*DAMN R6 Forum

READ THIS ARTICLE
Voodoo Dividends (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html)

This Washington Post article by Warren Buffet perfectly explains in simple, capitalist terms why Bush's proposed removal of dividend taxes is a bad idea. His tax cut, which is fortunately getting continually cut down in the senate, is a blatant attempt to appease the rich and place a greater tax burden on the poor. He argues that it is unfair to tax dividends because it is unfair to tax money twice, yet fails to take into account that almost all money gets taxed twice at some point. He also believes that we should continue to increase our deficit in hopes that it will cause the government to decrease spending and therefore shrink. After examining the state of Texas post-Bush's governorship, this possibility scares me. Texas offers almost no government services. Its schools are ranked as one of the worst three in the nation (in good company with his brother's state, Florida, which is continually ranked in the bottom 3 as well). The poverty rate in Texas has risen, the environment has worsened, and the state is facing one of the worst budget problems in US History, owing a debt larger than most countries. Clearly, shrinking the Texas government has had an adverse effect on the state as a whole.

In addition, the wealth gap in this country has risen at an alarming rate since 1980 and is now one of the world's highest. An extremely small investor/CEO class holds over half of America's wealth. I don't understand why anyone would want to enact a policy that would work to increase that difference, especially when the world's leading economists including nobel prize winners George Akerlof, Kenneth Arrow, Daniel McFadden, Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, Douglass North and William Sharpe, Joseph Stiglitz, Franco Modigliani and Lawrence Klein all have spoken out in opposition to the Bush tax cuts, particularly the dividend cut (BBC article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269.stm)).

In my opinion this tax cut is a blatant affront to all social classes except the very richest bracket. An upper-middle class family like mine will get a tax cut, but it will be unsubstantial compared to the tax cut received by the rich. The tax burden in this country will be shifted even further onto the already suffering poor and middle class. As Buffet said:

"When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."

This chart prepared by congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) also helps illustrate exactly how regressive the Bush tax cuts are:

(http://www.calpundit.com/blogphotos/Blog_Top_One_Percent.gif)

(Mods: this image is black and white and takes up only about 2k, please let it stay)

What is your opinion?

I don't have the time to read about this, but by looing at the picture this is a perfect example of liberal bullshit. If you look at who pays the taxes, I can guarantee you that the upper 1% contribute a higher percentage of their incomes and a higher dollar total of their incomes to Federal and State (where applicable) taxes.

All that graph is trying to show is that it is somehow unfair that the rich get more money back, even though they are paying a larger sum than most of the people on that graph. (It is statistical fact that the poorest 20% of Americans pay a grand total 0f 3.5% of all taxes, while many of them actually receieve moeny from the Federal Government)

Maybe in a couple of days when I am done with exams, I will have to chastise use of such graphs.

Sin, pretty much everything you said is right (except the part about it being bullshit). The US has a progressive tax system, and the rich pay a considerably higher percentage in taxes than the poor. Most would argue that the current progressive tax system is, despite its faults and complications, relatively fair. Bush is attempting to change that, and that's what the graph is protesting.

i would prefer to see  presentages instead of numbers

after all if you have 20,000,000 in the bank 11,000 is a drop in the bucket

Voodoo Economics was bad in the 80's and it's bad now. There is no "trickle down" effect, it's lie, and a bad one at that. Rich people don't stay rich by spending money.

According to polls from a few American news sources, most Americans do not want this tax cut, many would prefer the money that would be cut was spent on health care.

Coss, that's the difference between republicans and democrats.

Kind of makes you wonder about poor republicans then.  Are they just uneducated and stupid?  Or is the GOP the party of the rich and powerful that ignores the common man?

snipe, does this mean you are saying that there are more democrats than republicans? i generally find poor republicans to be people that wish they were rich, but dont have the talent/connections to gain the level of material wealth they wish they had. either that or they are social conservatives who want to enforce their vision of morality on others.

They support the Republican Party because it is supposed to represent smaller government and greater financial freedom in your small buissness. But no party fufils its desired image.

I really feel like your economy is going to get a serious blow from whatever Bush wants.

The greatest signs I see that Bush's tax cuts are a bad idea is that there is a significant amount of Republicans who are protesting it, as well as Alan Greenspan who is seemingly given the title of economic guru who would know better than others what is good for the economy.

And the biggest problem is that the rich will get money from federal tax cuts, meanwhile the state and local governments need to pay the bills so they raise the taxes, but they don't tax the rich specifically, they raise everyone's taxes.  So the rich lose some of the money the got from the federal government, while the middle and lower classes just end up losing from what they have, so in the end the middle and lower classes are giving money to the rich with no significant improvement in services offered to them.

Alaric, it's much more complicated then that, and it actually did have some of it's desired effects the first time around.  Clinton didn't dig us out from the recession of the 80's all by himself.  Major point is, if you don't keep money in your customers pockets, they can't buy what you are selling.  

Just to trow in my two cents.  

Flat tax - not the best idea, but more equal.  Why should people that have more shoulder more of the burden?  You don't get charged admission to the movies based on what you have in the bank, you don't get billed more for dinner, or your phone, based upon your TRW.  Why is the price of being an American based upon it?  It would be a shake up, but I think it would also lead to more equalized earning as well.  Plus, with a flat tax, the IRS can be scaled down and that money used to either bring better services or give a tax cut (I leave that to our representatives).

Federal Sales Tax - best solution in my opinion.  Many states have proven this can work.  Tax levels can be set by the type of item, just like it already is (ie food isn't taxed, so everyone can eat).  So you don't tax the three basics, but everything else is (maybe exclude things that the government requires you to buy, like child safety seats for example).  The rich get taxed by what they spend.  They want that 500,000 boat, they pay the tax on it.  But they pay the same tax % that I pay on the boat I buy.  This would also almost eliminate the need for the IRS, which is the biggest black hole of funds in the US government (was the biggest government agency last time I checked).  

But, for those that think today's system is good, think again.  Anyone that said that ever look at the tax code?  Look at the exceptions and deductions you can make?  It's a bloody mess.  And what is fair about making one person pay more then another (at least with sales, it's their choice, they don't have to buy luxury items).  And yes, I am in the fucking high-ass tax bracket, so I have room to bitch about 38% of my pay going to various taxes.  And that doesn't include State sales tax or property tax.

Ok Tasty, there you go, there's the target you asked for.

Bucc, I think the Department of Defense is the highest budgeted section of the government...they said that on O'Reilly last night talking about how 1 trillion dollars were not properly accounted for.

Although I'm not sure you were talking about actual budget (certainly the IRS wouldn't get more than the DoD)  I am actually a fan of federal sales tax or a VAT as they call it in many countries.

One problem I see with the current system is that the rich don't pay their share as intended.  The rich disproportionately are the ones getting tax write-offs while middle and lower class tend not to have all the fancy write-offs as they don't pay for accountants to work the tricks.  This results in the taxes falling most heavily on the middle class.  Now, this of course is subject to questioning if the share the rich are supposed to pay is right, but there is no doubt that they are taking advantage of the write-offs the most and if there were no write-offs available, more taxes would be collected.

As for justifying the rich paying a higher percentage.  That is a touch of socialism, trying to balance out earnings.  I find it perfectly acceptable to expect those making a million a year to pay a greater percent than those making 30k.  They can afford to pay more without it depriving them of livelihood while the poor can't afford to lose as much or they won't be able to have a home or other such things.  Then again, being a social democrat, socialism doesn't bother me as much as economic libertarians.

About time bucc  8). As I see it, you addressed two crucial concerns with our tax system, fairness and utility. Our tax system is one of the few moderate policies I agree with. I don't support regressive taxes that choke the poor, but I also don't want to have to deal with a government any more massive than ours already is. Yes, the tax code is far too complicated and needs badly to be simplified. It has more loopholes than swiss cheese and screws more people than Ron Jeremy. While my family is not extremely wealthy, we get screwed by taxes just as much as anyone else. When my father sold his business a year ago, the government ate up about half of the profit from the sale. He also owns real estate, and property taxes screw him out of so much profit that he barely manages to break even on the properties he manages.

The loopholes are another annoying thing. Just last week before a congressional subcommittee, Rupert Murdoch admitted that last year News Corporation (aka FOX) did not pay any taxes last year. Numerous other corporations are allowed to hide their money in foreign banks and use esoteric rhetoric rules to their advantage in managing to pay little to no taxes. If we are to have a fair tax system, the government must ensure that all citizens and companies pay the amount they are meant to under the law.

I do not think that your suggestions will improve upon anything however. Businesses are conscious of how much people make - my friends and I pay 8.00 to watch a movie here in the suburbs, but if we make the 30 minute trek over to the east side of town we can see one for 5.50 at a theatre owned by the same company. Only the government knows how much specifically each person makes, so only they can ask people to pay accordingly. Other institutions merely assume how much people can pay and try to siphon out the maximum amount they can possibly get. I am interested in this idea of a flat tax evening out salaries, but know very little about it. I would appreciate some explanation.

A federal income tax is typically viewed as the most regressive type of tax. Obviously everyone has to buy stuff like clothing, furniture, transportation, etc. Poor people spend a much, much higher percentage of their yearly income on these items than rich people do. You can see then that introducing a federal income tax will literally reverse the current tax system: the poorest fifth of America will pay the highest percentage of their income in tax, while the richest fifth will pay an obscenely low percentage of their income. You point out that the rich will have to pay taxes on luxury items like expensive boats and cars. But the federal government already has a luxury tax, so how will this be any change in the tax burden?

The tax system is imperfect. In fact, it is highly flawed. But now as flawed as most of the alternative systems that are suggested to replace it. The question of fairness comes into play when you compare the salary of a janitor to that of a CEO. Say the janitor makes 10.00 an hour and works full time, 51 weeks a year. That would work out to be about 24,000 a year before taxes. Compare with Dick Grasso, the New York Stock Exchange chairman who makes 10 million a year. Mr. Grasso has a bachelor's degree and MBA from top colleges, is experienced, does a good job, is a public figure, and encounters high levels of stress in his workplace. He deserves to be compensated for these additional responsibilities that he takes on in his work. But does he deserve to be paid 417 times as much as this janitor? I don't think there is any reasonable way that one can argue that he isn't getting a pretty sweet deal as far as his income. He probably gets lots of time off and benefits up the wazoo, and he probably has a multimillion dollar pension waiting for him when he chooses to retire. My argument is that upper level salaries have soared beyond any reasonable level into the upper stratosphere, and the only way to redistribute the money that these workers are unfairly getting is through a progressive tax system. Capitalism is not perfect, and  contrary to what many believe it does not naturally solve problems itself. It is neither fair nor utilitarian for our economic system to be so heavily stratified. Progressive taxes must stay.

I agree with tasty that with the salaries being what they are, a progressive tax system is needed.

I however think we should strive to make the salaries be reasonable so that they can in turn change the tax system to a more flat tax style.

I've suggested it here before that there be some sort of top to bottom earner ratio, that the CEO (who we assume is payed the most) can only be paid something like 10 times what the lowest paid employee is paid.  There can be some alterations in this perhaps based on difficulty, demand, and risk of a job.  For example, nurses are in demand so the salaries for the job should be higher, that would seem to be common economics yet nurses aren't paid much so it remains an in demand job.  Professional atheletes are often criticized for how much they make, and they do make too much, but certainly they deserve significant amounts still due, especially in sports like hockey, to be paid well.  I would consider having a ratio within the players to be ok.  Say the minimum is 500k/year, make the max 5 million a year.  By having salaries in this manner, it doesn't really affect a company's bottom line, it merely distributes the salaries more equally within the company.  There is still incentive to be making the 10 rather than the 1 in the ratio so it doesn't remove that like true socialism does.

A Federal Sales Tax helps to accomplish this without having to pay for more government oversight.  Fox news has to purchase quite a few things to make it function, and it's just much harder to hide that.


Two parter.

First, I don't agree that to poor will be spending that much of a lower percentage then the rich.  The rich buy more, and buy more expensive items.  And if you don't tax the absolute necessities of life, then I don't see it as a reversal.  I see it as a leveling.  The only people that won't be paying out as much are those that don't purchase as much.  So, if the rich absolutely sit on their money, and don't buy anything, yes, they could pay a lower percentage.  But let's face it, they buy a shit load of stuff.  I'm considered rich by the government standards, and I sure as hell spend a very high percentage of my income.

Second, the luxury tax isn't set up right in so very many ways.  First, look at the cap.  It's too easy to fall right under it.  Second, look at how easy it is to get around.  I know people that actually get a tax break on their cars, because they pay for them with a home equity loan (very common).  

What I'm talking about here is a 10% or so sales tax on everything but the essentials.  Some things would be tax free, just like today, only maybe expanded a little.  Everything else would be taxed at a fixed rate.  Car, boat, mink coat, nintendo, xbox, computer, software.  You name it, all the same rate.  

Under this model, the only people that don't pay as high a percentage is those who sit on their money and save it.  And let's face it, even the rich don't want to do that.  They don't have any fun without spending it.  And you'd probably get more hard dollars out of the insanely rich this way, since they wouldn't have all the hiding places and loop holes.  And if that's the case, the actual percentage goes down for everyone.  

You need to remember, it's not about punishing the people that earn more.  If you want that, find yourselves a nice little socialist state.  


Ah, and where does that fit in with taxes I ask?  

First of all, what is stopping that janitor from going to school and stepping out of the $10 an hour job?  There is a reason it pays what it pays, same as the CEO positions.  Many CEO's make their money based on how well the company does under them.  So if the CEO steers the company in the right direction, to record profits, he's done a wonderful job for both the employees and shareholders.  And has earned his pay.  A CEO can make or break the company.  Look at Apple for example.  Does Steve Jobs not earn every cent he makes?  And I'm talking with the bonus, not just the one dollar a year salary he has.  Apple would have folded without him, instead, they are again one of the most profitable computer companies there is.  Tell me a janitor at Apple can have that kind of effect?  Tell me there aren't a million people that could clean floors as well as that janitor.  Then tell me how many people could have saved Apple.  Just like our economy, it's supply and demand.  The good CEO's have a very special skill, that's short on supply and big on demand.  

Second, we don't need to get in the discussion about socialism vs capitalism mixed in with taxes, do we?

Oh, and Bondo, your analogy about sports and salary caps was tried back long ago (you really need to learn some more history).  Problem is, it just made it the owners that got all the money.  Because it is a business, and business are there to make money.  So they try to make more every year.  So who should this money go to?  Players or owners?  And then what do you do about the teams that are more successful then others?  It's unmanageable.  That's the same sort of pipe dream as a true democracy.  It just can't exist in anything approaching a large society.  

