Economics/Political Ideologies

A consuption based tax isn't necessarily a fair tax. Someone who makes 25k a year spends 100% of their income to get buy, so esentially all of the income would be subject to tax. Someone who makes a million a year spends more and would be taxed more in absolute dollars, but the millionaire may only be spending 50% on their annual income. So, it seems to me that a large percentage of that income doesn't see any taxation. ???

Myself, I prefer the consumption tax. Although mjx makes an excellent point, I work in an area with a lot of people on welfare. I have heard them talk, and they claim the most outrageous exemptions on their tax forms. The dumocrats love to claim that the rich don't pay taxes-well I can tell you this much in truth-the "poor" screw us twice:

1) Every time they get a welfare check (so they have no reason to work), and

2) Every year at tax time. They get a refund, a hefty one, although they haven't worked one minute.

@mjx01: There's a large percentage of income that doesn't get taxed anyway, irregardless of the system. I figure it's going to be that way in any tax system, but the FT sounds a lot better: "tax everyone" vs. "tax the rich!"

@Dudester: Yeah, I can vouch for that. I know a couple who got close to 10,000 back on their return. These are crackhead thieves who spend every penny they have on a fix, so Idk how the fuck that works. Welfare is designed to keep single mothers single. I don't know how many times I've heard of people losing their state help because they got married or took up with a bf. Now, I can understand the state not wanting to support some deadbeat bf, but when you're supporting some crackwhore who has kids solely to stay on the dole, you can't really point fingers one way or another, can you?

Between the entitlement programs and our ridiculous wars, we're going down fast. I read somewhere that the military budget is the largest drain, but that entitlement piece of the pie is catching up fast, imo.

This is depressing

Yep.

f_d - The bsic way of installing the fairtax involves a public campaign. This has begun. This is not a liberal or coservative, Democrat or Republican idea. That is the first thing. Ther are parts that each side would enjoy, as well as parts they won't. But the main focus is to change the way teh federal goverment collects money. As to how you think that money should be spent, that's a different argumant. The current plans are for the FairTax to be revenue-neutral.
And as for the statement about the military, that is only partially correct. The military does cost a lot of money, (and there is ample waste that should be removed) but the entitlement programs (Social security, Medicare, etc,)are a larger drain on goverment resources. The FairTax, for the record, is not focused on fixing the way money is spent, just the collecting of it.

mjx - There is a provision in the FairTax to give every household a "prebate", which would simply be a refund on the amount of taxes that would be raised by a household at the federal poverty line to sustain itself. Its not based on income, its based on simply the number of people in your household. So people who barely make enough to survive would pay no taxes, and those making millions would only recieve an amount back based on basic existence of a family of their size. No more, no less. As for the rich not being taxed on what they make if they don't spend it, how is that a problem? If they don't wish to spend it, they should have the ability to keep it.

dude - Ther are two income sources that could help raise capital for our goverment that aren't being use dright now. 1) Visitors to the US pay no income taxes, but they use our facilities. The FairTax would allow foreigners to contribute to the running of the goverment. 2) NO one in illicit activities, such as selling drugs, are going to file taxes on that money. However, when they go to buy anything, from a car to a shirt, with that money, taxes will be collected from them.

@bear2k: Thank you. If the FT is to change the way money is collected, however, wouldn't it affect in some way the money is spent? (I tried to think of a dancer/club analogy, but to no avail lol) I happen to think the gov't itself is the greatest drain on its own resources, but I do see what you're saying. A campaign may work, but out gov't has forgotten that the workers pay for everything, including them, and I could see it being quashed sometime down the road. I'm appreciative of your statement that it's not a left or right thing, too. There's too much polarization over things like this.

f_d - The bsic way of installing the fairtax involves a public campaign. This has begun. This is not a liberal or coservative, Democrat or Republican idea. That is the first thing. Ther are parts that each side would enjoy, as well as parts they won't. But the main focus is to change the way teh federal goverment collects money. As to how you think that money should be spent, that's a different argumant. The current plans are for the FairTax to be revenue-neutral.
And as for the statement about the military, that is only partially correct. The military does cost a lot of money, (and there is ample waste that should be removed) but the entitlement programs (Social security, Medicare, etc,)are a larger drain on goverment resources. The FairTax, for the record, is not focused on fixing the way money is spent, just the collecting of it.

