[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

well for example, in minnesota if you are a teacher and are hired in the st paul school distirict and are native american you can get 10% of your student loans paid off by the government for every year you teach. doesnt matter if youre a good teacher or bad teacher. you get it just becuase. why should that person get paid more just becuase of the color of their skin. i dunt get it

That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders.

Native Americans didn't believe in property rights or property ownership. Little tidbit of the day

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!

I think most of us know why but my question is, do you agree with it?

[anabolicrhino]

I love owning stuff!

...but I am not gonna bust my balls or anything!

The fact that the Native Americans had no concept of ownership must have made the whole "white man taking that which cannot be taken" thing mind blowing.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

The fact that the Native Americans had no concept of ownership must have made the whole "white man taking that which cannot be taken" thing mind blowing.

Actually it was Europeans enforcing property lines that caused the most conflcit initially. Land was not to be owned and belonged to nobody according to Native Americans. Everyone was to benefit from its resources and they couldn't understand why they would be attacked when they "trespassed" on land Europeans "owned". They thought everyone viewed it the same....obvisouly not.

Then manifest destiny took over and it was all downhill for them.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!

that wasnt my point at all. there are things that is benefitial to all of us for the government to partake in: an army, police force, a court system, infrastructure, etc... in otherwords, the things that the private sector would not undertake. we should all want to pay these taxes becuase the benefits to us outweigh what we would pay for them.

I quote adam smith, ""The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."

It is when the government starts getting into things that the private sector would supply that there is a problem. since increased government spending must be ofset with an equal decrease in public saving ( which leads to decrease in public investment) there is less econmic growth. governments are never as efficent at allocating capital as the private markets are. Another example would be great britian during the late 70s and early 80s. during this time they had little to no economic growth because the government was invovled with everything. It wasnt untill they deregulated industries (such as the oil industry (BP), the telephone (BT), and cut back on the welfare state) did they begin to expericnce economic growth.

We should only be paying taxes for those things that we all benefit on and the government shouldnt be messin' in with the private sector. socialism is a nice theory, but it dont work.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

that wasnt my point at all. there are things that is benefitial to all of us for the government to partake in: an army, police force, a court system, infrastructure, etc... in otherwords, the things that the private sector would not undertake. we should all want to pay these taxes becuase the benefits to us outweigh what we would pay for them.

I quote adam smith, ""The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."

It is when the government starts getting into things that the private sector would supply that there is a problem. since increased government spending must be ofset with an equal decrease in public saving ( which leads to decrease in public investment) there is less econmic growth. governments are never as efficent at allocating capital as the private markets are. Another example would be great britian during the late 70s and early 80s. during this time they had little to no economic growth because the government was invovled with everything. It wasnt untill they deregulated industries (such as the oil industry (BP), the telephone (BT), and cut back on the welfare state) did they begin to expericnce economic growth.

We should only be paying taxes for those things that we all benefit on and the government shouldnt be messin' in with the private sector. socialism is a nice theory, but it dont work.

Halleluyah! AMEN BROTHER!

Except we could go a step further. The WAY we pay our taxes needs changing. We shouldn't be paying based on our incomes. Taxes should be on the end product not the labor. I'd much prefer a federal sales tax than a federal income tax. And heck if they want to stimulate growth in an industry they can just decrease the sales tax on those products. If they want to discourage an industry increase the tax. It's a much better way than taxing people's incomes.

Income tax results in stuff like, there was a guy who one a programming contest. His dream, like many people, was to one day go into space. Well he THOUGHT his dream came true when he won that contest because the prize was a trip with that space tourism company. Oh but wait, the INCOME TAX on the prize was more than his ANNUAL SALARY!! Sorry, no dream for you.

The way income tax works, winning a free <insert prize here> is really just getting a coupon for 70% off the MSRP because you have to pay income tax on it. Whenever I help people out with their homes, I have to pull all kinds of wrangling so I don't inadvertantly screw them over. Even then I have to wind up paying them extra cash to cover the "income" of what I did for their home. In a lot of states I can't do the whole selling their house back to them for $1 so I wind up also having to give them money to cover the income tax hit they would receive as a result of me paying their mortgage.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Halleluyah! AMEN BROTHER!

Except we could go a step further. The WAY we pay our taxes needs changing. We shouldn't be paying based on our incomes. Taxes should be on the end product not the labor. I'd much prefer a federal sales tax than a federal income tax. And heck if they want to stimulate growth in an industry they can just decrease the sales tax on those products. If they want to discourage an industry increase the tax. It's a much better way than taxing people's incomes.

I agree but the sales tax would be hard to inforce; alot of people would deal in an underground economy then. our current system encourages unproductivity and discourages the profit motive of increased productivity. like for example if you earn between 40,000 and 45,000 (i forget the exact number) and you have 2 kids you dont pay income tax. and if you make too much money and fall under the AMT then those child credits dont even count towards you. I also had a friend that went to a state college. the state paid part of the college cost, he got scholorships to pay for the rest. then he lived off the interest free/low interest governement loans and hardly worked (i think he grossed like (6k).. now not only did he not have to pay any taxes, he got all of his witholdings back and the government paid him $500 thanks to the earned income tax credit... should the system really reward you for not working?

[texxlnghorn]

Ron Paul-Yea I would like to see him win, but it will never happen.

