A Day in the life of Joe Republican

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

I'm the redeemed one.

[Irn-Bru]

If you use firefox there's a decent spelling check. It doesn't know a lot of words but at least it gets the obvious ones.

There's also an extension that's called 'Inline Definitions', which gathers definitions from the web without making you open a new tab or window. Between the built-in spell checker and inline definitions, I almost never have to leave the page where I'm writing.

Welcome to the board, I've long been the lone libertarian. Actually I'm more used to that then having an ally. I'm also a libertarian, not a Libertarian, I don't like the party either. We libertarians are good at that, not agreeing with anyone. Though In-Bru seems pretty libertarian but hasn't declared such an allegiance.

I actually have said that I'm libertarian on the board quite a few times, though mostly in past threads . . . I stopped finding satisfaction in political threads when I realized that no one (including myself) was really here to think through the basics and principles of our beliefs. I mean, come on: this is a Redskins message board. Don't know why it took me so long to realize that. (And even now I'll contribute. Oh well.)

There are other libertarians here, too, but you only see it in their posts from time to time. Most of them -- like the majority of board members -- are wise enough to stay out of the political threads. Don't get me wrong: I'd be happy to talk about politics with anyone, but it never really seems to get off on the right foot in the Lounge or (of course) Smack.

Even more than just calling myself a libertarian, I also don't hesitate to list the thinkers that are influencing me quite heavily (Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazzlit, and Murray Rothbard in economics and ethics, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in philosophy and ethics. For political science, I like all of the above plus Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Lord Acton, the late scholastics at the school of Salamanca, to name some).

I'm not purposefully avoiding showing any allegiance, or even avoiding talking about it unless I'm directly asked; it's just that I don't think to list out where I'm coming from every time that I post. So, here's a more public record of where I'm coming from -- I've got no shame from my intellectual journey thus far.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Welcome to the board, I've long been the lone libertarian.

Is that so?


KazooSkinsFan
Hog
Joined: 05 Sep 2004

Countertrey
^^^
Joined: 09 Jan 2004



What does it take to be a libertarian around here???

No dis intended. I missed you actually saying you were and we hadn't covered the range of topics for me to conclude on my own, but since we've pretty much agreed on everything we have discussed I can't say I'm surprised.

Though you do seem like kinda a nice guy to be a libertarian. Are you actually a libertarian or a Libertarian?

[Irn-Bru]

Kazoo, can you define the following words: libertarian and Libertarian? I just want to know what you mean by each of them.

[KazooSkinsFan]

If you use firefox there's a decent spelling check. It doesn't know a lot of words but at least it gets the obvious ones.

There's also an extension that's called 'Inline Definitions', which gathers definitions from the web without making you open a new tab or window. Between the built-in spell checker and inline definitions, I almost never have to leave the page where I'm writing.

Welcome to the board, I've long been the lone libertarian. Actually I'm more used to that then having an ally. I'm also a libertarian, not a Libertarian, I don't like the party either. We libertarians are good at that, not agreeing with anyone. Though In-Bru seems pretty libertarian but hasn't declared such an allegiance.

I actually have said that I'm libertarian on the board quite a few times, though mostly in past threads . . . I stopped finding satisfaction in political threads when I realized that no one (including myself) was really here to think through the basics and principles of our beliefs. I mean, come on: this is a Redskins message board. Don't know why it took me so long to realize that. (And even now I'll contribute. Oh well.)

There are other libertarians here, too, but you only see it in their posts from time to time. Most of them -- like the majority of board members -- are wise enough to stay out of the political threads. Don't get me wrong: I'd be happy to talk about politics with anyone, but it never really seems to get off on the right foot in the Lounge or (of course) Smack.

Even more than just calling myself a libertarian, I also don't hesitate to list the thinkers that are influencing me quite heavily (Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazzlit, and Murray Rothbard in economics and ethics, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas in philosophy and ethics. For political science, I like all of the above plus Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Lord Acton, the late scholastics at the school of Salamanca, to name some).

I'm not purposefully avoiding showing any allegiance, or even avoiding talking about it unless I'm directly asked; it's just that I don't think to list out where I'm coming from every time that I post. So, here's a more public record of where I'm coming from -- I've got no shame from my intellectual journey thus far.