mjx - There is a provision in the FairTax to give every household a "prebate", which would simply be a refund on the amount of taxes that would be raised by a household at the federal poverty line to sustain itself. Its not based on income, its based on simply the number of people in your household. So people who barely make enough to survive would pay no taxes, and those making millions would only recieve an amount back based on basic existence of a family of their size. No more, no less. As for the rich not being taxed on what they make if they don't spend it, how is that a problem? If they don't wish to spend it, they should have the ability to keep it.

dude - Ther are two income sources that could help raise capital for our goverment that aren't being use dright now. 1) Visitors to the US pay no income taxes, but they use our facilities. The FairTax would allow foreigners to contribute to the running of the goverment. 2) NO one in illicit activities, such as selling drugs, are going to file taxes on that money. However, when they go to buy anything, from a car to a shirt, with that money, taxes will be collected from them.

Sorry for the repost, peoples. My computer didn't show it as having posted, so I sent it again.

This tax already exists in Canada. It is called the GST, Goods and Services Tax. Current rate is 5%. Many goods and services are exempt and GST rebates are paid quarterly to low income Canadians. I am a big supporter of this tax. I think that its scope should be extended to taxing every dollar spent in the Canadian economy with the concomitant elimination of income, corporate, and capital gains taxes.

Even though the GST is only 5% and many exemptions exist, this tax is a cash cow for the federal government. It has allowed the federal government to bring our taxes to a very competitive level vis a vis the US. Currently, capital gains, corporate profits, and incomes of high earners are taxed at a LOWER rate in Canada than in US.

Such a simple tax will never be implemented in the U.S. for a very simple reason: it would render the IRS, and all the people it employs, unnecessary. That huge bureaucracy has a large political clout in the form of the various federal employees unions.

FD, yes it would affect how money is spent. Cretive types would spend money in a way to avoid the tax just aspeople use loopholes to avoid taxes now.

Bear, it depends on how you look at it, but I would argue that you wind up with a lower tax base and lower revenue. Your income is esentially you personal GDP. If there is a 'flat' tax on individual GDP, then revenue would always follow overall GDP. And then link spending to a percentaged of GDP... balanced budget.

Art, Canada has a pretty good tax setup (and other laws). So, GST/VAT plus and income tax would be effective.

GMD, sadly true, but in principal the resources could be redirected to forensic accounting (Madoff, Enron, etc)

And it would make sense GMD, don't forget that. Far be it from the government to do something that would make sense.

what's this topic about again? I didn't see anything about tits or ass

@art: We already know Canada rocks, lmao.
@GMD and rh48hr: Our gov't knows all too well how this would benefit us, and benefit that doesn't come from them has to be stopped. We're supposed to be dependent on the gov't for everything. It's why dissension and opposing viewpoints will eventually be quelled: see: 1984, Mao's China, etc, etc.

First point-

Welfare per se is not the problem - it is the administration of it as a permanent alternative for some folks who are, in theory, "entitled" to the benefits.

If you want to see who's on welfare, look to see with whom the benefits wind up before going back to the Fed. Medicaid/ Medicare - the big med services providers; Food Stamps - the major food producers and the retail grocery chains. Why do you think Food Stamps (Now SNAP) is administered by the Dept of Agriculture, not HHS. Because it is part of US farm policy. And get this: The obligations of your gov't include $ 1.1 Billion for TANF (Usualy seen as 'welfare;) $ 54 Billion for Food Stamps; $ 407 Billion for Social Security Retirements.

Point 2- The key to Marx (aside from his explanation of 19th Century Capitalism {Das Kapital}) was his premise that advancement of human society proceeds in stages and is governed by dialectic materialism. The dialectic he lifted from Hegel and posits that any stage in human history generates its own reaction and leads to new adaptations which in turn itself leads to new issues and their resolution a la: the Thesis, produces an Antithesis and resolves as the Synthesis (which then becomes the new thesis.....repeat as long as it takes)

The materialism part came from the application of Hegel to Economics which Marx saw as the engine for human progress. Each phase of history was delivered and controlled by a segment of society so - the middle ages had its barons; current time has its bourgoisie and Socialism / communism has the prolitariat. Each successive period in human history has its dominant societal force and for Marx, that was the prolitariat. The rise of the new Ubermensch.

