HUCKABEE'S FAIRTAX PROPOSAL

joefromchicago wrote:

flaja wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
flaja wrote:
Economic projections are worthless since they cannot take into account all factors that could affect economic activity.

You asked for proof that tax revenues went down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I provided that proof.

What you provided is "proof" that when given enough time tax cuts do lead to increased government revenue. By your own graph the government takes in more money now following Bush's tax cuts that it was taking in before the tax cuts were implemented.

And my "thank you?" Where's that?

I withheld any thank you because it appeared that you still do not truly understand this issue. You gave the impression that tax revenue had to go up immediately after a tax cut for the tax cut to do any good. And then you gave various projections, i.e., wishful thinkings, that supposedly showed the deleterious effects of tax cuts. I withheld a thank you in light of the spirit in which you presented your proof.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

I withheld any thank you because it appeared that you still do not truly understand this issue. You gave the impression that tax revenue had to go up immediately after a tax cut for the tax cut to do any good. And then you gave various projections, i.e., wishful thinkings, that supposedly showed the deleterious effects of tax cuts. I withheld a thank you in light of the spirit in which you presented your proof.

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:

If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.
I provided the information that you requested, yet you now refuse to express any appreciation just because of the beliefs that you presume I hold about taxes. And I'm not sure how you could have made those assumptions, since I never expressed any opinions about what it would take for a tax cut to do any good. Indeed, I don't think I've ever expressed an opinion on that subject in this forum. You're not just leaping to conclusions, you're pole-vaulting to them.

And all to avoid acknowledging gratitude for providing the information that you yourself requested. Well, merry Christmas to you, flaja, I hope Santa brought you an especially large lump of coal this year.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:
If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

Why don't we abolish all federal, state and local income and estate taxes and then replace them with:

A sales tax on goods and services (excluding food and medicine) that is limited so the total (federal, state and local) sales tax on any given item is no more than say 8%;

A tax on wages and salaries (with large personal exemptions) without allowing any deductions or exemptions so we can target the absurd pay of corporate execs, politicians, entertainers and athletes;

Excise taxes on things that we should be conserving (energy and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, plastic etcetera);

A federal tax on both consumer and corporate debt exempting the first mortgage on a primary residence.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

flaja wrote:
Why don't we abolish all federal, state and local income and estate taxes and then replace them with:

A sales tax on goods and services (excluding food and medicine) that is limited so the total (federal, state and local) sales tax on any given item is no more than say 8%;

A tax on wages and salaries (with large personal exemptions) without allowing any deductions or exemptions so we can target the absurd pay of corporate execs, politicians, entertainers and athletes;

Excise taxes on things that we should be conserving (energy and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, plastic etcetera);

A federal tax on both consumer and corporate debt exempting the first mortgage on a primary residence.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??[/quote

What right does the poor have to seize the money of the rich? The estate tax is nothing more than a left-wing income redistribution scheme and I am absolutely opposed to it.

0 Replies

One problem is that the economy is stacked in favor of the wealthy.

The CEO's of Wachovia and Bank of America have received huge compensation packages the last few years, despite that the banks (and shareholders) have lost $5 B during that time due to bad decisions relative to granting subpar mortgages. CEO's in Japan, under similar circumstances, would have been called upon to fall on their swords.

0 Replies

I just read a piece about Huckabee's tax plan, which referred to it as "crackpot."

For instance, a major part of the plan is to give prebates to all, which is a payment equal to the tax on what we will pay for the basics. However, the rich can get the prebate, do their spending abroad, and avoid all federal taxation. This is truly crackpot.

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
Why don't we abolish all federal, state and local income and estate taxes and then replace them with:

A sales tax on goods and services (excluding food and medicine) that is limited so the total (federal, state and local) sales tax on any given item is no more than say 8%;

A tax on wages and salaries (with large personal exemptions) without allowing any deductions or exemptions so we can target the absurd pay of corporate execs, politicians, entertainers and athletes;

Excise taxes on things that we should be conserving (energy and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, plastic etcetera);

A federal tax on both consumer and corporate debt exempting the first mortgage on a primary residence.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??[/quote

What right does the poor have to seize the money of the rich? The estate tax is nothing more than a left-wing income redistribution scheme and I am absolutely opposed to it.[/quote]

You did not answer the question. Let's try again.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??