So again, if you want to live in a socialist country, do so, but why do you want to make America into another one of those?  We'd lose all the technical innovation that comes hand in hand with capitalism.  The promise of great wealth is a great motivation.  You can't remove or prune one without doing the same to the other, there is a balance in the universe.

Actually, I was talking about actual budget, but this was 1) during the Clinton years and 2) they may have excluded DoD, like I said, it was a while ago and working from memory.


Screw socialism.  Funny how socialism ignores equality in the name of it.  They should shoulder an equal burden for equal protection.  The main job of the Federal Government is defense.  I don't think anyone here would argue that (and do so at your own risk).  Well, is the life of the guy making 30k a year worth less then that of the guy making 130k?  So why is the guy making 130k forking out such a higher percentage?  And lets not talk millions here, I'm in that high ass tax bracket, so let's compare me to the 30k guy.  What is it that makes it so I should have to pay such a higher percentage?  I breath more air then the other guy?  Takes more guns and tanks and ships and planes to protect my ass?  Ok, how about looking at the second most important thing for Government to do, state security.  Do I need more protecting by police then the guy making 30k?  I doubt it.  I may have a little more to lose, but I also make enough to not be in a high crime area.  And I make enough to have everything insured.  

There is nothing stopping that guy from getting more education, more qualifications, and going after more money, is there?  And there is nothing stopping people that don't want to live in a competitive economy from moving to a more socialist one, is there?  If someone doesn't want to work to get ahead, then they shouldn't complain that someone has that much more then them.

So what is it that makes it more important for me to pay that much more?  I'll accept paying more hard dollars in the name of a flat percentage, just to make things that much easier to manage, but why should I pay an even higher percentage?  What is fair about that or equal about that?  Equal rights should mean equal responsibility.  Most people here believe in equal rights (with some noted exceptions), but those equal rights should come with equal responsibilities, shouldn't they?  

The way it is today, I pay more in taxes than the guy makes.  And that's no lie.  How is that fair?  He had every chance I did to make the money I make.  It's not like anyone paid for my education other then me.  I earn that money, every bit and more then someone that didn't go into serious debt to get an education.  If that guy didn't want to do what it takes, good for him.  I did.  I shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes the rest of my life.

Bucc, my salary ratio suggestion has nothing to do with socialism really.  It is just about paying people for the amount, the quality, the risk, the demand, etc of the job and not just paying the people at the top big bucks because they are the people at the top.  While there are some influencial CEOs there are others who have no real effect on their company and are merely just talking heads at the top.  The point isn't trying to make everyone have the same amount as would be socialism, it is just trying to pay more fairly.

And my salary ratio concept would have no affect on technological innovation, like I said, it doesn't affect the bottom line of companies so they are free to re-invest the money to develop new things just as much as before.  And Inventors can still strive to be at the top of the ratio so there is still individual motivation.

When you say socialism ignores equality to achieve it, you ignore the type of equality socialism sets out to achieve, specifically equality of quality of life, for everyone to have the same things.  True socialism does have an equal tax rate though...100%.  All is redistributed through the government.

Hehe, I'll take the bait, I think the most important thing government does is the legal system...making, enforcing, and judging laws, the three branches.  I'd rank that above defense.  Of course, I'm a fan of a weak federal government (and less defense spendings), and putting more money through state governments.

The one thing about urging the guy to seek to move up rather than expect to be paid more for being a janitor...if he does move up, there will still be a janitor who will still be paid very little.  The point is to improve the life of people in the bottom rung simply by having a higher standard of what the bottom rung is.  Once again, it is a matter of paying people fairly (why should a company making millions or billions in profit be laying off people or just employing people for below a decent standard of living?)

About the sports thing...who said I want the owners to keep the money.  They would also be paying the other employees more, the field crew, the concessions people, all the people in the corporation's bottom would have increased salaries...that would take some of the owner's profit.  Secondly, in the case where the stadium isn't selling out, a sign of weak demand, economics would state that ticket prices should drop, so if there is more profit, it should go to the consumers by not having as expensive of tickets/food/etc.  Finally, the owner as the person taking the risk of investment deserves a profit of his own.  The point being, your criticism assumes the players are paid less and the owner pockets the rest.  My version assumes that the owner uses the extra money to trickle down if you will (more forcibly trickled down than Bush and Regan economics) to raise the quality of life for many.

These are just possibilities though, I'm not an economic expert who could have a real idea the effect of all these different strategies.  But I do think salary fairness as I've suggested substantially raise the quality of life for many people, maintain a high quality of life for the top, just not obscenely so.  It keep motivation to move up, to invent, and leaves room for companies to invest in new innovations.  Basically it has some of the fairness of socialism without the major shortcomings of socialism.

The rich will buy much more, but I don't think they could ever spend a higher percentage. Rich people invest their money, and poor people don't usually have enough left over at the end of the month to invest. Rich people are usually smarter with their money too. If anything, I think this income tax will cause people (especially the rich) to buy less. dddddIt also really depends on what type of items are going to count as "bare necessities". It seems like you are defining them pretty loosely. The tax you have proposed at the rate you have proposed will bring in miniscule revenues. It will also greatly favor the rich over the poor in my opinion. What about state sales taxes too? Will we tax things twice?

The exact problem with this though is not the rich (six figured salaries) but the extremely rich, the ones with seven figure salaries or above. If you're Ted Turner or Bill Gates, there is a certain point where you just can't spend any more money because you've already bought everything there is to buy. The obscenely rich sit on more money than anyone else. I think that a sales tax alone would need to be augmented by other provisions - it sounds lovely, but its just too simplistic to get the job done.

But its also not about punishing the people that earn less, which is what your proposal does. You have stated again and again your beliefs in concepts like meritocracy and social darwinism. Yet many people are NOT capitalists and do not use money as their motivation in their final career goals. People should not be forced to pursue material wealth just to get by. Everyone that is working deserves at least subsistence level salary. You continually bring up the fact that Joe Janitor can go back to school and try to work his way up through the corporate ladder, but no matter what Joe Janitor does someone is going to have to do his job. Not everyone can be a skilled worker, not everyone can get advanced degrees. Society has a continual need for people to clean, people to cook, people to cashier. These people, whether they chose their line of work or whether its simply the best they can do, do not deserve to live below the poverty level. A federal sales tax will punish these people for their life choices, and unlike the rich, they won't have leftover money to make up the difference.

First of all, I don't agree that Steve Jobs is the only person that could have saved Apple. There may not be 10 million people who can be as good of a CEO, but I bet there are at least a thousand. I also believe that it is impossible to "earn" 10 million dollars. There is nothing that one person can do that is deserving of that much money, short of singlehandedly saving all of mankind or something like that. It is true that supply and demand is the law of capitalism, but it also creates absurd prices and absurd salary differences. And CEO salaries ARE absurd. In 1980, the top CEOs were barely making a million dollars. Inflation has not gone up that much since 1980 to account for the differences in salary then and now.


It is a folly that all of America's greatness is resultant from capitalism. There are plenty of motivating factors besides money. I argue that technological innovations would happen with or without capitalism. According to the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report, Finland ranks number one in innovation. Obviously they don't need capitalism to motivate them to be innovative or invent new things, since they are doing it at a higher rate than the United States. Money is not what motivates me to succeed in school, and most of the intelligent people I know are not motivated by money either. It's a poor excuse to make up for a system that creates inumerable injustices.

I'd like to point out that CEO's high salaries is not capitalism at work, it is collusion.  It is uneconomically sound.  Basically, you get all the CEOs on boards of companies and they scratch one's back by approving a high salary and in return they have their own high salary approved.  Allowing these salaries is just as uneconomic as setting specific levels.  And if we are going to ignore proper economics, I prefer to ignore it in a way that raises the average quality of life of many, not the one that raises the quality of life of a few.

Remember, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."  Star Trek 3 ;)

Couple things here Tasty.  

It's a Sales tax, not an income tax.  You keep saying income, and I'm not sure if you are confused or just misspeaking.

Next, think about what you said.  Rich people invest.  When you invest, what are you doing?  You are PURCHASING something.  That would fall under a SALES TAX.  If you invest in something you are buying into it.  Today, you only get taxed on the money you make from the investments (income), the way I say it, you get taxed on the investment, win or lose on it.

Another thing, we tax everything more than twice.  You pay state and federal tax now.  I pay a Federal Income Tax, a State Income Tax, a State Sales Tax, a City Income Tax, a Local Property Tax and a Local Millage.  Some areas even pay a County or City Sales Tax.  So, we are already getting taxed coming and going.  So talking about getting taxed twice has no meaning here.


Ok, first, when you talk about the rich, and you look at stats about the rich, all those 6 figure salaries that me and my friends make are counted.  The mega rich are not where the government or the stats draw the line.

Second, Income Tax doesn't effect Ted Turner or Bill Gates if they are sitting on their money either.  All they have to do is not show that they MAKE MONEY (which the mega rich do so very well) and they don't pay Income Tax.  Taxing Sales would get much more of the mega rich peoples money.  Because they sure do buy things.  If they just sit on their money, they'll still pay more in Sales then Income.

Third, I'm glad you think it's too simplistic to work.  So, now, explain to everyone here how the states that just have a Sales Tax don't go bankrupt?  How is it that they can make the budgets meet?  You just called something too simplistic to work that has already been proven to work.


Ah, but this is a capitalistic nation.  It's called "the American Dream".  If people don't like a capitalistic society, they are free to find a socialistic one, are they not?  Are there not socialistic societies out there, where they can go?

A great majority of the people that came to America from other nations, did so because of what capitalism offered them.  And this was good.  But capitalism isn't for everyone, and if socialism is a persons game, that's great, and they should go to a socialist state and be happy.  What in the world is wrong with that?  Don't give me anything about not being easy.  Look how many people that have nothing get into America every day.  It can be done.


So you can't Tasty, so what.  It's still all about supply and demand.  You are arguing with the whole economic system, and that's not about taxes.

Bottom line it.  I don't care if you or Bondo or anyone else thinks that salaries are out of hand, that should have no bearing on taxes.  Because you can't start drawing a line and discriminating against people, which is what you are talking about.  He makes XXX amount of money, or has YYY amount of money in the bank, so he's now guilty of having too much, and we are going to punish him for it by making him pay more.  That's bullshit.  May as well say that all black people have to pay a higher percentage because it's their minority that takes up most of the welfare.  It's just as unjust.



Really?  So all these universities competing for grants, all this "venture capital", what is that?  GREED.  Greed is a motivation that works, and works well.  There are other motivations, but tell me, where are all those carb's and fuel injectors that were invented in the 70's that get 100mpg?  All sold to the oil companies, that's where.  Go ahead, name a wonderful invention in America that is free, that the owner isn't making or at least trying to make a bundle from.  How many?


Ah, should have checked your sources a little closer Tasty.  Here's the link for you:

http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CReports%5CGlobal+Competitiveness+Report+2002-2003#Comp

Now, if you just read the rankings, you'd think the facts you just provided were correct.  But, if you notice, they don't say innovation (but it is a factor).  However, if you happen to open the PDF's of the nations, you'll find that the USA ranked number 1 in innovation, and Finland ranked 3rd.

So, I think the "folly" was yours.

Sorry Tasty, you need to do some more homework.  Both on the fact that Sales Tax does indeed work, and on innovation.

My response to salaries being out of hand doesn't have a bearing on taxes, it has a bearing on salaries.  As I mentioned, the salaries have nothing to do with free markets, they have to do with a collusion failure in the markets.  I feel either you correct that failure and have proper salaries or you are forced to use a progressive tax system.  Either way, the quality of life for the poor needs to be better.  I prefer the first way, but failing that the second is what we are stuck with.

Your idea that if people don't like capitalism that they should move somewhere else is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I'm quite tired of you bringing it up. I am somewhat of a socialist. If all people with any socialist leanings left America, than what would you have left? Maybe 60% of the current population? People don't just leave their home countries when they disagree with something in it - they try to reform them. No country has every had the same governmental systems in place forever - why should America be any different? It would go against over 2000 years of recorded history to say that America's economic system will never change. Reformers usually make good things happen. I'd personally love to see America become more socialistic.

In my opinion, greed is a sin and it is morally wrong. So yes, I do want to punish greedy people. It's no lie that I want to make a good salary someday too - but I think people that do have a duty to share some of their wealth with the poor. Since most people refuse to do this voluntarily, I have no problem with the government stepping in and doing it for them. And if you want to argue history, the US has had a graduated income tax system for about 200 years. So if this is a "capitalist nation" and obviously you believe that should never change, than this is also a "graduated income tax nation" and that should never change either.

Perhaps a federal sales tax could bring in enough revenue. I don't really know much about it and never claimed to- I just brought up doubts, which you answered. But just because it could bring in enough revenue doesn't make it a just system. It is necessary to take income into account out of simple human mercy. Perhaps you don't care about the plight of the economically less fortunate, but other people do. If you dislike high taxes, you should consider yourself lucky. Before the Reagan presidency, the highest tax bracket was taxed a whopping 72%. After this latest round of Bush tax cuts the highest bracket will pay only about 38%. And now you want more?

BTW, I got the thing on Innovation from the Sunday issue of the Des Moines register. It was second hand source, and I didn't bother to check the original because I (obviously wrongly) assumed that they wouldn't print anything untrue, especially because it was one of the Gannett syndicated columnists (I forget which one but I'll look it up if you don't believe me).

Hehe, well, I'm sort of taking Bucc's advice, I am moving to a more socialistic country at some point.  Although it is for conjugal reasons rather than political.  I would love to see a country with as much potential and influence as the US improve though.  Just like I would like to see the world as a whole improve.  I think most people want the world to be a better place, just not the current "leader of the free world" and his administration.

I'd like to add to the whole leaving fray - there are no countries in existence that fit all of my political ideaologies (and I'd wager the same for tasty).  Furthermore, the ones that are close have completely different cultures from ours that we could never be assimilated into.  It's not as easy as you suggest - and America is far from paradise (otherwise we wouldn't ever have these debates!)

Incidentally, just as there is no country that has a competely government-controlled economy, there is no country that has an entirely free-market capitalized system.  Consider that a good thing if you consider yourself a moderate.

well, we in germany pay up to 50 % taxes... if anyone has a bad tax system its us! noone pays more i think...

and with bush, i dont think the prob is his tax system, its that he is the pres of ur country...  ;D

Silver, taxes are even higher in Sweden. Bleh.