And with you I meant no dis either, I hadn't seen you actually refer to yourself as a libertarian and didn't want to speak for you. Clearly I saw you were pretty libertarian though from my citing you and saying you sound pretty libertarian. I'd just heard a broader range of topics from you then Trey.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Kazoo, can you define the following words: libertarian and Libertarian? I just want to know what you mean by each of them.

libertarian - a believer in libertarian ideology. You can be a libertarian and be a Libertarian, a Republican (e.g., John Linder) or a Democrat (in theory, but I don't know any). I happen to be a libertarian independent who thinks both parties blow. My default choice is generally the strongest 3rd party candidate of any ideology because I believe our biggest problem now is a country split between two parties where people not only vote for them but tend to adopt the party's views instead of driving them.

A Libertarian as a proper name is an actual member of the Libertarian party. I feel the Libertarian party has ironically adopted the tactics of Republicans and Democrats over it's members by berating them for disagreeing on issues instead of encouraging them to actually think. Like Neal Boortz, who while I disagree with him on Iraq (he is for it) I totally respect that he has his view and think Libertarians are nuts for being divisive over disagreement over one issue with a guy who constantly plugs them on the national airwaves.

Libertarians don't want to be in power because they would not feel smarter and superior to the rest of us if the majority agreed with them. I look for opportunities to advance libertarian ideology (unfortunately there are few now) not the party. For example, if the Democrats would without wanting to cut and run or control oil prices advocate wanting to leave the Middle East, I would probably vote for them.

[Irn-Bru]

If a libertarian is by definition someone who adheres to the libertarian ideology, then I guess my next question is: can you define what you mean by 'libertarian ideology'? (Preferably without using the word in your definition this time )

[KazooSkinsFan]

If a libertarian is by definition someone who adheres to the libertarian ideology, then I guess my next question is: can you define what you mean by 'libertarian ideology'? (Preferably without using the word in your definition this time )

This would be my definition, I'm not sure what the dictionary says and don't really care enough to look. But a libertarian believes in protecting the individual rights of life, liberty and property. Or as Ayn Rand put it the right for everyone to do whatever they want as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same.

The biggest failure of Democrats in libertarianism is the removal of personal responsibility through government. You cannot remove personal responsibility from one person without transferring it to others infringing on their liberty. At the societal level therefore to have true liberty individuals must have personal responsibility for their own actions. Democratic policies universally transfer responsibility and in the worst way, from achievers to non-achievers.

The biggest failure of Republicans is obviously the infliction of their own personal morality on others. Without control over your own body you do not have liberty. And in the end even if government can make your personal choices for you what is gained? Does God care if you did it out of fear of being arrested?

You can be liberal and libertarian if you want to provide retirement, healthcare and so forth through voluntary private charity and organizations instead of compulsive government. And that even ignores the additional factor that government is inherently inept. However, liberals in this country at least have subjegated their ideology to government.

There are some Republicans who believe strongly in socially conservative values but not enforced by government. For example, Ronald Reagan. I do actually have one friend who is a liberal libertarian. He believes in everything liberals want but not through government. Not because he opposes the concept of government doing it but because he has finally recognized it is hopelessly inept. I actually think Fios is close to that. I enjoy pestering him not because I don't respect him but because I do. He's one of the few libs worth pestering.

On the Libertarian party, I agree with them in theory but I don't think they are realistic or fair in key respects. THey are not realistic in that to have a libertarian system we have to work towards it. And they are not fair in that there are stupid people who do need SOME protection. I would be a lot closer to their system then that desired by either party. But as I said I dont' think they want to be realistic because they like looking down their noses at the other parties. I actually want to achieve libertarianism and I don't see the current Libertarian party doing that in any way.

Sorry for the long post, I've tried to be shorter, but it was not a simple question and still I only addressed a few key points not definitive.

[Countertrey]

Are you actually a libertarian or a Libertarian?

libertarian (small l)

I am actually registered Republican, but I tend to change back and forth between parties, depending upon whom has the most interesting primary possibilities. This area is over-run with yellow dog Democrats, so, really, the election takes place in the primaries.

The Libertarian party is loaded with fringe boneheads, who have no interest in the full scope of libertarian philosophy. Around here, they all tend to be interested only in legalizing drugs. That's it... that's their agenda. Of course, they are incredibly indignant when one points out the cynicism of that limited set of interests...

[KazooSkinsFan]

Are you actually a libertarian or a Libertarian?

libertarian (small l)

I am actually registered Republican, but I tend to change back and forth between parties, depending upon whom has the most interesting primary possibilities. This area is over-run with yellow dog Democrats, so, really, the election takes place in the primaries.

