Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:

* Confusion
* Inability to make decisions
* Hallucinations
* Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
* Delusions
* Nervousness
* Strange statements or behavior
* Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
* Neglect of personal hygiene
* Anger
* Indifference to the opinions of others
* A tendency to argue
* A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you"

 

[Saint Peter]

Schizophrenia usually develops gradually, although onset can be sudden. Friends and family often notice the first changes before the victim does. Among the signs are:

* Confusion
* Inability to make decisions
* Hallucinations
* Changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight
* Delusions
* Nervousness
* Strange statements or behavior
* Withdrawal from friends, work, or school
* Neglect of personal hygiene
* Anger
* Indifference to the opinions of others
* A tendency to argue
* A conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to get you

You just saved me a copay.

Thanks!