What you'd like to do is change some of the cornerstones that this society was built upon too.  And I for one don't like it at all.

My point is, you and Bondo seem to want to turn America into another Finland (or pick your socialist country and fill in the blank).  They already exist.  People leave socialist countries to come to America every day.  People leave the country they grew up in to come to America every day.  Why?  Because this country suits them.

So what in the fuck is outrageous or absurd about suggesting that people who want to live in a socialist country go and do so.  Be happy.  And let those that want to live in a Capitalistic Democracy live here.  

Think about it.  If you had your way, and all the countries were socialist, you would be forcing that way of life upon people that didn't want it too.  I say embrace the differences in the nations.  Find the one that fits you and be there.  And don't give me any bullshit about it not being that easy.  It's done every day, and not just by a few people.  People with no money at all seem to be able to accomplish it, so can you.  I've traveled, lived and worked in plenty of other countries.  It's not that hard, honest.  Except for Grand Cayman.  They make it very hard.


Sin?  Sin?  You can't bring religion into government.  Bad form.


Fuck what?

You just said that most people don't give to charity (in America).  We give more voluntarily then most countries GNP.  And you can bet that a bigger percentage of it makes it to those that need it then if the government did the job.  They'd spend most of it paying for the infrastructure, and then changing it all the time.  

Greed is also a motivator.  And a good one.  We already talked about that (that where you brought up your very wrong fact).  

And you say you want to "punish" those that are successful.  You want to punish success.  That makes a hell of a lot of sense.  That's really motivation to go above and beyond.  

You want to punish people, and that's a good reason to be unfair to them.  Now that's good progressive thinking there.  Not.


Really?  200 years?  When did Income Tax become the law?  And wasn't it found to be unconstitutional the first time?  If you are going to throw something like that out Tasty, do your homework.  The Income Tax Act was passed in 1913, so you are a little over 100 years off.  So not even half of the nations history.  So much for another point of yours.


I answered them before you even brought them up.  I mentioned that some states already do it quite a ways back there.  And I wouldn't say calling it "too simplistic to get the job done" is bringing up doubts.  


Sure I do, and I give to charity too.  But even more, I'm not against welfare either (I just want it managed better).  And if you look into it, a sales tax is better for everyone.  That's one of the things I've been pointing out.  The real poor would be paying less in actual dollars since many of the things they need to buy wouldn't be taxed.  And the ultra rich wouldn't be able to hide their money as easily.  Add to all that the billions saved by not needing the IRS in it's bloated, stinking state.  

The problem is that you seem to think that all of the tax burden should be on us that make more, in the name of "mercy".  I say that a bunch of crap.  


I believe you got it out of the paper, but it just goes to show you that you have to check your sources =D.  

Tax wise, I've shown you many, very many good things that can come with a Federal Sales Tax (aka a Consumer Tax).  The only real point you've made against them is you want to punish the rich and successful for being rich and successful, and stick it to them.  Not a very good motivation in my book.  I wonder how you'll feel about it when you are making 6 figures and still see the guy on welfare driving a new Caddy.  

One last note, Go HR25!  (Yes, it actually is a bill in the House)

Bucc, I'm not going to point out everything wrong with that, but why do you waste your time picking things apart when you know you're not any more correct than tasty?

For one, the only reason we give more money to charity is because our tax system gives a break for doing so.  It's basically deciding where to put your money.  Capitalism is inherently greedy, and that's why the government and tax system exist to transfer some of that money-making energy to the poor, who lack the same opportunities to develop wealth.

Two, what was the point of bringing up Income Tax?  It's not like that's the only tax our government has ever had - there have been graduated taxes throughout history.

Simple analogy for why graduated tax is a good idea.  Take a person with $1 million in the bank.  Each day in interest, he will earn 1000 times as much as someone with only $1,000 in the bank.  And that has nothing to do with work, investment to society, etc.  It's just money for existence.  The fact that their monies are growing at the same percentage rate doesn't change the fact that the rich person is getting richer every day without doing anything.  Frankly, if you have money, it's much easier to make more of it.  That's why some must be redistributed, or else the wealth gap will grow larger ad infinitum, because an everyday working person will never manage to quadruple their money many times over in order to catch up.  Capitalism is all about competition, but there's no reason that the playing field shouldn't be fair.  Graduated taxation just evens out the advantage of being rich.  If you're rich, you've won - you don't have to compete any more.  The fact that people want to doesn't mean the government can't make it a little harder for them, since they're already taken care of.  What's the big deal about losing half your income if you're left with $1 million to spare?  Do you think someone who's working day and night to make ends meet should lose the same percentage as a wealthy CEO or person with inherited riches?

     Damnit, I knew it was a bad idea to read this before going to bed. Now I'm forced to post and postpone my sleepy-time even more.  ;)


     First, do you honestly think that the ONLY reason that ANYONE gives to charity is to avoid tax? I think that there are other significant reasons, like guilt at having more. I believe that even without the coercion of tax breaks, charities would still be funded.

     Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, the government and tax system existed to protect and manage the country, and to pay for that management and protection, respectively. Governments don't exist to transfer money from rich to poor; they exist to transfer money from citizens to soldiers and judges and cops and teachers, etc. I'm snickering behind my hand at your phrase "money-making energy". Since when has the government dole included a mystical urge to go and contribute? In my experience, getting handouts leads to getting more handouts, because that is the path of least resistance. NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO SKIM AND WHO WILL BITCH ABOUT MY "OBVIOUS HATRED OF THE POOR": I think that the concept of welfare is an excellent idea, in its original form, which was as a very short-term (no more than a couple of months, if memory serves) aid to people who were between jobs. Up with welfare, down with the welfare state. Anyway, to continue, smile when you say that "capitalism is inherently greedy". That is a point of pride, and the saving grace of the capitalist system. Capitalism provides an incentive, and more importantly, the freedom to accumulate whatever amount of money (and therefore power) that you are willing to accumulate, and in the process, you will contribute your time and energy to the economy and the state. Greed is a powerful motivator.

     I'm disturbed by the view that you and Tasty hold that says that being rich (or even well-off) is something vile and sinful that must be punished. Being "rich" means, in most cases, that the individual in question was willing to work his ass off to earn a lot of money. (In some cases, of course, it just means that they were lucky to be born to rich parents...) Working hard is good, right? Contributing to the economy is good, right? So why is reaping the benefits of hard work evil?

Bucc, as someone who recently was trying to make a move to a different country, it isn't easy at all.

To work in Canada, you need to get a job THEN apply for a work permit and then you can start working.  This is fine if you are going for a job that is selective in labor supply like I will be after I graduate, but trying to get a normal food service level job, they aren't going to bother hiring people on work permits.

Now we go to the study permits.  They require you to have a certain amount of money in the bank each year to get the permit.  Of course, this is made difficult in that they don't allow you to work due to the problem I mentioned above, so unless you just have a big college fund with cash to spare, it doesn't work out.

As for getting resident status, they don't just give it to you because you want to move there.  You either have to be filling a job they need filled or you need to be married with a citizen (the latter being my eventual ticket in).

So no Bucc, it isn't easy.  If it was easy, I'd be moving there this summer, but since it isn't easy, I'm waiting until after I graduate and hoping I can get hired and thus get a work permit to be there.  Otherwise I'll be stuck in the US until my girlfriend and I are ready to get married.


Ok, moving on, next to welfare, you say you support it but want it run better.  I've probably stated this before, but I have a rather conservative method for welfare and the other social programs.  I think they should be funded within the state without having to make it a federal issue at all.  I think the federal government should only collect a small amount of money, that being for defense, foreign aid, and the functions of the three branches.  I think the only role in social programs for the federal government is to set the standards that the states will put in action.  

I don't see why the federal taxes should be more than the state/local taxes.  I think a 5-10% flat tax would work find for the federal taxes.  It is state taxes that should be much higher.  Have the money controlled on a smaller state scale and it will be handled more efficiently.  I think the limit on taxes should be 1/2 of income for the very rich (no write-offs) so the state can tax 40% between a graduated income and VAT.  I think states would be much more capable of dealing with the social programs.  This is perhaps my one true conservative leaning is weakening the involvement of the federal government over the states (although I think all states should be forced to provide equal social services).


Loth, you are right to a degree there, I don't know if anyone looked at my write-up about the charity survey I did, but there is motivations to giving to charity outside of tax write-offs (not mind you, those I surveyed were probably not paying enough in taxes nor giving enough to have a write-off).  But there is some cynicism deserved to the big companies whose charity work is often more tax and PR based than true compassion.

My main complaint about the charity write-off, and most write-offs actually, is that they demand that it must be a minimum of a certain % of your salary to be written off.  This is inherently biased to the rich.  If you are making minimum wage, you can't afford to give 5% of your income.  If you are making a million, you can give 5% and wait for the tax break.  If they are going to give write-offs they should not have minimum amounts that need to be spent to earn the write-off.

Loth, what do you think about people on welfare because they are mentally or physically handicapped and CAN'T live through any other means?  What do you think of mother's on welfare who trying to work would mean neglecting their child/children...children that will likely end up poor if they are neglected.  I'm all for providing services to help people on welfare get off welfare, but there are so many cases where it isn't just a matter of it being easier to be on welfare.  To put limits on it would be devestating to as many people as it would motivate to make a living on their own.

As for why the rich are evil.  It isn't just rich, but everyone should long for the rise in quality of life for every other human on this earth.  The rich happen to have the means.  In Buddhism it is called the middle road.  Buddhism would look admonish those who live in extravagance as having poor intentions.  The Buddha himself was a prince living a great greedy type life when he snuck out of the palace and saw what is known as the Four Passing Sights, various people with little who were suffering.  At that he adopted a restrictive lifestyle having no material wealth...before settling on the middle way.

The point is to have the rich not live so extravagantly while others don't even have what they need.

So Bucc how much tax should there be? Do you want to completley at all pay no taxes?

Loth, that was my fault - I should have phrased more clearly.

I was responding to Bucc's comment that we give "more" in charity than elsewhere, and I think probably the reason for that has to do with the tax incentives.

But further on, read more carefully in my post (DON'T SKIM ;)).  I don't think being monied is evil or needs to be punished, although tasty did make the faux pas of saying that.  I think of graduated taxation as a way to even things out.  While capitalism is competitive, one of the goals of society is still quality of life for as many people as possible.  Thus if a lot of people can be rich instead of just a few, that's great.  If poorer people get a little bit of help, they will at least have the opportunity, whether they use it or not, to one day be rich themselves, and in turn help those beneath them.  Eventually in a perfect system everyone would grow continually richer and the "poor" would be at the level of today's middle class, while the net worth of the richest few might be around $500 million instead of $50 billion (to use a random example)  If you work it out, there's more than enough wealth to go round, while keeping rewards for further growth.

I'm not suggesting any kind of wealth cap, but as I said in the other post, increasing tax rates just make it harder to get rich faster.  For example, if you already have $10 million, the capital you can invest means it would be "easier" for you to make another million than it would be for someone who only has $1000 to their name.  However, if the $10 millionaire has a greater tax on earnings, that next million would be harder to earn, and more of his efforts would go to help out the guy with $1000.  This assumes that both work.  There are of course social issues to deal with those who are infirm or lazy. . .but this is just a simplified example.  In general, these tax issues would combine to foster competition, and the incentive for the rich to work remains just as strong - they just continue to grow at the same rate, instead of making exponentially more money.

Do you follow now?  I'm all for competition - I just don't think the wealth gap should get any bigger.  The rich can get as rich as they like, there's just no reason to do it at the expense of the poor, which is what a flat tax or regressive tax essentially does.

A bit extreme in my last post, perhaps I was. I think one important distinction needs to be made. Greed is not the same thing as success. True success and happiness comes from other factors- the thrill of victory, self-condfidence, and genuinely helping people. I am not trying to squelch motivation or success, simply saying that there are other motivating factors. I believe that money can never bring happiness. Also, just because I want to punish something doesn't make it unfair. Arg I GTG I don't have time to write any more. Until later...

Wrong.  I'm not trying to punish anyone.  And I've gotten my facts right.  So, bite me Loudass.


Learn how this works before you talk about it like you know.  First, most Americans can't deduct what they give to charity, because it has to be a "recognized" charity.  Second, you have to itemize your deductions, which most people don't do.  Third, you don't get all that money back, what it amounts to is that if you donate $500, after your tax refund it was like donating $400, since they just don't TAX you on that donation.  

So you are still giving money away, out of your own pocket.  Using charity as a tax deduction as motivation is only for the incredibly stupid, since it doesn't help much, and there are many other ways to do it without giving your money away.  

Do the math.

And I also find it laughable that people like you and Tasty, who think we should take care of the poor and underprivileged think that most Americans wouldn't give to charity on their own.  Now that's the old "I think I'm better then everyone else" attitude talking there.


Where does it say that's the job of our government?


Have you noticed that I'm against graduated taxes for their unjust treatment?  That was pretty stupid.


Loudass, I've addressed most of what you've said already.  Please, go back and read or drop it (rich by tax standards doesn't mean a million in the bank, you guys need to talk about reality, not this bullshit about the mega rich).  You are talking as if a flat tax and a consumption tax are the same things.  They aren't.  

And it's not the governments job to redistribute wealth either, not in America.  

And while it is harder for the poor to get rich then it is for the rich to get richer, it's still done every day.  I've gone from the poverty level 15 years ago to the rich level now.  All it took was applying myself.  Anyone with half a brain can do well.

Last point, you've all managed to ignore the fact that a consumption tax would bring more hard dollars from the rich, or the money that would be saved by the government.  No loopholes and less to police.  You've ignored it because you want to punish the rich and successful for being rich and successful, instead of actually talking about the merits of the system.  It's not the governments job to make sure that income is leveled, or even close.  It's not the governments job to redistribute wealth.  Those aren't anywhere in the constitution that I know of.  

The mega rich that you are so eager to punish don't pay nearly as much in taxes under the income tax rules as they would under a consumption tax system.  It's too easy for them to get around the system.  Who's getting the shaft by your wont for this discrimination is those like me, not the ones you keep on talking about.  

Funny how the liberals find discrimination ok as long as they are the ones choosing the targets.  You are just as fucking bad as the conservatives.