The Libertarian party is loaded with fringe boneheads, who have no interest in the full scope of libertarian philosophy. Around here, they all tend to be interested only in legalizing drugs. That's it... that's their agenda. Of course, they are incredibly indignant when one points out the cynicism of that limited set of interests...

I agree with you, while endng the inane war on drugs is a very good position, their obsession on that issue and leading with it in every discussion makes them sound like pot heads instead of serious. There are a lot more anti-government positions to pursue. Like blowing up the IRS through the Fair Tax.

[Countertrey]

Like blowing up the IRS through the Fair Tax

I can't understand how anyone who has read the entire proposal could do anything but fall in love with the concept. Generally, the first response from libs is, "Yeah, I read it... but what about the poor". That response does nothing but prove that they didn't read it, because a mechanism to accomodate the poor is built in, in the form of a "prebate".

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_main

[Irn-Bru]

Countertrey, we had a thread on the Fairtax a little while ago (I oppose it). It wasn't very long but I've outlined my objections there. Let me see if I can dig it up. . .



http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... ht=fairtax

[Countertrey]

I recall that one of your objections was that you did not believe the proposal repealed the 16th amendment. However, such a repeal is a part of the movement.

You are absolutely right, however. There is no point while that onerous weight hangs from our necks. The second there was a fiscal pinch in Washington, some bonehead would seek to pass a "temporary" income tax. We all know how that would work. Unfortunately, both have to happen at the same time... repeal of the 16th Amendment, and the initiation of the Fair Tax.

[Irn-Bru]

I also have moral objections to adding any new taxes in general, even if we try to repeal ones at the same time. I see the FT as one huge financial headache that isn't actually designed to reduce taxes. (As for the arguments that it will somehow reduce the tax burden, we can debate that).

Further, I'm a big fan of loopholes -- something that the FT is explicitly going after. Loopholes are windows to liberty, not a nuisance to be dealt with. Freedom can function in spite of bureaucracy; I don't want to make things simple for the government to get its money (remember, businesses become the new tax collectors, even though we get rid of the IRS).

My biggest practical concern is with the problem of the 16th ammendment, though. Far better if FT advocates succeed first in repealing it, then start talking about the FT. It will never happen that way, which is why I don't think I'll ever really support the FT.

[KazooSkinsFan]

I also have moral objections to adding any new taxes in general, even if we try to repeal ones at the same time. I see the FT as one huge financial headache that isn't actually designed to reduce taxes. (As for the arguments that it will somehow reduce the tax burden, we can debate that).

Further, I'm a big fan of loopholes -- something that the FT is explicitly going after. Loopholes are windows to liberty, not a nuisance to be dealt with. Freedom can function in spite of bureaucracy; I don't want to make things simple for the government to get its money (remember, businesses become the new tax collectors, even though we get rid of the IRS).

My biggest practical concern is with the problem of the 16th ammendment, though. Far better if FT advocates succeed first in repealing it, then start talking about the FT. It will never happen that way, which is why I don't think I'll ever really support the FT.

If I remember right the way it worked is when the Fair Tax is passed it isn't actually implimented until the 16th is repealed.

But you didn't really argue in the thread the Fair Tax is bad so much as it doesn't solve all problems.

I agree it is not in itself a tax cut (and is not designed to be), but don't you see the economic benefit of removing all the complexity and inefficiencies (e.g., company's acting to avoid taxes, not be more efficient) of our current code would in fact "cut" taxes?

And it would bring the current cash based economy (since they pay taxes when they spend, not earn) and shift taxes to foreign companies (since taxes are on products sold, not profits of American operations) reducing the portion of taxes being paid by current payers.

It would also remove the incentive for individuals and corporations to shield money by keeping it outside the US.

In the end, almost all taxes are already part of the sales price anyway. Income taxes, social security, medicare, etc are all paid from wages that are higher to pay taxes collected from.....sales of their products.

As much as I support tax cuts, I believe tax complexity in this country is a bigger issue because complexity drives government induced inefficiency. A key enemy of libertarianism.

[Irn-Bru]

If I remember right the way it worked is when the Fair Tax is passed it isn't actually implimented until the 16th is repealed.

That's not what I've read, but I haven't read a full account of the FT.

But you didn't really argue in the thread the Fair Tax is bad so much as it doesn't solve all problems.