[brass monkey]

Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org
Grass Roots site based on Neil Boortz plan fair tax act.
He also has a book out with alot of good info.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by brass monkey

Americans For Fair Taxation: FairTax.org
Grass Roots site based on Neil Boortz plan fair tax act.
He also has a book out with alot of good info.

its stupid. too easy to get around. if the whole argument is that the current system decreases the incentive to work then why not a flat tax. that makes more sence.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

its stupid. too easy to get around. if the whole argument is that the current system decreases the incentive to work then why not a flat tax. that makes more sence.

Please explain how a fair tax is easy to get around since the sale of any good gets taxed. Only way to get around it is to sell goods off the books.

[spunkles182]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Please explain how a fair tax is easy to get around since the sale of any good gets taxed. Only way to get around it is to sell goods off the books.

yes off the books, people just trading with each other, black market, and you can just buy used goods and buy off the internet. used goods are not taxed and with the internet you can buy whatever you want from another country.

not to meantion that its actually a 30% tax and not 23% like it implies. its 23% on gross purchases so a $20,000 car would actually cost 26,000 (6,000/26,000 = 23%) not 24,600 which they imply.

and it does not say that the gas tax is going to be taken off. so a $3.00 gallon of gas now would cost $3.90 (.90/3.90 = 23%) under "fair tax".

also what if inflation out paces real wages?

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by spunkles182

yes off the books, people just trading with each other, black market, and you can just buy used goods and buy off the internet. used goods are not taxed and with the internet you can buy whatever you want from another country.

Shipping from other countries typically costs more than 23% unless it is a valuable but lightweight item.

As for black market, that exists now. Anything off the books won't change because off the books selling is already done to avoid INCOME taxes. Fair tax wouldn't change that one way or another.

not to meantion that its actually a 30% tax and not 23% like it implies. its 23% on gross purchases so a $20,000 car would actually cost 26,000 (6,000/26,000 = 23%) not 24,600 which they imply.

whether it is 23% or 30% has nothing to do with it being "easy ot avoid."

As for the cost, even at 30% I'd save a ****load of money. In fact, I'd save an incredible ****load of money because my wife and I like to live modestly as opposed to buy insane luxury cars, several mansions, boats, diamond "bling, and tons of other worthless junk rich people blow their cash on. My taxes would drop to next to nothing compared to what I shell out now.

and it does not say that the gas tax is going to be taken off. so a $3.00 gallon of gas now would cost $3.90 (.90/3.90 = 23%) under "fair tax".

It's 2.33 a gallon by me right now. In any case, gas taxes are mostly state IIRC. Obviously this wouldn't change any state taxes.

also what if inflation out paces real wages?

That happens NOW. The average pay raise in corporate America for the lowly peon and even middle management is a paultry 2-3%. Inflation increase at roughly 7%. So inflation is most definitely outpacing wages.

But here's the thing with this. You drop income tax and suddenly people have a ton more money. If they're stupid they'll spend it on buying more stuff. If they are smart though they'll just continue to buy only the crap they've been buying and there's no way they'd end up paying more than they shell out in income taxes now. Especially since the Fair Tax isn't added to "essential" goods like food. For the working poor, the largest chunk of their money goes to rent and the second largest goes towards food. Neither of those would be taxed under the Fair Tax.

[spunkles182]

Shipping from other countries typically costs more than 23% unless it is a valuable but lightweight item.

yeah freight cost does matter but if you bought something for $100, lets say clothes, youre saying that shipping would cost would be over $30 on that?

As for black market, that exists now. Anything off the books won't change because off the books selling is already done to avoid INCOME taxes. Fair tax wouldn't change that one way or another.

certainly would. the black market on wages would certainly be different from a black market on consumption. wages (INCOME tax) and consumption (sales tax) are different(

whether it is 23% or 30% has nothing to do with it being "easy ot avoid."

As for the cost, even at 30% I'd save a ****load of money. In fact, I'd save an incredible ****load of money because my wife and I like to live modestly as opposed to buy insane luxury cars, several mansions, boats, diamond "bling, and tons of other worthless junk rich people blow their cash on. My taxes would drop to next to nothing compared to what I shell out now.

i probably worded it wrong. this wasnt meant to prove that it was easy to avoid. just to prove that it was misleading


It's 2.33 a gallon by me right now. In any case, gas taxes are mostly state IIRC. Obviously this wouldn't change any state taxes.

geeze where do you live? its $3.00 here right now. i should move



That happens NOW. The average pay raise in corporate America for the lowly peon and even middle management is a paultry 2-3%. Inflation increase at roughly 7%. So inflation is most definitely outpacing wages.

7% inflation where do you live???
we havent had 7% inflation since the late 70s early 80's. (inflation is now between 2 and 3%)

Current Inflation

the point was that our income tax now is index to the inflation rate (meaning that if your income goes up with the inflation rate, your tax rate doesn't). There is no indexing with the sales tax. As goods become more expensive, you have only two choices: pay more in taxes or do without the things you need.


The whole issue isnt how we raise the taxes but what we spend them on. you can change how the pie is sliced but the amount of the entire pie remains the same. we need to reduce gov spending. the fair tax is too much like socialism for me. The goverment giving 300 million people a check every month isnt the way to go.