Bondo, as someone that has both lived and worked in Canada (amongst other countries) it is that easy.  Remember, I was living in Canada not that long ago.  You can pick up a student or temporary visa.  Yes, you actually have to look for a job before you get a work visa, but they are there if you look.  And if you have a student visa, there are plenty of conditions that let you work under it as well.  And so far, I'm just assuming that you want a visa in the first place, you can go to canada without one.  And if you need money in the bank to get the student visa, but plan on working, that's easy.  Have someone in your family put the money into your account for you while you apply.  The visa is good for the whole time you are at college, except in quebec, so once you have it, it's done.  There are always ways to get around the red tape, all you have to do is look.  There are probably dozens of ways to get around this crap, if you apply yourself.  It's all about applying yourself.  People do this all the time Bondo, so don't make it out like it's impossible.

If you read instead of skimming, and then think about it, maybe you would understand what a consumption tax really does effect the rich and poor alike.  Those poor trying to save will be able to do so without as much tax, those spending will be the ones paying the taxes, and the rich spend.  Makes it easier for the poor to start getting a leg up, and makes it harder for the very rich to avoid taxes.  What is wrong with any of that?

And as for the rest, don't discriminate.  Graduated taxes are discrimination.  You may not like the gap between rich and poor, but that is not what taxes are about, and abusing that system for your own agenda is the same kind of bullshit I hear you guys bitching about Bush.  You just have a different agenda, you still want to abuse it.

And you should also read Loth's post and mine more carefully.  The tax deduction angle doesn't wash.

Bucc, you need to renew the study visa every year...the first year you need 15k Canadian and after that each year you must have at least 10k.

And I can't just ask my dad to put money in my account.  He's now been unemployed for 8 months and we don't have money to throw around, even if it isn't going to be used.

Secondly, the only work I'd be able to get on a study visa is within the school...that is what the school told me.

Third, unrelated.  If you aren't Canadian you have to pay 35% down on a mortgage...that is somewhat excessive...my brother got like 3% down on his first and 10% on his current house here in the CO.  So it is tough to do anything permanant in terms of residence up there, just apartments.

Perhaps we have differing ideas of what is easy though Bucc.  Relative terms are hard to argue with.  Easy to you may be difficult to me.

Not exactly true from what I'm reading on Canada's immigration site.  Here's the snip:

Immigration Canada: International Students

Student Authorizations Are Required:
?
 Citizenship and Immigration Canada requires that foreign individuals who wish to study at Canadian educational institutions must obtain Student Authorizations. A Student Authorization is a document issued by Immigration Canada officials that permits a foreign individual to study in Canada, generally at a specific Canadian educational institution  and in a specific program, and always for a limited time.?

 Immigration Canada will normally issue a Student Authorization if an applicant has received an acceptance letter from a qualified Canadian educational institution, and possesses sufficient funds to pay for tuition and living costs. In some cases, Immigration Canada may require applicants to undergo medical examinations. In addition, holders of Student Authorizations must apply for and be granted Canadian Visitor Visas (unless they are citizens of a visa exempt country).?

 Applicants who wish to study in Montreal or another city in the Province of Quebec will also require approval from immigration authorities of the Government of Quebec.?

 Immigration Canada generally issues Student Authorizations that are valid for the duration                    of the intended course of studies. However, international students studying in Montreal or another city in the Province of Quebec must renew their status each year.?


First, it's not throwing money around, it's having it in your bank account instead of his.  Still his money to use, just looks like it's yours.  I've done this for a few people.  So you are talking about dropping around $10k us in your account.  Second, haven't you mentioned a brother and sister that do well?  It doesn't have to come from your dad, or all one place for that matter.


Not exactly true, according to immigration again.  That's the main way though.  You can also work in your field of study, and a few other jobs as well.  It opens up even more if you can get a scholarship (and if you are as smart as you say, you should be able to find some small ones)  Have you even applied for scholarships up there?  And, working on campus is the best option anyway, for many reasons.  One more note, it also says your student visa carries over as a temporary work visa after you graduate (assuming the job is in your field, not sure how that restriction works though).


I only had to pay 20% down for my condo in Windsor, which is in Canada.  I know those restrictions have gone down a lot in the past few years too.  It may be different by provence in any case.  But, so what.  Who buys a house when going to college?  And if you are talking about when you are out of school, then have your woman on the mortgage, she's Canadian, and doesn't have that problem.  But you are much better off in an apartment while at school anyway.


Easy is that all you have to do is apply yourself to the problem.  There are solutions.  You are obviously paying for college right now, so you have access to funds.  There's a start.  And like I said, it took all of 30 seconds to figure out this one way around the restrictions.  How many ways have you tried?  So, easy may be relative, but you sure as hell should be able to find a way that is "easy enough" if that's your goal.  The reason I've been successful is that I'm goal orientated.  I pick a goal and I find a way to make it happen.  It may not be my first choice, but I keep looking until I find a way.  I don't give up at the first sign of bad news.  

Hell, if I really wanted to do it, I'd already have applied to the Provence (that's the way they do it in Canada I hear, your app goes to every school in the provence), and I would be applying for scholarships right and left.  That would take a whole weekend or so.  Now, I'd look at how much money I could make this summer, putting all of it in the bank.  I'd add to that my tuition for the fall.  If I couldn't come up with 10k between the two of them, I'd be looking for other avenues of income.  Loans and grants, both from banks and friends / relatives.  Hell, I heard someone put a paypal donate account on the internet and paid tuition with it last year.  

There are options you can explore.  If exploring them is too much work, not easy enough, then I'd say your goal is not important enough to you.

I'll admit, I may not be as up on the tax code as you.  However, I can see credits being an incentive to donating - my point is that I just don't see Americans as inately generous.  In fact, what with the competitive ideals of capitalism, I don't think the whole system is designed to be generous.

And incidentally, everything you've mentioned about leaving the country, imposing ideas on others, going against the Constitution, etc. - none of it is based on law.  While our country has had the system its had in place for 200 years, there's really no reason it couldn't change.  Nowhere in the Constitution is there anything about what kind of economic system the nation should have.  

It's not the legal job of government, it's the theoretical reasoning behind the application of law.  Why do we execute murderers?  I'm sure you can think of a reason - but it certainly doesn't say that reason anywhere in the law books.  I'm giving reasons why a tax system does what it does - or why it should do something - they don't have to be directly out of the Constitution as long as they don't conflict with it.  Don't you remember the "necessary and proper" clause?  The job of government in the United States is whatever the people want it to be.  

Bucc, I believe it is the government's job to redistribute wealth, at least to a limited extent.  Yours and mine are two differing idealogies and you ought to at least have the sense to recognize that.

A couple notes - I'm arguing a hypothetical system.  The tax code as it is sucks; you're completely right about too many loopholes and such.  In my hypothetical tax code, the mega rich would be the ones getting the huge percentages - not the people such as you currently being "shafted".  

Also, I don't want to punish the rich.  They wouldn't lose money, they'd just earn it a little slower.  If you're making $10 million a year, it's not a "punishment" to "only" make $5 million, when everyone else is making far less than that.  Money is all relative anyway - the numbers are really meaningless compared to each persons wealth relative to another's.  Our system of quantifying is fine, but people lose track of the real values behind the number.  

As for consumption tax, it depends what you're taxing.  If you're taxing purchases that everyone makes, it is a flat tax.  Basic sales tax takes the same percentage away from everyone.  In a sense, it's even regressive.  A penniless woman buying a tomato at the grocery store feels the sales tax much harder than you or I would.  Doesn't that seem a little pointless?  I don't see any point to any consumption taxes except for luxury taxes and the like, which again attempt to even the wealth gap.  

Finally, I'm hardly a rampant socialist, calling for equality among everyone.  I see no reason for there not to be rich people or even mega-rich.  It's just after a certain point, as a society I think most people would agree there's no point in getting much richer.  However, not to deprive people of that, a tax system like what I've proposed would just make it a little harder.  No penalty - they're still rich as hell, and the middle class and poverty level would be constantly improving.  

Also, you seem really set that graduated taxes are unfair, but look at this way.  You seem justificably proud that you have succeeded in moving from the poverty level to middle class.  I have no idea what the actual figures are, but I'd guess that's an annual income increase of at most $100,000.  Whatever the number is, it's plenty of money to lead a comfortable life.  It's an accomplishment.

However, tell me why a rich person, no matter how hard they worked to get their money (or if they didn't) should have the opportunity to make income leaps even greater than what you've accomplished your whole life - year after year after year?  Just because they have more money gives them a right to earn more?  Why not limit them to the same opportunities as the rest - by taxing more of their income.  

I'm not a typical liberal.  I thought for a moment maybe you'd forgotten I can't even vote yet.  I still have some idealism, and I'm not for shafting anyone.  There's no reason the tax code couldn't be progressive enough to improve society.

That's your problem, you are equating the people to the system.  The system isn't designed to be generous, but that doesn't mean that people aren't or can't be.  You seem to be generous, and you are part of the system, and you are probably from a well off family, since your dad is a lawyer (not sure, but likely).


But the people haven't voted for it to be, and even then, it's not a given, since there are protections against things like discrimination (look at the civil rights acts).  All you are talking about is discriminating against a group of people with more money.


Problem is, socialism is more then just an economic system.  

And what I've argued is not that it "couldn't change" but that it SHOULDN'T change.  That there are places where you can go to fit those ideals, and that some people (many people) want to come here for these ideals.  And that it's good to have that opportunity!  This nation was founded to get away from some of the oppressive ideals you guys have, and others.  And we should celebrate the fact that nations are different, and let people live where they best fit and want to be.  You haven't shown anything wrong with that idea yet.


A couple notes - this debate was about HR2 and I added HR25, not hypothetical systems, but actual bills in congress.  I've also noted that the people saying the current cuts are bad because of the rich, are not taking into account those of us who are rich, and are the ones really getting shafted by the current system.  And I've asked people to address that, yet all I hear is CEO's and the mega-wealthy.


Yes, it is.  You aren't treating them fairly, you are discriminating against them.  And I believe that Tasty actually said he wanted to "punish" them.  So that's where it was directed to.


JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, do you even bother to read?  The necessities of life wouldn't be taxed.  Even today, you don't have a sales tax on food, do you?  Not in any state I've been to with a sales tax (beer and alcohol being an exception to that).  Read what I've already posted on it, or read HR25, but don't argue about shit that was pointed out pages ago.  The only thing pointless is trying to explain it to someone that doesn't take the time to read the explanations.


Actually, I believe it is a penalty, and under a consumption tax, the lower classes have the opportunity to improve if that is their goal (savings aren't taxed).  But I've fucking said that a few times already.


Actually, as I've already said a couple times, I fall into the government's "RICH" area.  And it's an increase of a good bit over 100k, not at most.  But all that has to do with is that I'm one of the guys really getting screwed by the current tax system.  I don't have enough to hide my income well, and I make enough that the government puts me up there in the high ass brackets.  Like I've said, yes, I want the cut because the cut is going to people like me, not the fucking mega-rich.


Who's limited?  You made a huge assumption there, that we are limited, and we aren't.  I've accomplished an 840% increase in my yearly income in the past 15 years.  Only thing holding me back is the unfair tax system.  And I'm not alone, not special.  Many of my college friends make more then I do.  We got out of school, paid our dues and succeeded.  Even more, some dumbasses that work in the plants (UAW scum) make more then I do without even paying those dues, never going to college, no student loans, and made more at 18 then I did at 22 with a degree in hand.  They can make it too.  You see, I'm a firm believer that the average person can make it big, if they apply themselves.  There are the extreme poor in this country.  Those too poor for even a good, basic education, and those are people I think we should HELP.  But I think we can do that in ways that don't punish the people that were successful.


And, tell me why you and Tasty and Bondo have referred to a consumption tax as regressive?  Tell me why, done right (and I think HR25 is pretty close, though not perfect) a consumption tax isn't progressive?  Because you are throwing that term around like a political party hammer, a catch phrase.  Progressive doesn't mean screw the rich, it just means forward thinking.


Now, go back, read about consumption tax, and tell me what isn't progressive about it.  Tell me how it doesn't help the poor move up, and tell me how it doesn't solve the many problems that exist today.  Tell me why it's a bad idea over what's in place now.  Because it isn't a theory, it's a bill.  Need sources, don't want to take my word for it, just ask.  

Bucc, I was sent by Canadian Immigration the forms for both study and work permits.  What I was saying was directly from the study permit thing (although I may have missed that it only applied to Quebec but I don't think I did).

As for who buys a house...well, if the property is increasing in value it is smart.  My brother bought a condo in Boulder while he was going...he stayed in it for three years and made 90k profit.  That paid the down payment for his real house that he is in now.

If my dad doesn't get a job soon, he wouldn't even have enough money to have in a bank to secure my study visa, and my brother who is doing well enough doesn't really have excessive amounts of saved money.  Getting married isn't cheap you know.

About scholarships.  I e-mailed the scholarship person at the university and looked through multiple pages of stuff, and all the scholarships I saw at UVIC were for BC/Canadians only.  It was a big fuck you to Americans in that respect.

On to the general stuff, I don't think a sales tax is regressive, I just think progressive is a good thing and thus don't think a flat tax is appropriate unless we fix the income disparity.

Bucc, it all depends on where you draw the line.  I don't know exactly where the brackets fall right now, or whether that's the best place they can be - but I'd imagine some thought went into making them.

And what I'm suggesting is, as you said yourself, you've already made it big.  What exactly are the taxes holding you back from?  Becoming mega-rich?  If you've applied yourself this far, what's to prevent you from earning money at the same rate?  You won't grow percentage-wise as much. . .if in your lifetime your 840% only became 1000%, you'd still have made a large amount of money.  See, if you're already considered rich by society/the government, it seems awfully greedy for you to say you're being unfairly treated because you can't make money fast enough!

Again, I don't think a system that prevents the rich from getting increasingly richer faster than the rest of society discriminates against them, since they deserve the same opportunities as everyone else.  While there could be more incentives for people such as yourself who've worked their way up, an everyday rich or mega-rich person shouldn't deserve even more money just because they have some to begin with.  From my perspective, it's the flat or regressive taxation that discriminates against the poor.  Higher tax brackets are fair for everyone if applied correctly, as they give people a reasonably equal earning potential, if they apply themselves as you've suggested.

The reason I came up with the 100,000 figure is that I figured you were in the upper middle class.  Since you're apparently rich enough to be in the highest tax bracket, either the bracket's wrong, or there's no reason for you to complain.  So, you asked me to address it, and in the perspective of the lower and middle classes, there's really no difference between someone like you and the mega-rich.