I thought that I did, but I can make that argument further. Better yet, I'll point you to an economist that does, if you are interested.

(http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap1 ... _Sales_Tax)


By the way, in my conversations about the FairTax I see people making this claim all the time: 'You aren't really attacking the FT, you are just saying that it doesn't fix every problem.' I don't see why this is a persuasive counterargument per se. It isn't compelling because the injustices left unfixed, as I understand them, may be more harmful after the FT than before. Can you explain to me why you find this counterargument compelling?

I agree it is not in itself a tax cut (and is not designed to be), but don't you see the economic benefit of removing all the complexity and inefficiencies (e.g., company's acting to avoid taxes, not be more efficient) of our current code would in fact "cut" taxes?

And it would bring the current cash based economy (since they pay taxes when they spend, not earn) and shift taxes to foreign companies (since taxes are on products sold, not profits of American operations) reducing the portion of taxes being paid by current payers.

Both of these claims are ambiguous, so I'm not entirely sure how to address them.

I wouldn't rely on foreign companies paying too many taxes, though. They won't just sit there and take a 30% increase in the price of their goods -- for many foreign salesmen that will mean an end to selling goods in the U.S. And that necessarily decreases everyone's wealth.

Most incentives that I see proposed with the FT rely on an assumption that all other things will remain equal (foreign investment is a good example). I think this is fallacious.

It would also remove the incentive for individuals and corporations to shield money by keeping it outside the US.

No, because other countries won't have a 30% sales tax on goods. Perhaps there will be more foreign savings and investments type funds coming back to America -- although I would doubt even that given the weakness of the dollar (and it doesn't look like it'll be getting stronger any time soon).

The only reliable way to encourage wealth to remain in the U.S. is not to appropriate it.

In the end, almost all taxes are already part of the sales price anyway. Income taxes, social security, medicare, etc are all paid from wages that are higher to pay taxes collected from.....sales of their products.

As much as I support tax cuts, I believe tax complexity in this country is a bigger issue because complexity drives government induced inefficiency. A key enemy of libertarianism.

Complexity is a bigger issue than the tax rate itself? I don't know . . . about a third of the nation's wealth is sapped every year through taxes, and inflation destroys an even greater amount as well. Add to that the regulations over business and our personal lives that make everything less efficient. I don't think the complexity of the tax code is that big of a deal in the scheme of things, as wealth wasting as it may be. At any rate, I can't see how it justifies new taxes with the potential side effects that I see.

Besides, you want complexity? How do you think the government will deal with the 'tax-free' black market that arises along with the FT? More licenses for businesses, a bureau to guide and regulate employers, more federal oversight of daily affairs, a tax-collection agency (sounds familiar). . .

[Countertrey]

Besides, you want complexity? How do you think the government will deal with the 'tax-free' black market that arises along with the FT? More licenses for businesses, a bureau to guide and regulate employers, more federal oversight of daily affairs, a tax-collection agency (sounds familiar)

Will there be a bureacracy? Of course. But it will be based on mangaging about 500 pages of tax code instead of 60000. It will be a fraction of the current IRS.

You refer to "injustices" that would remain in place, even if Fair Tax were enacted. Please elaborate. I imagine that if you are a big time tax attorney or accountant, life in an income taxless world might seem unfair. Oh well (What do you call 1000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?.....

a good start.) Life would certainly suck for H&R Block and TurboTax, but, hey, who's problem is that?

My perspective on this would be that this becomes the Fair Tax, you have options about paying. Beyond food and basic living expenses, I don't have to pay a dime of tax under FT, because then it is all a matter of my choices... I can buy or not buy. I can buy expensive and NEW or expensive and USED. If I buy used, I pay no tax. That's the ultimate in justice, as far as I'm concerned. My tax is based upon what I choose to buy (or not buy)

[Irn-Bru]

You refer to "injustices" that would remain in place, even if Fair Tax were enacted. Please elaborate.

Sure:

* We've already talked about the 16th ammendment problem; I think that flaw is fatal. My other points probably won't seem as big of a deal. This point cannot be stressed enough, I think. I am scared to death to think that I might be taxed on my income and on my purchases, both as sanctioned national projects under the name of "reform."

* I don't see FT's benefits aside from cleaning up some bureacracy -- supporters don't claim that it will lower America's tax burden, for example. In addition, the FT, like all government reforms that don't actively shrink the spending and size of government, will have all kinds of unexpected consequences.