Meantime, Fascism posited the superiority of the Nation and/ or race and invoked strict societal control on its citizens. The dominant figure was the individual who represented the dominant group of people - the people who were generated by the national ethos and the "people" become of greater importance than the individuals that make it up. All are subordinated to the Nation and the People - for Italy the symbol was the Fasces the ancient symbol of the magistrate. For Nazi Germany the focus was the Volk.

The philosophy that links the two is Social Darwinism, a perniciois misuse of the theory propounded by Charles Darwin. Applying the 'survival of the fittest' to human society is a perversion of Darwinism that is both unsupportable and dangerous. But in fact, both fascism (nation/volk/state)and communism (International but identifiiable in the Prolitariat as the Nietschean dominant force) were really closer to each other than either would want to admit and most importantly both became operational as a form of Totalitarianism. The Totalitarian sress on the political party as the arm of society that will deliver the new Darwinian world is the smoking gun that truly links communism and fascism as variants of the same political nostrum.

Okay, I know some of you are copy and pasting from Wikipedia so you appear smart. And I'm not going to mention any names (such as RLionheart), but suffice it to say this type of talk is totally offensive and inappropriate.

So please stop it. Now.

BTW, I must say I am impressed by fetish_dancer. It gives me hope after hearing so many dancers tell me they're actually going to law/medical/nursing/etc. school and "only doing this part time". It's nice to see a dancer who has something more than crack for brains. I think I'm in love.

I think we could have a pretty good round table discussion at your club fd! Everyone meet in Indy!

@Rlionheart: Add to that fact that corporations (now, I'm not anti-big-gov, I'm just saying) has a hand in welfare, too. Food stamps, anyway. They get a kickback from this failed system, as well, which makes it rather impossible to talk about revamping on a small level (small meaning starting with the recipients themselves). You'd have to start with the food and marketing corporations receiving subsidies. Just one big welfare cycle.

Why, exactly, is Social Darwinism dangerous? Obviously I'm not talking about throwing the elderly and disabled out onto the street with a great big "fuck you," but where do we draw the line between making someone provide for themselves and taking care of them their entire lives? Welfare provides NO incentives for people who work and every incentive for people who don't work. A single mother struggling to make ends meet and who perhaps works two jobs gets half the benefits a single mother who sits at home all day does. Is saying that Mother #2 needs to get a goddamn job Social Darwinism? I think not. I've seen this phrase tossed around way too much by people who I don't think know what it means.

It's the same school of thought that has Republicans screaming about death panels and Democrats screaming that Republicans want your grandma to die, which is why I don't watch the MSM or adhere to either party; they're all the same bunch of pathetic whores.

I will agree that these ideologies boil down to totalitarianism, which is very frightening for those of us who actually give a damn. This is the ideology, or result, which stands the test of time. Lenin used Marxism to focus ONLY on the poor class, the underclass (see: Bolshevism). He overthrew the monarchy and put an end to tsarism, which was good, seeing as how Nicolas was ignoring his people, which brings me to another point: whenever people are IGNORED by their leaders but still controlled, a bloody revolution ensues, followed by a period of chaos, followed by totalitarianism. The US is long overdue for a revolution, as we all know.

Another fun fact: Lenin deliberately pitted the classes against one another in experimental gov't once he came to power.

I talk too much. Just fyi, I never talk this much in the club. And never about politics unless the guy brings it up, which is usually never as he is too busy fondling my boobs.

@jerikson: I'm going to school for the medical field but I don't dance part time. I dance full time. And I like doing it. I know the "stripper in college" school phrase is trite, but I mean it. Stripping is something I do for fun.

Damn baby, the way you talk so effortlessly and with such aplomb about Bolshevism and Social Darwinism.

I am so into you right now. You cannot imagine.

I'll lecture you ALL NIGHT LONG, jerikson.

Awesome!! And there's an extra $20 if you'll denigrate current fiscal policy for me.

Oh yeah...

f_d: Can we talk about politics *while* I fondle your boobs?

Current fiscal policy is an abortion of what could be, covered by the Flowery BS 101 class that all politicians seem to take before entering class. Listen to Obama; he says nothing and talks a whole bunch. I never watch any of his speeches.

If you want an idea of where we're going as a nation, look at California, the most worthless state in the country. Very beautiful, but run by retarded people.

@GMD: Yes, you may. I argued with a man once about how Bush and Obama are the same person, just different colours, during a slow grind while he played with my nipples. True story.