Also, I was speaking hypothetically, not about the current bills.  The current bills may make people like you less shafted, if in fact you are, but they're still bad for the poor people which get relatively little.  I for one don't buy the "good for the economy" rubbish, since people are going to save their money when the economy's bad, not spend it - and with the loss of funds, the government inevitably will cut services that people need.  Just so you can feel a little less shafted and have a quicker time at making your first million.

Incidentally, decent guess but I'm not what I'd consider wealthy.  My father's law firm consists of him  and one paralegal - it only does small civil practice.  So, I can give you the perspective of a middle middle-class member - but if I someday manage to be rich, I won't mind giving back and playing fair.

Also, I would wager you've never been to North Carolina, since we have a 2% tax on groceries, I believe, not to mention the regular 6.5% sales tax on consumer goods and a 7% tax on prepared food.  2% on every tomato can hardly be considered fair, but the state is so impoverished right now that there's no way that will change.  Disgustingly, all the budget shortfalls could be solved by raising the tobacco tax, which is one of the lowest in the country, or adopting a state lottery - which keeps failing in our General Assembly because the people here are all Puritans.

     One of the principles of supply-side economics is that if you lower taxes, people will see a rise in their perceived incomes, and thus will feel as though they can afford to spend more, and so they will spend more. That makes perfect sense to me, since I've never known even a single person who didn't feel constrained by their income. The more you get, the more you spend. It is a tiny minority of people who have the self-control or ascetic streak to keep their spending down and simply accumulate money (saving for an eventual purchase counts as spending, to my mind) for no purpose.

     A federal sales tax which replaces the income tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, etc. (as well as the whole tumor-like mass that is the the I.R.S. and the tax code and the ancillary industries that support the current tax system) would act as a perceived cut in taxation and therefore a perceived rise in income (actually, if the income tax, etc. were done away with, the majority of people would perceive a dramatic rise in income). This would cause increased spending, which is good for the economy.

     However, even if a federal sales tax were introduced and none of that happened, the savings realized by cutting the I.R.S. would be significant. If the government IS going to redistribute tax wealth to help the poor (something I think that the gov't is really not suited for, but that's an entirely different topic), isn't it better if as little of the tax revenue as possible is spent on supporting the gov't itself?

     And Loud, in response to your last post, you've got to realize that increasing income is the fundamental goal of the American Dream. The American Dream is centered around having things and money. The immigrants who swarmed New York in years and decades past were coming here for a variety of reasons, but one that was shared by many was the desire to improve on their lot through hard work, becoming as wealthy as they were willing to work for. People becoming rich, or even becoming richer, is not harmful. Excepting parasites such as lawyers and distributors and their ilk, most workers in America are producing value, a.k.a. "real wealth." The increase of real wealth is an observable phenomenon, and it is the reason that being rich is not evil: most of the rich (there are exceptions, of course) are not simply stealing money from people, leaving the people poorer without any gain. Most rich people got rich by providing something to other people, whether it be a software program, clothing, or their time and expertise. In other words, in most cases, the wealthy's wealth was earned in a fair exchange. This means that a dollar in the pocket of, say, Steve Jobs, does not mean that there is some poor person who has a dollar less. There is plenty to go around, and there is plenty to support a wide disparity in income.

     Once again, I'll reiterate the main thrust of any argument against punishing the rich for their success: this is America. If you want to be rich, by god, go out and become rich! You can, and nobody is stopping you. If you're willing to work hard enough for it, you can be a multimillionare too. Anybody can. Capitalism IS equal: everyone has the same chance to improve themselves and their lot. But don't expect me to feel bad or responsible for people who can but don't.

You don't actually believe that do you?

Lets see, first off those that are poor have much longer odds (less of a chance) to be rich because likely their district is worse and thus they get a worse education, they are less likely to go to college.  By being less educated they are less able to take higher status jobs that pay more.

Not only does being poor lower your odds, but the already rich tend to help each other out so the chances are already biased in favor of the rich and their children.

The next problem is capital.  Someone with money can get loaned money in order to create a new buisness or use an idea and make more money.  A poor person lacks the ability to generate capital in order to be entreprenuial.

Sorry, but capitalism isn't really an equal chance for everyone to become rich.  Perhaps it doesn't outright prevent the poor from getting rich, but the rich have a much greater shot at becoming richer.

Bondo,

1) that quote is right from Canadian Immigration.  So I'm guessing you skimmed the form.

2) you are taking my suggestions only literally it seems, and missing the larger point.  There are ways if you look for them.  

3) 90k profit in 3 years isn't the norm, especially in a college town.  And which is more important, getting the education, or making a profit on something while doing it?  

Loudnotes,

Until you go fucking back, read about consumption taxes and address them after your last bullshit, you aren't worth responding to.

Loth,

Right on!

Bondo again,

Attitudes like that are probably a big reason that so many people don't succeed.  This is much like your going to school in Canada.  The poor need to apply themselves and look for opportunities to get ahead, it's not going to be handed to them.  You talk about loans, but what about Venture Capital?  Look at all the college students that got rich off the .com boom.  Where did they get all that money in college or right out of it?  From venture capital groups in many cases.  All they care about is that you have a good idea and solid plan.  That's just one of many avenues that aren't biased towards the rich, want more?  

I know plenty of poor kids that went to college on financial aid programs.  They managed to get in despite their lack of money and worse education (some had to go to community college first).  They made it though because of their attitude.  They knew they could, and they did it.  Both public and private grants were taken advantage of.

No kidding, this is Boulder we are talking about.  I wouldn't expect to make a huge profit exactly, just to have a decent place to live and since I'd be staying there for probably 6 years (since if I had been buying a place she would move in when she came to college as well).  Really for long term, buying makes sense, especially since housing is quite affordable in Canada outside the down payment requirement.

Anyway, I do get the general point you are making...it didn't help that I was somewhat disappointed in the school, otherwise I'd probably be more motivated to find a way to make it work.

Loth, I was talking about what money people actually have, not what they think they have.  If the people are that gullible, why not just lie to them and put in a system that benefits only those who are in on the joke?

Yes people react to perceived income, but if, for example, my bank account balance is $300 below normal because the economy is so bad, I'd probably save the $300 Bush sent me in a tax cut, not go rush to buy a new VCR.

And I've said over and over, I don't want to punish the rich, or stop the American dream.  I'm just trying to curb exponential growth.  A hard-working immigrant can save and live the dream by watching his money grow at whatever the interest rate is, say 2%.  That means his money will double in 35 years (Rule of 70), and if he started with, say, $1000, he's gotten a whopping $2000 for his life's work.  (Purely hypothetical example that ignores a lot, but read on)  Now, a rich person, who has $100,000 to start with, will also double their money at that rate in the same time.

However, the rich person gains $99,000 more from their efforts.  That's what seems unfair to me, and a graduated tax system corrects that kind of disparity - in its ideal form.  So, I'm not saying that the rich person is taking away money from the poor, they just have an unfair advantage.  Once you reach a certain level of wealth, there's no need to maintain that kind of advantage. . .you could still make money, just more of it would be redistributed because you don't need it.  Nevertheless, you still get to accumluate as much as you "dream".


Bucc, if you choose not to address my points, that's your problem.  I mentioned what I thought of consumption taxes, and if you don't want to rebut my other rebuttals, then I guess there's nothing further for us to "fucking" debate here.

I've never understood the people who say that the poor are so fucking oppressed. M? great-grandfather retired independently wealthy after coming over from Italy on NOTHING. My father does better than you all can imagine after putting himself through a private college (Stanford) ON HIS OWN because he had the desire. I say fuck welface, fuck handouts, do what you can with your abilities. If you got it, you do it. If you don't got it, you aren't gonna do it. I have no sympathy for those who cry about their situation. This is America and you can do what you want with it.

For the record, before you starting bitching at me, I am going to USC on a partial scholarship, but would be going to UCSD or UCSB on a full scholarship otherwise.

Fuck off asshole, you are the one that enters a debate half way through and doesn't bother to show the respect to read back, and then bitch at me about something that's already been discussed.  You little shit.  

Bondo, if you got my point, you really should have said so.  It would save some useless posts out of both of us.  

     One of my points was that in a capitalist system, effort creates wealth. If your hypothetical poor person is willing to stick $1000 in the bank and then spend the next 35 years doing nothing but waiting on interest, he deserves to be poor. A poor person who spent those 35 years working hard and improving himself would very likely wind up quite well-off, if not rich. Being rich means that you spent time, energy and effort on accumulating money and/or getting yourself to a point where your income makes you rich. Yes, yes, there are exceptions *coughDubyacough*, but I seem to recall reading somewhere a while back that the vast majority of the millionaires and multimillionaires today are first-generation rich: that is, THEY made the money. To reiterate: America is still capitalist enough that people can and do become rich quite often. It requires work. Being rich does not directly harm the poor, and if I worked my way to wealth, I'm not gonna be real enthusiastic about my hard-earned money being taken away to give to people who can do the same thing I did but who don't.



     Who are you to say that somebody doesn't need their money? Should we remove food from well-stocked refrigerators and pantries as well? "You've got more than enough, we'll relieve you of the excess that you don't need." Even if they don't need it, that's their decision. The government's proper role is not welfare nanny.

I'm not saying that they should be relieved of the excess, I just think it's reasonable for them to haver a harder time making more money after a certain point.

What I think most of you are missing is that Ace's great-grandfather, Buccaneer himself, and every first-generation millionaire around probably wouldn't have been able to do it if we didn't have the tax system we have.  If there were flat, consumption, or regressive taxes, the poor wouldn't have the same kind of opportunities, whereas those who are already rich would have more as illustrated by my interest example.  That example of course leaves out many factors, it just tries to show the idea that the rich start out ahead of the game.

Perhaps another idea for taxation would depend on your generational wealth.  If you're a self-made millionaire, perhaps you shouldn't have to pay taxes at all.  However, those with inherited wealth would have the higher brackets I described, because they're starting out ahead in life.  Also, this would encourage philanthropy from the rich, since people would give away a lot of money to prevent their kids from inheriting too much, which is a good idea anyway.

Even that wouldn't be necessary though, since a higher tax bracket once you're rich still doesn't take away your money at all.  You still have a huge wealth base at that point.  Since you've got that wealth, which you may have earned yourself, the tax bracket just decreases your earnings.  You keep the money you have - again, you just don't get to make the same % increase in your wealth, since that would be an exponentially ever-increasing amount on dollars.  

I just love it when an ignorant fool keeps talking about consumption tax being bad for the poor, all because his sanctimonious little ass can't read up about it.

I don't think they were useless, I now perhaps know a bit more about the process or things I need to look into when I move.

Bucc, any ignorant fool could tell you that consumption taxes are bad for the poor, and your maintaining that they're good is blantantly false.  If by reading up, you mean studying your bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time.  It's not as if I'm the only person in the world that recognizes that regressive taxes are bad for the impoverished.  I know what I'm talking about and I suggest you read up yourself before you get arrogant and huffy again.  If you choose not to respond to my points because you disagree with that, that's your issue.

As I've said, the only consumption tax that benefits the poor is the luxury tax, or other taxation of things only rich people buy.

So, address me if you like, otherwise don't complain that I don't know what I'm talking about if you don't have anything to back yourself up.

Yeah asshole, problem is, I backed my words up with cases and points, not just bullshit like you.


No, you are just another asshole that never answered why you think they are regressive and not progressive.  Just another bullshit slinger that can't actually think his way out of it, so ignores it.


No, you don't know what you are talking about.  If you did, you could back up such lofty claims.


I choose not to have to repeat myself for the fourth fucking time because some child is too fucking ignorant to go back and either read my posts on how they handle the issues you brought up (which was already discussed twice) or go back and read HR25 (which I also brought up).  I choose not to indulge such a spoiled little child, that is correct.


Said it, but haven't brought up anything to fucking support it, asshole.


Already backed some of it up, but someone is too fucking childish to read.  Wonder who in the hell that could be.  Some Loudass.

Hmmm well its safe to say that those cursewords I see dont sway my opinion on the matter however heres my opinion

http://nytimes.com/2003/06/01/national/01TAX.html

If it says some crap about signing in dont worry I will explain. 8 million low income tax payers do not benefit from the tax plan. Republicans in the senate individually agree that that needs to be changed but they arent going to propose something to say it. Secondly those making barely minimum wage whos annual income is 10,000- 26,000 and who have kids will not recieve the $400 dollars per child benefit that others will.  

Then theres the argument of how democrats didnt want the thing so large and now they claim its not expansive enough. Well we didnt want it large to the rich as it was but we did want it to cover everybody, I think thats fair dont you?

Well Bucc and Loudnotes dont bother cussing me out I wont check this site for a while...What universities did you guys go to?

Zait - I don't have any need to curse at you, whether I agree with you or not.  

<sarcasm>However, since I'm always right, I really don't need to waste my time reading your article.  Anyway, you can't possibly have anything valid to say - since Bucc addressed your points at some point before this post.  Why didn't you respond to him?</sarcasm>

By the way - nytimes wants me to register to read the article. . .I'll do that later.

     Please explain how a proposed tax system in which only nonessential purchases are taxed is detrimental to the poor. Under the proposed consumption tax we are discussing, a hypothetical poverty-level worker who has a hypothetical job at McDonald's gets all of their income, tax-free. They keep all of their hypothetical money (well, they'll probably be taxed by the city/county/state, but from the federal perspective, their money won't be touched) up until they buy something other than food. At the grocery store, they're paying no tax. Even if they're buying other stuff, they can avoid being taxed, as long as they're buying second-hand goods. A used car is not taxed. A sofa from a thrift shop is not taxed. In other words, this hypothetical poverty-stricken, minimum-wage makin' worker will be able to keep a much greater chunk of their income, and so they will be able to save their money.

Hehe, I love second hand.  I sell lots of stuff...about $1800 over the past three years...no tax on it.  And you can usually buy things for half price and no sales tax.  Who cares if it isn't pristine or prompt.

Zaitsev, since none of those words that you don't like were directed at you, you shouldn't let them bother you either, now should you?


You should have taken the sarcasm tags off that bitch, because it's your punk ass that doesn't read other peoples articles, not me.

Once again, you show your complete stupidity, even when trying to mock.  Asshole.

     Man, Bondo, that was some serious spam. I can feel my arteries clogging from its meat-like substance as I write this.

Alright I was dormant for a few days but I decided to do some research so I could argue bucc's talking points on a national sales tax.