* We lose various loopholes in the tax code, which is one way that people are able to keep more of their money currently.

* One objection I have about injustice is simply a strict, hard line that I draw as a believer in rights: I can't support any tax, since taxes are appropriations and violations of property rights. FT requires me to support a tax. Therefore, I can't support FT.

* There are a host of smaller pet peeves that I see in the FT proposal. First is the name "Fair Tax." I'm also suspicious of tax reforms that don't do much reforming: why not address the bigger problems that America is facing -- i.e. the rate at which we are taxed, the size of government, and especially inflation.

* My ultimate goal is liberty, and the FT seems more like a step sideways than toward my goal. Focusing on the FT and supporting it make it seem as though this makes some serious progress towards having more freedom in society, and I simply don't see it. One of the "injustices" left by the FT is that it makes no argument that the only "fair" tax is no tax.

* In other words, when I'm considering whether a policy would be good for the country, I feel as though the burden of proof is on the side of the reformer. I'm not impressed when the arguments I hear go along the lines of "Well, why not? Do you have any arguments aside from the fact that this isn't perfect?" It seems like a strange way to go about supporting something.

Those are some of the points. If I sat down to think about it more I might be able to make them a bit more coherent, but that's what I've got in raw form.

My perspective on this would be that this becomes the Fair Tax, you have options about paying. Beyond food and basic living expenses, I don't have to pay a dime of tax under FT, because then it is all a matter of my choices... I can buy or not buy. I can buy expensive and NEW or expensive and USED. If I buy used, I pay no tax. That's the ultimate in justice, as far as I'm concerned. My tax is based upon what I choose to buy (or not buy)

First, (and you may not have been claiming this), but I don't think there's such a thing as a voluntary tax.

Now, it seems to me that one could argue your exact point about our current system. If you don't want to pay higher taxes, then you don't have to earn a higher salary. Keep your earnings under a certain ceiling and you won't pay a dime under our system. (And if that sounds like a silly comparison to you, consider what else you're supposed to do with a medium of exchange if not exchange it? To earn money and not spend it is as useful as not having earned it in the first place.)

Is it justice -- let alone 'ultimate justice' -- that there are some means available in order not to get pounded by the state? I think the ultimate in justice doesn't involve taxes whatsoever.

Do you think that the FairTax is voluntary, fair, or just?

Or is your argument more that it's better than what we have currently?

[Countertrey]

We've already talked about the 16th ammendment problem; I think that flaw is fatal. My other points probably won't seem as big of a deal. This point cannot be stressed enough, I think.

A legitimate concern, which is mooted by the fact that Fair Tax does not go into effect until the 16th amendment expires.

* I don't see FT's benefits aside from cleaning up some bureacracy -- supporters don't claim that it will lower America's tax burden, for example. In addition, the FT, like all government reforms that don't actively shrink the spending and size of government, will have all kinds of unexpected consequences.

But, they DO claim it will reduce the overall tax burden. Look, most folks are currently in the 15% bracket. Add to that the 7.65% payroll taxes for SS and Medicare, and you are at 23%. That does not include the 7.65 match done by your employer. Now, you must calculate in the fact that you will be getting a prebate, based on subsistence/necessity purchases. This backs the effective tax rate paid by a purson who spends $30000 in purchases over the course of a year down to 15.5%. That is a substantial reduction in individual tax burden. Know that this does not even consider the reduction in other taxes to business, and the additional effect this has on overall tax burden.

Plus, by eliminating the taxes buried within the costs of production, it will reduce what we pay for everything we buy. That is where the true gains lie... we are no longer paying for the taxes currently paid by the manufacturer, and all his suppliers, that become part of the retail price of our purchases.

We lose various loopholes in the tax code, which is one way that people are able to keep more of their money currently.

If you are being fairly taxed, why would you need loopholes? If Fair Tax substantially reduces your, and my tax burden, they are not needed.

One objection I have about injustice is simply a strict, hard line that I draw as a believer in rights: I can't support any tax, since taxes are appropriations and violations of property rights. FT requires me to support a tax.

So, to spite your face, you would cut your nose off? You are currently paying a truly onerous and fundamentally unfair tax. You wouldn't find it less unpallatable to pay a lower rate which is truly fair in it's implementation? He, I am fundamentally opposed to all taxes as well, but am pragmatic enough to understand that I am going to pay them whether I want to or not. Libertarianism does not require that you forego pragmatic thought.