0 Replies

flajah would like to have all things run by the aristocracy. Then, he can just be a mild little serf who lets his betters do his thinking.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

One problem is that the economy is stacked in favor of the wealthy.

The CEO's of Wachovia and Bank of America have received huge compensation packages the last few years, despite that the banks (and shareholders) have lost $5 B during that time due to bad decisions relative to granting subpar mortgages. CEO's in Japan, under similar circumstances, would have been called upon to fall on their swords.

Unless the corporate execs are the majority shareholders and can vote themselves large salaries and bonuses, the problem here is with the rank and file shareholders who are not taking an active role in managing the company they own.

And note that if we used tax policy to punish companies like Wachovia, we could end up punishing companies like Cosco where the corporate culture is against paying the execs any great amount more than rank and file employees get.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I just read a piece about Huckabee's tax plan, which referred to it as "crackpot."

For instance, a major part of the plan is to give prebates to all, which is a payment equal to the tax on what we will pay for the basics. However, the rich can get the prebate, do their spending abroad, and avoid all federal taxation. This is truly crackpot.

Why not simply not put the tax on the basics to begin with? Any claim that the fair tax would be less complicated in design and require less bureaucracy to collect has flown out the window.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

flaja wrote:
woiyo wrote:
flaja wrote:
Why don't we abolish all federal, state and local income and estate taxes and then replace them with:

A sales tax on goods and services (excluding food and medicine) that is limited so the total (federal, state and local) sales tax on any given item is no more than say 8%;

A tax on wages and salaries (with large personal exemptions) without allowing any deductions or exemptions so we can target the absurd pay of corporate execs, politicians, entertainers and athletes;

Excise taxes on things that we should be conserving (energy and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, plastic etcetera);

A federal tax on both consumer and corporate debt exempting the first mortgage on a primary residence.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??[/quote

What right does the poor have to seize the money of the rich? The estate tax is nothing more than a left-wing income redistribution scheme and I am absolutely opposed to it.[/quote]

You did not answer the question. Let's try again.

If you understood how and why the Estate Tax exists, you might think differently.

How would you feel about an aristocracy? Would you be in favor of that style of social order??

I did answer your question. The rich have a right to get rich, as we all do if we are willing to work and save and risk financial loss, and the poor have no right to seize anyone's money just because the poor are poor and the rich are rich.

The word you are looking for is plutocracy, not aristocracy. As long as the plutocrats are honest, compete on a fair basis with others within economic markets and don't abuse the people that work for them, I don't care how rich the plutocrats are or how rich their ancestors were or how much money they leave to their heirs.

0 Replies

"But in 1906 Republican President Theodore Roosevelt proposed to Congress that a permanent--and peacetime--"death" tax be instituted, as well as a progressive income tax. "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State," he wrote, "because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government"--not the least of which is "the protection the State gives him."

http://hnn.us/articles/794.html

You miss the entire basis of this tax.

The rich do have the FREEDOM to get rich. However, their HEIRS have no legal right to their parents property.

Your beliefs will eliminate the middle class, further depress the lower class and create all the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of the few.

Our forefathers saw this in England and did not want that to happen in America. They were right.

0 Replies

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0418-21.htm

"It's a debate we haven't had freely and openly in this nation for nearly a century, and last week, by voting to end the Estate Tax, House Republicans tried to ensure that it wouldn't be had again in this generation.

But it's a debate that's vital to the survival of democracy in America.

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."

"As George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wrote to the nation on September 17, 1787 when "transmitting the Constitution" to the people of the new nation: "In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence."

He concluded with his "most ardent wish" was that the Constitution "may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness..."

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society. "

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"But in 1906 Republican President Theodore Roosevelt proposed to Congress that a permanent--and peacetime--"death" tax be instituted, as well as a progressive income tax. "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State,"

I never knew that TR was ever a National Socialist.

Quote:

The rich do have the FREEDOM to get rich. However, their HEIRS have no legal right to their parents property.