*before entering office, that should read.

"I argued with a man once about how Bush and Obama are the same person, just different colours..."

OH NO YOU DI'N'T !!!

Okay, I am seriously in love with this girl.

lol. Me and my sexy brain.

@fetish_dancer:

There is no more pure true capitalist than the small independent wildcatter in the North American oil patch (ahem, like me). I would be delighted to impart my 45 years of experience and knowledge to you as we did our stuff in a SC VIP somewhere.

Do a tour of Alberta SCs. farmerart would be delighted to play with your nipples and...............?? Showgirls in Grande Prairie would be most convenient for me for the next few months.

As long as you have the divisiveness in government with no one able to compromise, all politicians will look the same. It doesn't really matter who is in office.

And I am with jerikson, I am falling in love. :-)

I love Canada, farmerart. Perhaps I'll have to visit again :D

@rh48hr: :p

@fuckhead_dancer: "Marxist Leninism is the truest form of Marxism there has been"

Wrong. Marxism is about dictatorship of the proletariat, but Lenin thought the proletariat were to dumb to govern anything so introduced the notion of a Vanguard party. Dictator of the small elite in the Vanguard party, not the proletariat. He also let Russia venture into some capitalism under the New Economic Policy.

Best not to talk about things you know zero about, sweetie. Back to your proper role now: grindingng your ass on guys dicks until they cum on you for $50 or whatever it is you charge.

Freud with have a heyday with you, sweetie. Cum is all you can talk about. If you'd like to compare Leninist Marxism with the failure that was Mao's China, I'm all ears.

As far as proper roles, yours is beneath the sweaty balls of the truck driver who's marked you for his current ATF, so I suggest you leave the library computer alone and get back to where you belong. :D

No rebuttal except for vile language, huh, sweetie? I'll accept your open admission that you know zero about what you are talking about.

Big gambit. You fooled some, judging by the comments, but someone was there to call your bluff. LMFAO!

I'll accept your admission that you're a troll with nothing to offer. Best to back out now, Douchester. I'd beat your ass to a pulp in this debate and you know it.

Here, talk about cum again. It'll make you feel better, more at home. :P

Yeah, right you had no idea that marxism was all about the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the both lenin and mao advocated rule by small elite parties instead of the proletariat and that lenin even allowed slipping back into capitalism, but somehow, you beat my ass to a pulp. I guess by "beat my ass to a pulp" you meant that your points were completely invalid or irrelevant and mine were completely right. Go have your discussions with the dumb ones on here that don't know any better. Seems like you have a knack for fooling them.

IDIOT FETISH_DANCER LOSES AGAIN!

I posited that you "school" me and compare Leninist Marxism with Mao's failure. Lenin overthrew the tsars and began the Russian Revolution. Mao murdered millions of his own people in paranoia. Lenin > Mao.

Just fyi, in any ideology, a ruling group of the elite control the money and property. For you, it's how strippers control your wallet and get $600 a night out of you, as opposed to the $2-300 quoted prices for OTC I've seen around here. Guess you're just an example of a failed policy too, sweet-ums.

She shoots, she scores!

fuckhead_ dancer: "Marxist Leninism is the truest form of Marxism there has been"

^^^ This was the point I was disproving. Neither Lenin nor Mao's philosophy advocated dictatorship of the proleteriat at all. In both cases it was a small ruling elite party. Thus neither had anything to do with Marxism. Hence you don't any clue what you are talking about. You might as well be comparing the health benefits of eating chicken versus beef to think you are proving some supposed knowledge of marxism. Neither has anything to do with marxism, and neither does leninism or maoism.

As further proof of you dumbness, it seems you have no idea what the difference betwen a maximum and an average is.

I'm kinda new here and not familiar with the personalities.

So is Dougster kinda the resident douche?

Leninism was the closest thing to Marx's ideology. Which isn't saying a lot, seeing as how it ended, but my point stands. You forget he overthrew the ruling elite party, or else you're ignoring that fact. You're also ignoring the fact that he instated Bolshevism to combat Russian nationalism, which was the main stumbling block to dictatorship of the proletariat.

Lenin's main "straying" point was that he had make Marxism fit Russia's current economic state. Marx didn't think a revolution would occur unless a nation was exhausted financially, and Russia wasn't quite there yet. By inciting the people, he overthrew the Tsars and brought about the many Russian revolutions.