* There are a host of smaller pet peeves that I see in the FT proposal. First is the name "Fair Tax." I'm also suspicious of tax reforms that don't do much reforming: why not address the bigger problems that America is facing -- i.e. the rate at which we are taxed, the size of government, and especially inflation.

Frankly, this is a start. We have a national mentality that largely is resigned to the current tax code, or (worse) sees ANY attempt to reform it to any degree as a threat to their entitlements (can't argue with that, but, then, that's part of the point). Momentum cannot simply be commanded... it must be built. This begins that process.

Look I am in complete agreement with your posture on taxes... this is about liberty... our fundamental rights, which are abridges daily by this Federal government in incessant violation of all the Constitution stands for. None the less, I am surprised by your illogical willingness to (at risk of being redundant) cut your nose off to spite your face.

First, (and you may not have been claiming this), but I don't think there's such a thing as a voluntary tax.

That is not quite what I meant. Though, it sort of is. Under fair tax, all NEW goods would be taxed. Used or recycled goods would not. We would all get a prebate, based upon the assumed cost of purchases required for subsistence. If I were to live on that, I would essentially be at zero sum... what I pay in taxes for food, etc, I get back in the form of the prebate. I could then make choices about purchases made beyond that. If I elect to purchase only used items, I pay no taxes on them.

If I choose to buy new, I make the choice to pay the tax. Hence, there is, in fact, a coluntary element to paying the tax. The reality is, I have never bought a new car... well, I did once, in 1983... but I have since chosen to buy only used. I would continue to make such a choice. My point is, it becomes possible to avoid paying the tax, unless you chose to do so. Your attempt to compare this choice to that of not earning a higher salary is not logical. I can avoid paying the Fair Tax, all the while enjoying a growing quality of life. I cannot avoid paying the current income tax, whether I limit my income growth or not. I will still pay. Or, go to jail. I don't like jail.

FFA... dude, look at the site. www.fairtax.org. As you say, the burden of proof is on the reformer... but they can't make you visit. It responds to your concerns... assuming you don't view a little pragmatic thought as anathema to libertarian philosophy.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Wow, just when I had given up on content. You guys are having a pretty good discussion on the topic. I just wanted to say I am not ignoring this, I just want to provide a more thoughtful argument then I can at this moment.

[DesertSkin]

First, let me say that I know little about FT and haven't come to any conclusions about this debate either way. I think it's a very interesting topic and merits a thorough looking into.

My thoughts and questions.

I am scared to death to think that I might be taxed on my income and on my purchases, both as sanctioned national projects under the name of "reform."

You already are taxed on income and purchases, so where does that fear come from?

We lose various loopholes in the tax code, which is one way that people are able to keep more of their money currently.

This doesn't logically flow. If the income tax is gone, how is the loophole with the income tax better?

One objection I have about injustice is simply a strict, hard line that I draw as a believer in rights: I can't support any tax, since taxes are appropriations and violations of property rights. FT requires me to support a tax. Therefore, I can't support FT.

And, thus, you end up supporting the current tax code by omission. You almost sound like the debate is between no taxes and the FT, not current tax code vs FT.

There are a host of smaller pet peeves that I see in the FT proposal. First is the name "Fair Tax."

Well call it something else then, say Trey's Tax (TT for short), but why let the name sway your view on the proposal?

I'm also suspicious of tax reforms that don't do much reforming: why not address the bigger problems that America is facing -- i.e. the rate at which we are taxed

Your suggesting that an overhaul of the tax code is somehow less of a reform than simply changing the tax rate?

My ultimate goal is liberty, and the FT seems more like a step sideways than toward my goal. Focusing on the FT and supporting it make it seem as though this makes some serious progress towards having more freedom in society, and I simply don't see it. One of the "injustices" left by the FT is that it makes no argument that the only "fair" tax is no tax.

I agree that no tax is "fair," but I'll take a "fairer" tax anyday. You seem to be saying that TT doesn't acknowledge that no tax is the best solution, therefore, you can't support it as a reform to the tax code. It may not be best, by why not support better over good. Or are you suggesting the TT will be worst then the current code?

[Irn-Bru]

First, let me say that I know little about FT and haven't come to any conclusions about this debate either way. I think it's a very interesting topic and merits a thorough looking into.

I agree. I'll try to answer to your responses below:

You already are taxed on income and purchases, so where does that fear come from?