Why not? Why would a man work and save and make himself rich if he has to give his money and wealth to the state when he dies? If a man's children are not entitled to his wealth through inheritance, how can total strangers be entitled to his wealth through taxes?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
That's rather churlish. Here's what you wrote:
If anyone can produce documentation that tax revenue after either Reagan or Bush's tax cuts went [b]down[/b], they've yet to produce it no matter how often they are asked to do so.

I provided the information that you requested,

You've done nothing of the kind. You have documented how tax revenue has gone up since Bush's tax cuts went into effect.

Did tax revenues go down after the Reagan and Bush tax cuts?

0 Replies

flaja wrote:

woiyo wrote:
"But in 1906 Republican President Theodore Roosevelt proposed to Congress that a permanent--and peacetime--"death" tax be instituted, as well as a progressive income tax. "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State,"

I never knew that TR was ever a National Socialist.

Quote:
The rich do have the FREEDOM to get rich. However, their HEIRS have no legal right to their parents property.

Why not? Why would a man work and save and make himself rich if he has to give his money and wealth to the state when he dies? If a man's children are not entitled to his wealth through inheritance, how can total strangers be entitled to his wealth through taxes?

Your characterization that tax revenue is taking someone's wealth and giving it to strangers is a lie. Those who benefit most from the infrastructure provided by the government through taxes have a moral obligation to repay their fair share back. It is a principle that is 6,000 years old. People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates understand it. Idiots that will never earn enough to even come close to paying a dime in estate taxes seem to have a hard time grasping it however.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

In a letter to Joseph Milligan on April 6, 1816, Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death.

This is rich coming from a man who spent his entire life living off of the labor of others. As a planter Jefferson lived off the labor of slaves. As a politician he lived off the labor of taxpayers who paid his salary.

BTW: If a man has multiple heirs and he gives each an equal portion of his wealth as an inheritance, has his wealth not been diluted just as if it had been seized by the government?

Quote:

"As George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wrote to the nation on September 17, 1787 when "transmitting the Constitution" to the people of the new nation: "In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." He concluded with his "most ardent wish" was that the Constitution "may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness..."

That same Constitution at the time prohibited an income tax, so what's your point?

Quote:

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

You can document these claims? No, because the opposite is true.

Poverty hasn't exploded:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

In 1980 29,272,000 Americans, 13% of all Americans, were living below the poverty line.

In 1988 31,745,000 Americans, 13% of all Americans, were living below the poverty line.

Reagan's presidency had no net effect on the poverty rate.

As of 2006 36,460,000 Americans, 12.6% of all American, were living below the poverty line.

Government policy seems to have little effect on poverty.

The middle class isn't under siege; it has grown in number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

In 1980 median household income in the U.S. was about $42,000 (in constant dollars, i.e., adjusted for inflation). In 1988 median household income was about $45,000. And in 2006 it was over $48,000.

So how can you that the middle class has suffered since the Reagan Revolution?

0 Replies

"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

It's hardly a suprise, then, that Buffett also opposes repealing the Estate Tax (aka the Paris Hilton Tax), a "graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes":

Mr. Buffett said repealing the estate tax "would be a terrible mistake," the equivalent of "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics."

"We have come closer to a true meritocracy than anywhere else around the world," he said. "You have mobility so people with talents can be put to the best use. Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit." [NYT, 2/14/01]

Buffett was also opposed to President Bush's dividend and income tax cuts for the wealthy. "If class warfare is being waged in America," he wrote, "my class is clearly winning." Congress ought to listen."

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/buffett-estate-tax/

OK. So apparently you do not think much of the founding fathers. Warren Buffet maybe can open your eyes just a wee bit more about how the estate tax is really a social tax.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

"Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, announced this week that he plans to give away 85 percent of his $44 billion fortune to charity. Buffett explained his motivation in today's New York Times:

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about the debilitating effects of a welfare society," he said. "At the same time, they leave their kids a lifetime and beyond of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer. And instead of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

Buffett is entitled to his opinion and he may do with his money whatever he wishes.

I am a great believer in the idea of noblesse oblige and I have been looking for ways to use the money that my uncle left me for some educational or community service use. But it not your right or responsibility to tell Buffett, me or anyone else what we must or even what we should do with money that belongs to us.

0 Replies

HUCKABEE'S FAIRTAX PROPOSAL

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know