First, lets get one thing straight: some definitions.

Progressive Income Tax - Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases
Regressive Income Tax - Decreasing proportionately as the amount taxed increases

The current system falls under the very definition of a progressive tax. Any changes in tax code away from the current system could be considered regressive. However buccaneer claims that his system would be a paradigm change, so it is necessary to take a step back and look at exactly what the effects of a national sales tax would be on each of America's economic classes.

At first glance one would observe that a sales tax would hurt the poor. However, bucc has proposed that the sales tax would have subsidies for the necessities (probably up to the poverty line). I would suggest that it also has additional surcharges on luxuries to ensure that it is not as regressive as it would be in its bare bones form.

In the criticism I have been reading of consumption taxes, the main point most authors make is that this system will not be superior to our current system because if implemented it will not end up being any simpler. For example, a comprehensive consumption tax would have to tax the implicit rental value of owner occupied housing. There is no simple way to make this sort of assessment. Excluding owner occupied housing from the tax would presumably require excluding rental housing as well, which would mean that one-third of all consumption was being exempted from the tax. Bucc's efforts to ensure some minimal level of fairness in this tax (like subsidies for the poor and luxury taxes for the rich) also guarantee that this code will become long and complicated quickly. Our original graduated income tax was simple when it began too. It will take little time for a new system to equal its largesse.

I've already stated (and received bucc's tacit approval) that a pure consumption tax will hurt the poor. But we are inserting safeguards in this plan to mitigate the regressiveness of the tax. So where will the burden fall? Obviously not on the poor, since we are protecting them. And obviously not on the wealthy, because why would anyone wealthy propose a plan that would increase their tax load? (and with the support of Bush and his counterparts, this is obviously a wealthy man's tax.) All signs seem to indicate the the classicly overlooked middle class will get hit the hardest by the tax. You can't equitably lower a tax burden without greatly reducing revenues or shifting the burden. Those hardest hit would be those that fall just above wherever the line is set for necessity exemptions, probably the 40-50 thousand dollar per year income range. Another group that would be hit hard by this tax is the elderly. They were already taxed when they were young and earning and saving their money, but a new consumption tax would now tax their money again as they spend it. So even if a radical new idea like this did gain some support outside of political and economic circles, you would have America's most powerful interest lobby (The AARP) fighting you on it.

From what I've read about sales, consumption, or value-added taxes (whatever ya wanna call these roughly similar systems) they are not as bad as I initially thought. I don't think that the plans that Bucc or Bush hinted at are really an improvement. There is no "simple solution" to taxes, and there really can't be unless you are willing to alienate most of the country. I believe that it may be possible to form a progressive consumption tax, but I think that it should be a combination of a VAT tax and a "SPLAT" tax, a tax on environmental waste that has been proposed in the economic articles in magazines like Mother Jones and The Nation. However, the currently proposed plan in my view presents no obvious advantage to the current one.
 
Also: Bucc, I would like to see more on why you support this tax. You have done a more than adequate job attacking my previous posts on taxes, yet as I reread this thread I have found little meat on why you support and exactly how it will work, other than the brief overview in your initial post. I want to know in your view who will receive a tax cut from this plan and who will make up the revenue difference.

Loth, why, it was a direct reply to your comment about no taxes on second-hand goods.  I was just providing an anecdotal point on it.

Tasty...how about this...a progressive sales tax.  The higher priced the item, the greater the % tax on it is.  Perhaps a silly idea, but just a thought.

BTW I would just like to point out I that I find it funny that no one actually defended the Bush tax plan. It speaks well for the general common sense of this group.

When many Republicans don't defend his Bush plan, I think that is a good sign that there is nothing worth defending.  I think that it passed at all was more of a partisan supporting of the President than a smart policy move.  And sadly enough people went along with the President despite that to get it passed in a reduced form.

Good place to start.


Not quite what I suggested.  Not subsidies.  Some items would simply not be taxed.  Things like unprepared food.  Things like the purchase of your primary residence (but tax any multiple homes).  And no, you don't need to add surcharges on anything.  If say the tax is 15%, I think it's completely fair for the guy that buys a $10000 car to pay $1500 and the guy that buys the $100000 car to pay $15,000 in taxes.  No reason to get greedy or punish anyone.  

A couple underlying ideas of it are used items aren't taxed.  Business to business items aren't taxed.  Eliminating the tax on all but brand new homes and most of the "double taxing" that goes on.


Ah, you added a word and another assumption to it.  Comprehensive.  And, you don't have to tax an owner occupied house, it's already been paid (when the owner purchased it).  This isn't an income tax.  The landlord paid the tax when he bought the place.  So there is no need for that sort of assessment.


You see, I'm not complicating it.  You are.  

First, don't say it's an effort to be fair by subsidies or luxury taxes, as I completely think those are UNFAIR, and have said so.

Second, the only things making this complicated are things that you are trying to add to make it fit your model better.  Some states, like the one I'm in, have already figured this out.  We don't have a different sales tax level for different items or prices.  Just a percentage.  We also have a list of items and groups that are exempt from paying.  It's a real simple process.  

The only "subsidy" you'd see me advocating is that anyone under the defined poverty level (whatever that is year to year) could be exempted (since you wouldn't be cutting out any hard dollars anyway, and it could let them have a little better quality of life while moving up the food chain.


Since all your assumptions were not what I was talking about, I'll repeat flat out how it will help the poor.

If you aren't taxed for anything but what you purchase, you are in total control of how much you are taxed.  Your basics aren't taxed, so how much more you can save is up to you.  If you save your money, don't eat out, buy expensive, new things, you don't pay tax, and you can save more and more.  Savings are not taxed under consumption tax, so you build those savings faster.

I think this is very fair because those that want to get ahead have all the opportunity to do it, while those that choose to have a new car aren't protected.  

I don't think a consumption tax is more fair to the poor then it is to the rich.  What I think is that it is more fair period.  It isn't protecting any one group over another, it protects and levies the responsibility equally.


Bush has put his support behind HR25?  When?  Where?  Never heard about this.  Most of the very wealthy don't want a pure consumption tax.  It causes a few problems.  Many lawyers (especially those in politics) are tax lawyers, they could find themselves out of work.  Most of the very wealthy lose all the protections they have and would end up paying more hard dollars.

Please don't hide behind who you think is supporting it as a reason that it has to be bad.  That's pretty poor.

And I really think you are confusing the different bills that are in congress now.  Bush does support HR2.  HR25 is completely different.


You got one thing right there, the burden has to be shifted.  I'm suggesting that it is shifted to a more equal distribution.  The very rich that got away with not paying as much (because they can hide or not have real income) now have to pay or they don't have their toys.  And why be rich if you can't have your toys?  

What you really get is those that buy more, pay more.  The shift is away from those that make more.  There is a reason for that.  It is much easier to hide what you make then it is to hide what you spend.  It's also much more appropriate to not tax the necessities of life (like food and shelter) then it is to tax them for some and not for others.

And all your assumptions of who would pay are built on other assumptions you made and I didn't.


Yep, AARP represents those with the most to lose.  Since they tend to be low income, therefore low tax payers, it is in their self interest to not have a consumption tax, since they are still consumers.  

And that's a good point for them.  How do you implement a phase shift like this without screwing them over big time?  Well, some would be covered by an exemption for living under the poverty level, but that probably wouldn't be enough.  

Honestly, I hadn't thought about this issue very much, but off the cuff I'd suggest that there be an exemption set up for anyone collecting Social Security (which would also remove much of the very wealthy I believe).  And, just like exemptions for the poor or non-profits (which exist today), if they pass a threshold, they lose the exemption.  Makes it very easy to manage too.  No subsidies, no different rates.  Exempt or not.  A nice binary choice.  I bring this up to also keep out a loop hole of having your grandparents buy you that new car or computers or house.


Again, I'm going to ask what proposed plan you are talking about?  There are a few out there.

Another thing, I've addressed things throughout, and I've repeated them here, but maybe I'm not being clear and you need a different perspective explaining it.  Here's a few paragraphs from Americans for Fair Tax (next post).

Dunno about everyone else. But to an outsider it looks very very clear what Bush's administration is about:
Firstly make a mock out of democracy and cheat your way into power (very forunate that Jeb Bush was about to help in florida!). Seems kinda laughable all ready seeing as america seems to view its self as the 'saviour of democracy'.
Then go about seeing to what extent you can f*ck the world up:
Tax the poor and don't tax the rich. Don't do anything that could harm the guys with the most amount of money.  Do everything possible to remain in power and have extreamly dodgey relationships with the big business, multinationals, and in particular the oil companys. Make sure to push through bills etc when allow your 'ex' oil compays' to drill in extreamly sensitive and protected areas.
Bully and push around other countries, and if they won't suck up to you then bomb the shit out of them, or in any method possible make life for them as difficult as possible.
Abuse the free trade system, and in effect, destroy african farming and industry for the sake of giving american multinatinals bigger profits.
 Kill your own citizans through a mixture of gassing, electricution, leathel or injection... or it appears now by firing squad.
Ignore the Kyoto agreement. Continue to research nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Ignore the warnings of global warming and continue to burn the worlds resorces.

When it suits, quote the UN resolutions to enable the invasion of Iraq. However ignore Isreal's constant and repetitive refusal to adhere to UN demands. Support israel's illiagal occupation of palastinian land.

And so so so much more. And lo and behold should some americans voice their concerns about their contries actions,  we hear of them loosing their jobs,  recieving death threats, being lambasted about not being 'patriotic'  etc etc.

Just one little thing... Did you know that America is spending more money on building itself a new embassy in Afganistan, than the money its put into the entire rebuilding of afganistan, iraq and kosavo (i think)

And the fact that there is a mentally defective ape for a president dosn't help things much either.

That comment really sucks and is pretty damn stupid, and pisses me off.  How much money is the American Government supposed to spend to rebuild Afganistan, Iraq and especially Kosavo?

You (and so many others) think America OWES these countries something.  American gives more then any other nation, hell, as much as most nations combined.  When other nations start giving more, then start pointing fingers.

How much money is the UK dropping into these countries?  Any other nation?

Afghanistan - a government that openly supported the terrorists.  What should we be spending money on?  Building schools to replace the ones that the Russians destroyed in the 80's?

Kosavo - this is a major European issue, not an American one.  

Iraq - I think America's responsibility is to make sure that Iraq's oil flows and the profits go back into rebuilding the country, not into the pockets of any politicians (from any country).  

Bucc, since the US choose to launch a war against these countries, they took on the responsibility to pay to improve them.  If they aren't going to provide that benefit, they should be staying the fuck out with their military force.

Funny Bondo, I thought the Taliban started a war against us.  And we sure as hell didn't start a war in Kosavo, now did we?

Odd, I didn't realize there were any Afghans on the planes on 9/11.  No country is forced to extridite criminals like the US basically said they needed to (hand over Al Queda and we won't attack).  No, the Taliban didn't start a war against us.  So we must pay for the damage of the attack and take responsibility for their people now.

Odd, I don't remember us doing all that much damage to the Afghan people or property, most of it was in the mountains, against Taliban and Al Queda.

Odd, I think a country was forced to hand over criminals.

Odd, I notice you don't bring up Kosavo this time.

Where does it say we have to take responsibility for their people?  Not like millions of US dollars haven't poured into Afghanistan already, where does it end I ask?  Why are we supposed to fix buildings that have been in ruins since the Soviets invaded?  Answer me that sparky.

Bucc, I never brought up Kosovo, not once.  I felt no compelling need to do so just because you have been mentioning it.

And no Bucc, countries aren't forced to extridite criminals.

And do you think we killed the thousands of innocent civilians in the mountains?

The reason we take responsibility for the country is because we choose to overthrow the government.  If we are going to put our hand in the politics of the country, we have to provide the means for the country to improve.  Like I said, if we don't want to make them better off, we should stay out.  If we don't stay out, then we need to make sure they have improved quality of life.

The numbers?????

Nearly all of the $664 billion in tax cuts go to the top income brackets, while working class families, and especially the poor and unemployed, will receive little or nothing.

The ending of dividend taxation will have no effect on 401(k) accounts, because dividends paid to these retirement accounts are already non-taxable. The benefit will go entirely to those who receive dividends as direct income?disproportionately the rich. Approximately half of the $364 billion will go to the top one percent of Americans, those with incomes of $350,000 a year or more. Some 65 percent will go to the top ten percent. The bottom 80 percent of the population, in income terms, gets less than 10 percent of the tax break.
According to the calculations of the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, people with incomes over $316,895 will save an average of $13,243 on their taxes. People earning $21,350 will save an average of $47?less than $5 a year.

This is a classic, and I'm sure some of you here will appreciate it. Let's hope it comes out formatted properly.

Subject: Tax Cuts - a simplified lesson in Economics

This is an easy-to-understand economic lesson!  Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner.  The bill for all ten comes to $100.  If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh $7
The eighth $12
The ninth $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.  So the first four men were unaffected.  They would still eat for free.  But what about the other six, the paying customers?  How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"  The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth now paid $49 instead $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off than before.  And the first four continued to eat for free.  But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.  He pointed to the tenth.  "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!"  shouted the seventh man.  "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2?  The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all.  The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.  There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.   And Nevada.

Ace, one problem, the tax cuts that are happening aren't across the board and proportional.  The rich have a greater tax cut, not just in flat dollars, but in actual percent since the tax cuts are largely on things that apply disproportionately to the rich.  So these tax cuts actually change the proportion at which people pay taxes unlike your example.

A little lesson in communication Bondo.  Since it was brought up here:


And your response here didn't exclude Kosavo:


Guess what, you choosing to ignore it pretty much didn't exclude it from your "these countries".  If you are going to exclude, shouldn't you SAY SO?


Funny, I think I saw it happen.


Unlike you, I see more then one party at fault for this.


We didn't go in to make it a better place for them.  We went in to make it a safer place for us, by destroying all the weapons we did, and scattering the terrorists.  No, it sure didn't solve the problem, but it did buy some time.  They have to regroup and resupply in the least.

It was not a war to save Afghanistan, it was a war to kill terrorists and their infrastructure.

BTW, it's not up to us to improve their quality of life, that's up to them.  We send plenty of food and money to assist with that already.  More then anyone else.

And you never answered the big question.