My state taxes my purchases. I'm scared of a federal government that retains an income tax and puts a consumption tax on me. Right now those taxes have to come in through the back door (like the sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, and the taxes per gallon of gasoline). With the FT there will be a national consumption tax by federal government fiat.

Countertrey and Kazoo are arguing that the FT won't go into effect unless the 16th ammendment is repealed, so this point is probably not as relevant as I first thought.

This doesn't logically flow. If the income tax is gone, how is the loophole with the income tax better?

The FT claims to be 'revenue neutral', meaning that the government is still getting all of the money that it appropriates. One of the FT's virtues, according to its supporters, is that it closes most of the loopholes and inefficiencies of the current tax code.

Both are tax systems that take the same amount of revenue. I'm just pointing out that under the current tax system, there are loopholes, and I think these serve a useful function.

And, thus, you end up supporting the current tax code by omission. You almost sound like the debate is between no taxes and the FT, not current tax code vs FT.

I support no tax. But since this conversation is limited to the FT, I want to consider it on its own merits. I don't think that it's nearly as good as supporters claim. That doesn't mean that I like our current system any better, but I'm trying to focus on one thing at a time.

Well call it something else then, say Trey's Tax (TT for short), but why let the name sway your view on the proposal?

Because I think ideas are important. What does it take to truly think that a tax is fair? I think there are underlying issues, and it's more than just semantics.

Have you ever had a hard time in a debate over health care because someone is convinced that it's a right in the same sense of life and liberty?

Your suggesting that an overhaul of the tax code is somehow less of a reform than simply changing the tax rate?

Certainly. If I had a reform that reduced taxes (and the size of government) by 10%, that would infinitely superior to the FT. I think FT advocates may even agree on that one (Kazoo? Countertrey?). I think the focus with FT is more on making the current burden more tolerable, with the hope that this reform might lead to others.

I agree that no tax is "fair," but I'll take a "fairer" tax anyday.

And that's the question at hand. On the whole, I don't see the FT as more "fair" than the current system. I'm not convinced by the arguments that I've seen.

You seem to be saying that TT doesn't acknowledge that no tax is the best solution, therefore, you can't support it as a reform to the tax code. It may not be best, by why not support better over good. Or are you suggesting the TT will be worst then the current code?

I can't predict what the consequences of the FT might be. Most government reforms in our history have had substantial, unintended consequences. Some of these consequences have ruined the lives of many Americans.

Therefore, the reforms that I can support are ones that reduce the size of government and don't introduce new injustices into the system. Outside of firing a few hundred or thousand employees at the IRS -- which may not happen since they'll need to enforce and collect this tax, even though the business men are doing the day-to-day work -- I see no such reduction.

The question can't be "why not the FT?" unless I first agree that it would be an improvement. The "why not?" line is something to preach to the choir, so to speak, but I'm a skeptic sitting the back row of the church. I generally don't trust government "reforms"; actual reductions are far more praiseworthy.

[Irn-Bru]

We've already talked about the 16th ammendment problem; I think that flaw is fatal. My other points probably won't seem as big of a deal. This point cannot be stressed enough, I think.

A legitimate concern, which is mooted by the fact that Fair Tax does not go into effect until the 16th amendment expires.

OK, I hadn't read that. I knew that it was an essential part of the plan, but didn't know that the implementation was contingent on the 16th ammendment being repealed first.

But, they DO claim it will reduce the overall tax burden. Look, most folks are currently in the 15% bracket. Add to that the 7.65% payroll taxes for SS and Medicare, and you are at 23%. That does not include the 7.65 match done by your employer. Now, you must calculate in the fact that you will be getting a prebate, based on subsistence/necessity purchases. This backs the effective tax rate paid by a purson who spends $30000 in purchases over the course of a year down to 15.5%. That is a substantial reduction in individual tax burden. Know that this does not even consider the reduction in other taxes to business, and the additional effect this has on overall tax burden.


Plus, by eliminating the taxes buried within the costs of production, it will reduce what we pay for everything we buy. That is where the true gains lie... we are no longer paying for the taxes currently paid by the manufacturer, and all his suppliers, that become part of the retail price of our purchases.

Since all taxes from income are shifted to consumption, it doesn't seem to me that the prices of goods will fall.

Either our incomes will fall or the prices of goods will tend to rise, probably both will happen, but either way the FT will equalize itself out. The only thing that can reduce prices is an increase in production. (I know the FT advocates claim that it will stimulate the economy and production, but that's another debate). The short story is that, even though the FT is a consumption tax, it must affect production greatly.