Mao's China was anti-communist even though application of Leninist principles was attempted. Mao failed.

@jerikson: Yeah, Douchester is the resident cocksucker. Literally. We give him a pass, though; he's too busy overpaying strippers to jack him with tweezers to do much more than troll.

@fuckhead_dancer: "Leninism was the closest thing to Marx's ideology."

Nope, there were closer experiments throughout Europe during the late 19th century and even closer ones during the Spanish civil war this century.

My belief is that America is the closest a nation has come to Marx's ideal, on a large scale. Here the proletariat have some control over the means of production, via ownership of corporations via stock. The government here is also arguably somewhat under the control of the working masses. I'm not saying it's that close, but the proleteriat at least have some ultimate control over the means production.

It's really nice that Lenin overthrew a "ruling elite party" or was it a Monarchy? Kerensky's social democrats. Something like that, right? But I'll let you slide on that one. What happened after that? He installed his own small ruling elite party with absolute power. He did not let the stupid proleteriat un the show. Guess he didn't forsee the danger of that Stalin thing happening, eh? Ooops, slight bad on his part. Guess we ought to forgive him for that one, anyone could have made that mistake right?

I will grant that Lenin leaned more toward international revolution ala Trotsky than "socialism in one country" which Stalin advocated, but it's all a big fucking red herring since there was no dictatorship of proletariatriat.

You just don't seem to get this. Marxism = dictatorship of proletariatriat, not a small ruling party. If you have a small ruling party with absolute power it degenerates into what happened under Stalin or Mao. This is why Lenin did not make "Marxism" fit Russia at all. Also you are completely ignoring him falling back to some capitalism via the NEP. Probably because you have not fucking idea what it is or what you are talking about.

I will certainly agree with you that Mao was anti-communist, but, your reasoning to get to this correct point is all completely busted, however.

So fuckhead_dancer, but you get an F in this debate. Looks like your only future is in stripping. Careful about how much cum you let patrons get on you. Won't want to stain your clothes.

jerkison is too dumb to know who is right or wrong in the discussion. His is like a baby's mind trying to follow a discuss on algebra. All jerkison thinks it that by kissing fuckhead_dancer's ass she'll let him cum on her for $40 instead of the usual $50 she charges.

The so-called "Fair Tax" will never see the light of day for many reasons...the main one being that it would be a HUGE tax giveaway to the very rich. As for the IRS going away, try & manage a prebate system that would literally give every, single American a check (talk about "being dependent on the gov't for everything"...lol...) every, single month of the year *without* having some form of a tax collection agency to do it. Like it or not, the tax man has been with us for literally thousands of years, and he's not going anywhere anytime soon.

BTW, the USA currently spends somewhere between $1-1.5 Trillion on "defense" programs, which is far & away the largest single expense that the federal govt. has. Just the DOD federal budget alone has more than doubled in the last decade or so.

Another BTW, the "welfare" that a lot of you are talking about ended in the 1990s...you're talking about the past people...wake up...

Oh, and I'm sorry to see that at least some of you haven't learned to not feed the obvious Internet Trolls that still seem to roam around here...they always die on the vine without feedings...LMAO!

MisterGay is on record as seriously advocating that AIG is worth $1 trillion dollars, and he calls other people trolls. Oh the irony!

Wow, you were doing really well there until you started talking about cum again, as if you have body-fluid tourrettes.

America is nowhere near Marxism. Socialism, perhaps, if our gov't gets its way, but it won't be the more successful socialism of other nations, i.e. Canada. It'll be some twisted failure that will ultimately destroy us. The proles here have control over nothing. The gov't can seize at will what it wants as long as they have a legal loophole. Or it can force an individual or a business to conform. You see that now with all the regulations on big business, "green" or otherwise, that ruins our economy further by driving business out of the country. If you want to argue that, say, a dairy farmer has the freedom to milk his own cows and market his product, sure. But a dairy farmer WITHOUT gov't subsidies is going to be driven out of business just as surely as if the gov't had come and seized his cows. You see it all the time with small business.

So yeah, they're in "control," but it's a very tense, limited sort of control.

If you're going to blame Lenin for Stalin, you might as well blame the Big Three for Hitler's rise to power. Marxism has never worked outside of paper, but Lenin attempted what he could with what he had, and I commend him for it.