Haha ace, where did you get that, GOPteamleader.com? For one thing, it is false to say that 40% of the country pays no taxes. There are a few who pay very very little but this number is not even close to 40. However besides how oversimplified this may be, the most absurd part is the worshipful treatment given to the rich man. For one, there is no other country in which people have the chance to amass as much wealth as one can in America. It's not kosher to use our free enterprise to your advantage and then "eat somewhere else" when we tax you. The fact that one can become a multimillionaire or billionaire in America is a privilege, not a right. When I talked about human rights violations made in America, all of you guys said I had no room to talk because compared to other countries America has the best human rights in the world. Well, now I'm going to throw that back in your face and tell you that you should value what chances you have to gain wealth because those chances exist in very few countries, and most European countries will tax the hell out of you anyway.

Another absurd thing is saying that without the aid of the richest 10th, the poor couldn't survive. It's because of the poor that the richest 10th had the chance to become rich. If we reverse this metaphor and say there are 10 people that work at a corporation and the bottom four are manual laborers and the next 5 are up the ladder from machinists to upper management and then the 10th is the CEO. If those four manual laborers stop showing up for work, the CEO is going to be SOL too. So don't act as if this is a one way exchange. They are all depending on each other in one way or another.

If you guys really want it, we can enact the Bush vision for America and go back to the gilded age. He is destroying all of the progressive reforms of the past 100 years that we made because that old system wasn't working. In bucc's words "he's trying to change some of the cornerstones this society was built on, and I for one do not appreciate it."

Bucc, we have no right to just traipse into various countries and bomb them just to protect us from potential attacks.  The action of bombing carries with it the responsibility to pay for the damage in rebuilding.

As a matter of fact, we do.  Why don't you go look it up?  I swear I don't understand how you made it out of High School with so little a grasp on history and government.  I feel like a history teacher here.

What planet are you on Buccaneer? The Im american= i am god world?
I hate to tell you this but there is nothing where being american gives you the right to do things that you have done... Where exactly would we be looking up the bit about killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians?

I found it quite amusing how you bypassed all the comments about Isreal. And how america is funding terrorism like the IRA in northern ireland. Again, what about your continuing funding of israel. - Isreael is breaking UN resolutions just as you claim iraq was... So when are you going to go kill tens of thousands of isreali citizens? Damn it, American troops can't even manage to shoot at the enemy - you end up shooting your allies.

 And i deeply regret our involvment in iraq. The Uk has made some huge mistakes, and the more that Blair and bush get on the worse it gets, Bush simply needs the UK for its military -- which thank god isn't a bunch of trigger happy Gi's as we saw in iraq.
Don't suppose you heard how US soldiers killed familys of iraqi's at check points? no... that would be unpatriotic wouldn't it.

I look forward to hearing that America has gone to war with itself in its 'crusade' against terrorism.. Only thing is you will blow half your own civilians up, and let the guys you actually went in to get, escape.

Did you know about really what america is doing in iraq? Is your media still 'censored' so much to remain 'patriotic' that you don't know how american troops have stood by guarding oil pipes etc, watching looting, fighting and killing without rasing a finger?

Like bondo said. You can't just decide to attack a contry because 'it might' think about attacking you. Has it occured to you why america might be in this constant state of fear from attack now? Its not everybody else, i hate to tell u this but actually america is not perfect! Im not saying anyone is, but the idea that America is some crusading master land defending the right of 'democracy' etc is bull shit. Absolutly bullshit. Like i said before, you still kill your own civilians! How can u expect us to take a country seriously that gasses, electrocutes, shoots, etc its own civilians?



I can't be bothered to waste my time with an answer to that, execpt i think youve just answered a lot of my comments earlier. You went in as a 'pre-emtive strike'. You seem to feel that it is quite all right to attack another country beause it 'MIGHT' have terroirsts. how do you define a terrorist? someone who dosn't like america?

Did you know about the hundreds of Christian aid workers from america who are working on a food for christianity basis? Of course, sorry terrorists.... It has nothign to do with islam im sure, silly me.

And where is Osma bin Larden now? And where is Saddam Hussain? Just out of curiosity.

OR are we talking about the Prisoners in camp X-Ray (guatamala bay). The 'illigal combatants' which you are 'detaining'. YET again breaking the Geneva Convention. They are POW's But you give them no rights, no access to lawyers. Are these the terrorists you went to destroy? the 14 and fifteen year olds that you keep locked up?

What a great country. oh well done. But of course it dosn't matter about the rest of the world does it... as long as america gets it's oil, kills and destroys all who resist, and rape the rest of the world for its own profit then its fine isn't it!

I wish I could be simply totally anti american, but fortunatly there are a very large amount of people who are intellegent, understanding people, who don't agree with what the Bush administration has done / is doing.


It makes me physically sick.


ps. let me leave you with just on thing: In a survey done a few months ago. A cross section of Americans were survayed about their geographical knowlege. Most of them couldn't pick out the different parts of the world, and a scary percentage couldn't show the researchers where they lived on the globe..... Need i say more?

I think the Bush Administration needs to be diagonosed with schitzophrenia and ruled unfit to govern, because that is in essance what they are.  They are crazily afraid of everyone to the point that they are dangerous to themself and others.

No, the real world, not the idealistic childlike world.


Actually, you can look it up just fine in regards to your country.  The British Empire.  Right?

If you are talking about what gives a country the right to go to war with another that it considers a threat, you shock me that you don't know this.  All sovereign nations hold that right.  Do you really need me to find it for you?  Just the law or examples in history?  Because if you can't even look up the most basic facts of government and nations, how can you talk about any international issues with any intelligence at all?  Not that you've had any intelligence so far, just emotion.


When in the world have I bypassed comments about Isreal?  I've agreed and explained why the US holds it's position on Isreal.  Just look in the threads actually ABOUT IT.

As for funding terrorism like the IRA, our government isn't doing it.  And it's actually against the law if they catch the citizens doing it.  So tell me, how much funding is going into the IRA for terrorism from the USA now a days?  As a matter of fact, when was the last terrorist incident of the IRA?


Ok, fuck you.  That's just bullshit you cocksucker.


Beg pardon?  The US needs the British military?  Now that's a joke.  And don't fucking downplay the UK, they wanted to be there.  They didn't need any pushing, the UK was ready to go from day one.  

And I'll take the success of the American armed forces over the record of the Brit's any-day.


The difference is, I can see it for what it is, and blame the right people.  Not just point at Americans like you do.

If you see soldiers at a road block, all with lots and lost of shinny weapons, and signs in many languages saying to stop or be shot, what do you do?  Well, the stupid people that tried to run the roadblock caused their own deaths, and those of their passengers.  I don't point the finger at the soldiers, I point them at the person that was so stupid, they chose to ignore the roadblock.  


Very aware of what they are doing.  You mean protecting against the ecological disaster that Iraq pulled last time buy opening and burning those oil lines?  And they don't raise a finger, eh?  Bullshit.  Talk to me when you are full of lies.  They aren't killing people (you know, those innocent civilian looters), but that doesn't mean they do nothing.  Are you even still paying attention to new news?


Did attack us.  We were talking about Al Quida, after all.  And if you are talking about the Taliban, well, then you are still off base.  And you really, really, really should learn more of your history boy.


Who is in a constant state of fear?  The only people I ever hear say that are not in America, funny that.  Nice of you to assume something that you have no fucking clue over.  Any of you Americans in a "constant state of fear" over terrorist attacks?  Building bomb shelters in your back yards yet?  Don't make me laugh with your bullshit.


If you have a point there, I sure as hell couldn't figure it out.  So Christian aid workers (from multiple countries, btw) are giving out food.  Are you saying that they are not giving it out to the Muslims?  Because 1) I've not heard any programs that don't and 2) even if that's the case, so what, they have the right to give FOOD to whomever they choose.  


Love to know, but in both cases, they are on the run and no longer a real threat in the immediate future.


Where's Guatamala Bay?  Funny how you bring up American kids not knowing geography when you don't either.

Excuse me?  POW's?  Breaking the Geneva Convention?  This was covered long ago, but you need to actually learn what the Geneva Convention says and look as to how it's applied.  Illegal combatants is a real thing, addressed by the Geneva Convention.  POW's have rights, but these guys fall outside.  Look it up.

And the 14 and 15 year olds?  How many bombers throughout the history of that region have been 14 and 15.  You think none?  You think just because they are 15 they can't be a terrorist?  Get real.


Blow me with your anti-American bullshit.  Especially coming from a country that supported the war.  Clean your own fucking house if that's the way you feel, before pointing at ours.


Funny, bet I could find plenty of guys down in the tubes that are that stupid too.

And let me leave you with just one thing (ok, three things).  1) You are not talking to someone that can't do that.  I have both a working brain and an education.  2) When you are making a point about people being stupid, maybe you shouldn't have spelling errors all over that fucking point.  Fucking opinionated, half educated kids annoy me.  And 3) if you want to discuss this, how about putting it in a thread for it, not about taxes.

Fine, enought with the cheep insults if thats all u can manage. I don't have enough engergy to try and explain very very simply in words my point. So i'll let you carry on.
The idealistic childlike world? yes thats the world where america dosn't go throwing its military might around and attacking other countries.

Yes unfortuatly parts of the bristish goverment agreed to the iraqi war. I didn't down play it as far as i am concerned. I am well aware of our involvement, and am very close to people who have or are serving out there... But by no means did the country agree to it  and by no means did the whole of goverment back the military action (its just we didn't  pick on those who voiced their opposition and call them unpatriotic or some shit). And yes i hate to say it but you did actually need the Royal marines and british troops, because they were not rookies, and they actually had experience in close quarter urban warfare, and peacekeeping duties unlike the american troops. Oh and they were capable of not shooting each other.

And your calling me immature? it was a statment, that unfortunatly is somwhat accurate - bearing in mind the number of Canadian, British and American troops... the americans have killed.

 Im sorry but good spelling is not a sign of intelligence. And neither is bad spelling a sign of stupidity. Perhaps if the education system in general was more broadminded it would understand more that intelligence is actually the ability to learn, to understand and most simply to think. So bad spelling makes you stupid?  Then many of the worlds greatest artists, scientists, academics etc. are stupid? because they are dyslexic? i doubt that.

Sovereign nations? A right to go to war? Have you heard of the UN? Or how about the 21st Century?

Emotion, intelligence. right. of course emotions are not something to be considered! silly me. we should just decide that it is our right to go bomb the f*ck out of someone. yeah of course... silly me.

Fine I can't spell Guatamala bay. not the end of the world. Yes it was covered a long time ago... but america did nothing about it and they remain in detention. I won't go into the reason why i believe america is breaking the geneva convention, or why they Should be considered Pows. Because i have just the smallest inclining u will just bypass it along with everything else you don't want to read.

oh and calling me a really isn't very productive.

Obviously i should maybe keep anything 'not patriotic' that might slightly blemish the stars and strips away from this forum. So much for free speech eh!

Enough. enough time wasted.

Your' whole last post was nothing but a cheap insult to anyone with half a brain or more, so don't start the "wounded me" bullshit.


There you go again, looking towards America when your own country has a much richer and deeper history in this regards.  Asshole.


Really?  Seems that the BBC published polls after Blair went on TV at the commencement of hostilities and shifted public opinion to the point where over 50% of polled people were for it?  Did you forget about that little fact?  Not the over 70% of America, but still most of the people.


Again, another obvious bullshit comment coming from someone that knows jack shit.  On the one side, you talk about all the wars America starts, on the other, you talk about our troops having no experience.  How does that work out exactly?  American troops haven't been deployed to peace keeping duties?  Really?


It was an insult asshole.  And I called you ignorant, not immature.  If you weren't so ignorant maybe you would be able to read that.


I ever say bad spelling makes everyone stupid?  What makes you stupid is the lack of basic skills to even look at your own history, or that of other nations.  What makes you stupid is to talk about Americans not knowing geography, then making a geographical error like you did.  Guatemala is in Central America, not a base in Cuba.  Guantanamo Bay is a US Base on the island of Cuba.  But it's ok for you to poke fun at Americans that don't know geography.  Fuck you.

Another thing that makes you stupid is calling it a violation of the Geneva Convention when you've obviously not read it.  


Yep, I've heard of both.  You want to show me where in joining the UN any nation gave up it's Sovereign Rights?  You want to tell me where the expiration date on those rights were printed, like on a gallon of milk, that said they were no good after 2000?  No nation gave up the rights like you seem to think.  Show me where it says they did.


You should have noticed by now that I don't bypass, I leave that to others.  First, don't try to pass of "Guatamala" as a spelling mistake, that's such horse shit since it's a different place.  Second, America didn't have to do anything about it because they aren't in violation, why do you think other countries aren't all over them about it as a violation?  You can believe it all you want, but it's pretty obvious that belief isn't based on the actual situation or the actual Articles from the Geneva Convention, but just from the opinion of someone that hasn't taken the time to read them himself.  So don't try to hide your ignorance behind a simple mistake, or a lie that I'd bypass them.  You are just hiding.


Was it less productive then you talking about Americans that can't pass a geography test?  I think not.  But it was accurate.

And you should keep the bullshit out.  There were plenty of threads about this topic, go bring one of them back or start a new one.  This was a discussion on taxes.  But your hole post was bullshit.  Your high on opinions and short on facts.  You say you aren't anti-American but everything else in your post reeks of it.  And you come from a country that does this more then America does (and are in obvious need of a good history tutor).  

Bucc, I would say this guy is right about one thing. Americans do almost no peacekeeping. The countries responsible for UN peacekeeping are mostly the small European ones, because their troops are better sized and better suited for the type of missions that peacekeeping involves. Also the general opinion in the UN is that the bigger countries cannot be trusted to do peacekeeping because they have too many other vested interests, which is why US Russia China hardly ever do it. Another factor is the fact that after Mogadishu many congressional interests decided they weren't willing to risk any US troops for missions that did not directly benefit the US. Not to say that US troops are never deployed for peacekeeping, but its very rare nowadays.

This is a bloody joke.

Yes you did imply that bad spelling = lack off intellegence. And yes i did mean Guantanamo Bay (ty for correct spelling) - and yes thankyou i do know what it is. Thats becasue our media actually reports on it rather than hide from anything 'non patriotic'. All this shit about freedom of speech? And you bitch and insult anyone who posts anything that might not fit in with your views. But of course anyone who isn't american isn't worth listening to? Or don't tell me 'just half assed oppiononated little shits'?