If you are being fairly taxed, why would you need loopholes?

If the tax rate was fair, I wouldn't.

If Fair Tax substantially reduces your, and my tax burden, they are not needed.

This is what I'm disputing.

So, to spite your face, you would cut your nose off? You are currently paying a truly onerous and fundamentally unfair tax. You wouldn't find it less unpallatable to pay a lower rate which is truly fair in it's implementation? He, I am fundamentally opposed to all taxes as well, but am pragmatic enough to understand that I am going to pay them whether I want to or not. Libertarianism does not require that you forego pragmatic thought.

::

Frankly, this is a start. We have a national mentality that largely is resigned to the current tax code, or (worse) sees ANY attempt to reform it to any degree as a threat to their entitlements (can't argue with that, but, then, that's part of the point). Momentum cannot simply be commanded... it must be built. This begins that process.

::

Look I am in complete agreement with your posture on taxes... this is about liberty... our fundamental rights, which are abridges daily by this Federal government in incessant violation of all the Constitution stands for. None the less, I am surprised by your illogical willingness to (at risk of being redundant) cut your nose off to spite your face.

All of these arguments rely on the assumption that FT is better, or that reform without reducing government works, which is what I'm disputing. Posturing for holding the "pragmatic" view seems to be more rhetorical to me than substantial.

That is not quite what I meant. Though, it sort of is.

Yes, as our system "sort of is." The FT might be more "sort of" voluntary, but only semantically. You can have a model T in any color, so long as it's black.

Your attempt to compare this choice to that of not earning a higher salary is not logical. I can avoid paying the Fair Tax, all the while enjoying a growing quality of life. I cannot avoid paying the current income tax, whether I limit my income growth or not. I will still pay. Or, go to jail. I don't like jail.

If you make a low enough salary, you are actually a net tax earner. Earn more than the bare minimum, and you choose to pay the income tax along with it.

... assuming you don't view a little pragmatic thought as anathema to libertarian philosophy.

I feel like I need to nip this one in the bud. Pragmatism is in the eye of the beholder. A theory is only good insofar as it corresponds to reality. There's no such thing as 'theory' that roughly approximates general ideas and 'practical' beliefs that reflect things as they are. A good theory accounts for everything. For some reason I often hear that libertarian thought is good in theory but not in practice -- but if this is true then it means that libertarians aren't actually holding a good theory!

So let me put it in practical terms: I don't think the FT will work on a practical level. Look at the assumptions they make about economic growth; look at the assumptions they make about the price of goods post FT; look at the assumptions they make about our incomes. Everything they claim requires an "all else being equal" set of glasses.

Finally, keep the above paragraph in mind and look at this nation's history of economic and political 'reforms' that claimed to be better arrangements without actually reducing the size of government. Does that seem suspicious to you whatsoever?

[Clark]

What is wrong with repealing the 16th amendment? I firmly believe it was not intended for the United States to have a federally implemented tax. in fact when Lincoln first proposed the federal income tax it was launched off of the idea that it would just target the rich but the rich got lawyers and the poor don't have to pay so basically its the middle class is getting stuck with the largest percentage of the taxes, as far as their incomes go. And I just have to say this little thing that just scrapes my nerves. My parents have worked from 19 when they first had my sister. My dad has had between 1 and 3 jobs depending on the need since I can remember. Anyway we have not always been able to afford the $200 tennis shoes or the American eagle and Aeropastle, but we have never really done with out the basics. Any way I was in school one day and I overheard a conversation between two kids who wore different shoes everyday had Roca Wear outfits. And these kids were complaining about roaches in the projects they were living in. So here’s the deal that’s where my parents taxes are going. To buy those kids better outfits than I had and they were still complaining about their living conditions. Did they have heat yes, did they have water yes and yet they still were that ungrateful. But obviously they were not so uncomfortable that they were going to get out on their own.

It was a little infuriating

Now I know there are some people that need the money but this is insane Americans have nurtured a culture of people reliant only on hand outs and then they spend it like they've lost their minds.

sorry for the super long post but somtimes you gotta vent. hope i did'nt ofend anybody

[KazooSkinsFan]

I don't think to list out where I'm coming from every time that I post

In my case I kept saying it because the liberals kept calling me a Republican. You can say it was worth or not worth doing that, but it wasn't to say where I was coming from.