Since when were we talking about old history? I havnt' been, apart from conflict in the last 60 odd years. Hell of course Britain has a pretty busy history of invading countries, and yes the British empire and at no point have i defended our actions and have no intention of doing so as i do now agree with what has happend (oh am i being unpatriotic? better arrest me). But im not quite sure if your aware that im actually talking about the the late 20th and now 21st century?

Soverign rights... There is a difference between protecting and defending your country... and just saying 'oh these guys might have an odd terrorist. lets launch a preemptive strike against them just incase'. A very big difference.

I am calling it a Violation of the Geneva Convention because that is what i believe it to be. The illigal detention of people who will not be given the status of "POW" Which they are! They were defending their country from an attacking force. America just stuck them out there so they are not under American Jurisdiction and so you can do the f*ck you want with them. They have not even been charged... but instead simply detained as 'suspected terrorists'. Without even being allowed access to lawyers? and what about the decision to try them in military courts? behind closed doors? Oh yes. great one.

So America can just walz around doing what it likes, locking up who it likes? And you spew bullshit about defending democracy and freedom of speech? What about the 'patriotism act'? very interesting.
Oh and countries have been complaining about it being a violation. And shit loads of lawyers have been as well.. Seems like you just don't hear about it from your 'patriotic' media.

What on earth are you talking about? I said the majority of your troops were not used to urban warfare, or much peacekeeping. I said that beacuse most of the conflict that america has appeard to have been involved in recently has simply involved flying over a country dropping massive bombs... I won't mention the chinese embassy in afganastan beacuse of course.... er. that was a mistake.

The joke is that you think you know what you are talking about.


Bullshit.  calling Guantanamo Guatemala is a geographical error, just like the ones you brought up about Americans.


Yep, you got it with the last there, except you forgot uneducated.  Our news covers it all, and I even read news from around the world, not just the ones that support my view.  Something you don't seem capable of.  But I'm also not going to sit back and let an ignorant little prick broadcast falsehoods that smack of propoganda either.  Yes, insulting the other view does fall under freedom of speech, but I wouldn't actually expect you to understand that.


So, your history classes teach you that the UK hasn't been in any conflict for the last 60 years.  So Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Kosavo (you brought that up about America, right?) the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War, Afghanistan (forget about those SAS guys that were there?), and, let's not forget Ireland (I'll even let some of the bullshit that went on after WW2 in the Middle East slide, since  that is a ways back.)  Now, I know I've missed some of the more minor stuff, so you'll have to forgive me, since this was all just off the top of my head.  So, I wasn't really talking about ancient history, but you don't seem to be up on the history you are even talking about.


Which wasn't the case in Afghanistan at all.  So I don't know what you are smoking, but you really should stop before you can't control your basic bodily functions anymore.  Your sense of reality seems to be distorted enough to last a lifetime already.  Nobody intelligent, even here, ever argued that the terrorists weren't there (considering that the Taliban basically admitted it).  The arguments were if it was worth the innocent Afghani lives that would be lost because they were "in the way" to put it very crudely.  But you are bringing it to a new height of not even reading the basics.

And yes, countries still have Soverign Rights.  Take Iraq back in the First Gulf War.  They actually had the right to attack Kuwait because of side drilling into Iraq.  They didn't go about it right, and then they committed many crimes while there, but they had the right to go to war.  And America, having a treaty with Kuwait had a right to jump right in.

The UN didn't make countries give up these rights.  The UN is a body who has a major goal of keeping wars from braking out.  But it's not a government onto itself.  But the UN, like the League of Nations, will probably fail, because too many countries (and don't point the finger at just the USA here, because the UK, half of Europe, China, and quite a few others all fit the mold very well) will play too many games inside the UN, or not listen to it outside.


What country were they fighting for exactly?  Most of them were found hiding, not fighting.  And do you actually know the difference between POW and Illegal Combatant?  Because you sure don't seem to.  These are not POW's.  Read up before you want to talk about it.  


And you think your news reports it all?  Or do you just keep getting it wrong?  They don't have access to civilian lawyers.  They do military ones.  Oh, and if they were POW's, their own military would provide it, but, since they aren't, our military will.


Yeah, the patriotism act sucks big time, it will make this more like the UK if nothing else.  It blows.

As for waltzing in and locking up criminals, yes.  What in the hell is wrong with going in there and yanking a terrorist off the streets?  Don't forget that other governments actually helped us capture quite a few of them, and that most of them were under false passports as well.  Or did you forget to read that part in your vast research?


What governments are complaining about it?  I don't care about ignorant fops or bleeding heart liberals who protest without even reading the articles, I'm talking about governments.


No, that's not what you said at all.  Fucking dumbass can't even read what you typed just a few posts back?

Here, let me refresh your dumbass for you:


Hmm, you call them "rookies", and imply that they had no experience in urban warfare or peacekeeping.  Notice that word, "unlike".  That's where you made the implication.

So don't give me your bullshit about how you said "the majority" etc.  That's must more coverup for being an fucking idiot.  

You continue with your fucked up little comments about friendly fire in each and every post as well, and yet you whine about my calling you the asshole that you are?  Funny that.

You picked this fight chump, and you deserve every little dig on your faulty assumptions and lack of any real intelligence.  You came here and spouted anti-american bullshit in a thread that had nothing to do with this.  And you do so coming from a country that has a much more rich history of this crap then the USA.  And yes, you are just as bad in modern times, so suck it.

I see you've added another person to your blacklist Bucc.  Nice work.  And seeing as the blacklist is still only liberals, you are being really convincing about that whole it is how they argue not what they argue logic as to why you act like an asshole.

I won't speak to your alleged moderate status other than to say, I'm less liberal than you are conservative.

Ok no more.
If chucking insults at people who don't agree with you is your only answer i can't be ased. And i love your idea that the patiotism act will make it more like the Uk... I had a good chuckle about that one. very amusing. Perhaps we should do things like introduce the death sentance as well? or how about let everyone have guns? Funny shit.

Majority... yes it is a word. Do you think i said it for a laugh or i was making a joke? Could it possibly occur to you that i actually said it because the majority did not approve of the war on iraq. If you were actually aware of the situation you would know the details. That the general population of this country backed the soldiers and the difficult task they had to do (especailly when being bombed and shot at by the americans). They did not however support the reasons for going to war.. People were much keener that the UN wepons inspecters were given a chance to do the job they had been sent to do. Not many people were happy about Tony blair sucking up to some dumb ass ape of a president who decided he was going to attack. For gods sake please don't say somthing like you think the Bush administration is good. The removal of bush and the administration would probably the biggest advance in world peace we could see for decades...

My history class? Lol. no it certainly didn't. Nor did my history teachers sit there and shpeel some shit about how wonderfully fucking brilliant americ is and how americans are the best in the world etc etc. Lets all go on a crusade to fight the muslims. Funny how about learning from the mistakes made in the past (Yes I am more than happy to say that The English/British made many many many huge and horrible mistakes). But no. Its time for a crusade against the axix of evil? don't make me laugh please.

Whats most amusing is I know so many americans who are intellegent, polite, knowledgeable, people, who are capable at looking beyond their own nose and are able to dicuss and talk about stuff without talking crap chucking insults.
Im not even anti american as you put it before. What I am against, is the hot headed, narrow minded, short sighted, simplistic and unsensitive views that you and others appear to possess. However as i do (amazingly enough) support the freedom of speech i respect what are your views, however much i disagree with them. So I'll let you continue to insult and abuse and slag off anyone else you find who posts their views that don't agree with yours, and you can live in your little world of the idealism that your country represents democracy and the freedom of speech, beliefs etc..
Amazing how you think you know so much about me... very inpressive. And exactly where did i say anything about the UK not being involved in any conflict? erm nowhere. So it would be nice if in several of these replys you hadn't talked rubbish. I won't even think to ask about your 'education'.

I am not aware of what a Pow is or a non combatant? right ok. well. maybe i should do this in nice and easy words.
 let me explain:

 ?POW status is granted to selected categories of individuals that have fallen into the power of the enemy. These categories are:

Regular combatants:

The first and most important group of individuals eligible for POW status is regular combatants. The main characteristic of regular combatants is that, being part of a regular army, they have the right to directly participate in hostilities. If they fall into the power of the enemy, they become prisoners of war and cannot be prosecuted or punished for having taken part in these hostilities. Members of militias, paramilitary groups and volunteer corps forming part of the regular armed forces are considered regular combatants and benefit from POW status.

Other combatants
Combatants who do not belong to the armed forces of the party to the international conflict in question do not benefit from POW status. However, there can be situations where military groups, although not being part of the regular armed forces, may belong to the party to the conflict, such as resistance movements in occupied territories. These combatants may benefit from POW status if they fulfill the following conditions:

  (a) the combatants must be organized into a military structure, i.e. commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  (b) the combatants must wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  (c) they must carry arms openly; and,
  (d) they must conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war can also benefit from POW status.

Non-combatants:
According to the Third Geneva Convention, non-combatant individuals accompanying the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as the civilian crew of a military aircraft, war correspondents, supply contractors or suppliers for the welfare of the armed forces also benefit from POW status, provided that they are authorized to fulfill these functions by the armed forces and carry proper identification issued by the armed forces.


? Civilians joining the armed resistance in a  lev?e en masse acquire combatant status even though they do not belong to the regular armed forces or an associated militia.

In very particular circumstances, civilians may become combatants and obtain prisoner of war status if captured by the enemy. This exception is called  lev?e en masse  and concerns inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who take up arms spontaneously to resist invading forces as they approach.  As combatants, they may be attacked until they surrender. To satisfy this exception, they must:
 
  -        not have had the time to form regular armed units;
 -        carry their arms openly; and
 -        respect the laws and customs of war. (Third Geneva Convention ).

 These particular combatants do not need to distinguish themselves from civilians, apart from carrying their weapons openly. It should be noted that the term  lev?e en masse  denotes a collective movement against an invading party and cannot be applied to isolated individuals taking up arms.

?  The general rule is that unlike combatants, protected civilians who fall into the hands of the enemy may not be detained.  The two exceptions are that an occupying power may intern some civilians for individually determined imperative security reasons (Fourth Geneva Convention  ) and that, as in peacetime, persons suspected of crimes may be detained.  Finally, it must be recalled that those civilians who participate in a  lev?e en masse  against the approaching enemy are combatants and may therefore be interned in the same manner as all other prisoners of war.

 
There you have it. Are you going to call this 'fucking bullshit half assed uneducated crap etc etc' as well in your so well thoughtout argument? But of course... Im not american so...

So so so much more that I would say. But to be honest I am really wasting my time even posting anything to you, to be honest... Much better to talk to people who actually have the ability to think, and a) not just regurgitate crap that they think is the absolute thuth, but also b) are actually capable of thinking.  heh.  I reallly don't think your worth the effort. So forget it. enough.  bye!  ;D

Damn it, You have got me so angry about this i can't but help posting this article about the prisoner status debate. Written by an AMERICAN i might add... But of course. lock her up. she is being unpatriotic.

I actually haven't labeled him a liberal Bondo, you just did.  I'm calling him a dumbass because that's his place.  Remember, my blacklist is for the stupid beyond all hope people, not people of just a political agenda.

As for you thinking I'm more conservative then you are liberal, that's a bunch of bullshit.  My argument with this douche-bag hasn't even been conservative or liberal, it's been about his misinformation and ignorance.

And, for the record, if you go back to the old war threads, you'll see me giving the dumbasses on the other side of the argument shit too Bondo.  Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't bother to read the parts that don't agree with your theories.

Showing your ignorance again.  We have the death penalty here in Michigan?  Didn't think so asshole.

And I actually can name 10 Brit's that are pissed about having to give up their fowl guns.  Because I know them.  So don't bring guns into it.  You act like you know America you little faggot, but you don't know it at all.


Oh, that's right, the UK government wasn't backing the war, even in the first days it was brought up in the UN.  Wait, yes they were.  Oh my, you seem to get it wrong again.  Of course, the UK's involvement in Iraq was all Bush's fault, they have no blame at all.  Fucking ignorant little piss-ant.  And you say Americans have attitude?  Fuck you.


Wow, you sure can make up the bullshit, can't you?  Anyone here have a history class talk about how wonderfully brilliant America is?  Anyone here have a history class talking about going on a crusade to fight the Muslims (funny, your history class should have included that one though, idiot)?  

Even more, anyone here ever hear me say a good word about GWB?

No, you are just an opinionated little fucktard that groups everyone into these stereotypes to fit your universal good and evils.  


Wow, this coming from the little bastard that started the insults, right?  Or didn't your first post bash Americans?  Fuck you.  You get what you deserve.  How many times do you bring up friendly fire incidents?  Tell me, is that because it strengthens your point, or because you are just being an insulting prick?  Well, we all know that answer, don't we.  So, as you have found out, I don't hide my insults, nor hide behind intentions.  I'm open and up front about calling a little ignorant kid, just what he is.


My education includes a Masters Degree you little fuck.  So bring it on.  You asked where you could look up 10's of thousands of innocents being killed, then when I said look to the British Empire, you spouted something about you only meant the last 60 years, so I pointed out places over the last 60 years that you can look to your own country's history.  Get it yet?

If you notice, you haven't been able to say shit about any of my counter points.  You say I duck Israel, I ask where you asked about it.  You talk about running roadblocks, I counter with who's really to blame.  Now, we get to your one, wrong, attempt at it.


There, that's the important part.  Now, let's look at the terrorists being held in Cuba.  First of all, did they "spontaneously take up arms to resist an invasion"?  No, they were terrorists.  They had arms already, and were not defending against invasion.  That would be true of most of the Taliban fighters, but they aren't interned in Cuba.

Let's look further, shall we?  Did they respect the laws and customs of war, these terrorists?  Are you suggesting that they have?

Did they have time to form regular armed units?  Why yes, yes they did.  

And, more, half of them weren't captured in Afghanistan, but in other countries after fleeing (there goes the carry arms openly, along with the fact that a terrorist doesn't carry them open, soldiers do).

Wow, they didn't fit one, and they have to fit them all.  You know, looking this stuff up is only half the job.  You do have to read it and apply it too.  

One final thought.  You also bring up bullshit about arresting those unpatriotic.  I've never felt like that at all.  I don't even mind the people against the war that put thought into it.  But you are a different story.  You don't put much of any real thought into things, and you are insulting while pretending not to be, which is loathsome.  I'm all for people speaking out against the war (just not against the soldiers), as long as it's done with intelligence.  Something that obviously fails you.

While I enjoy this kind of stuff, I must put a halt to it...maybe you guys can continue the war on GameRanger.

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/adminowns.gif)