Marx's system worked by stating that capitalism prepared the way for socialism, which in turn prepared the way for communism. Lenin's attempts left him stranded somewhere in the chaos that occurs after revolution, but he would not have instated the Bolsheviks if his intention was not eventually dictatorship of the proletariat. He worked along a pretty straight line when it came to Marxism.

If you've ever read Lenin's work 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,' you'd already know that this was a cohesive work that sprang from Karl Marx's ideas in 'Das Capital.' Obviously neither of these men had a problem with capitalism as long as it was done through imperialism and colonization.

welfare ended in the 90's? ROFL
the following isn't far from our future.



My first visit to the Welfare Department

This morning I went to sign my dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said,
"Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare."

So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy,
can't speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddys are.

They expect me to feed them, provide them with
housing and medical care. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.

My dogs get their first checks Friday.

This is one great country!!

btw, i like freshly washed shaved pussy ;-)

LOL, troop!

LOL...yup, welfare as we knew it ended in the 1990s...read it & weep, moron...sheesh... It's "comforting" to know that while some things change, the ignorance of some others is a truly renewable resource...whew...

It's "comforting" to know that while some things change, the ignorance of some others is a truly renewable resource...whew...


^^
you you are absolute proof of that dingleberry.

Jerkson40 - you jump to too many conclusions. My previous is not from wikipedia and I am not sure why my take on a subject should be offensive to you. We are probably all different, but I guess I don't see why one opinion is more worthy than another. If you read above my comment, you would see that F_D asked for a response whicch I gave. Perhaps I missed your election as arbiter.

"you you are absolute proof of that dingleberry."

In your wildest dreams that is, moron...LOL!

You would immediately see why Social Darwinism is dangerous if you read the Nazi tracts of the 20s-30s. The premise was that "Our group of people are vastly superior to all others and therefore we can do what ever we like with those others as thy are less worthy'. With the Nazis that justified death camps and mass killings; in SE Asia, Pol Pot, What about Uganda, the Kurds, etc. It is not Darwinism but Social Darwinism that is so dangerous.

Been awhile, but...



YAWN!

The 'Fair Tax' has to be one of the great marketing misnomers in history. First of all it will not be simple. Once a tax hits double digits significant efforts will be put into techniques to avoid it, which results in equally complex regulations to avoid those gimmicks. You will get barter and black market sellers on the low end and complex foreign leaseback/service agreements on the high end.

Then there is the fact that it is a massive shift to the lower middle and middle class of the tax burden. The rich currently pay about 25 percent of their income in taxes, but the very rich do not spend anywhere near 25 percent of their income on tangible goods so even if the tax was 100 percent they would be way better off. The rich tend to use much of their income to accumulate wealth rather than buy things. So it doesn't get taxed and even if it did the rich are in the best position to structure their big purchases to avoid taxes, like buying their private jets overseas. Yeah, that will help the economy, encouraging rich people to buy everything in some other country!

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of income earners earn around 19-20% of the total income in the US, and pay around 38-39% of all income taxes collected. Also, the bottom 47% of household in this country pay no income taxes. Are you saying that's fair? As for the wealthy investing their (not the government's)money, think about it. If they invest in something, it gives that item/ object value. So, by investing, they are giving capital that can be used to improve or increase jocs

Well, you just never know what you can find on this web of tubes: strippers and their customers debating about the underpinnings of Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism. What's next, a symposium of economists at the Fed arguing about whether they like HJs or covered BJs better?

@fetish-dancer, you know I respect your opinion and would love to hear more about all of these points while I smother between your breasts. You are a little bit more libertarian than what I usually like, but the fondling may overcome that.

@Rlionheart, I think you were on to something, and I would just add to it. I think the reason we have a tangled web of a tax code is because each one of those exemptions, loopholes, exceptions, or credits was paid for and lobbied for by someone. There is an army in Washington (and 50 smaller ones) of lobbyists that scatter across Capitol Hill trying to get their little provision helping XYZ Corporation into the tax code, and they have been largely successful. And there is an entire industry of tax preparers/accountants that don't want a simple tax system and have influenced the debate.

@Douche, I have never seen a person who works so furiously at erecting monuments to himself. How is it that anyone that disagrees with you are not only wrong, but degenerate imbeciles not worthy of the oxygen they use? If you are so damn omnipotent and all-knowing, maybe you should edit your posts for simple misspellings and grammar before you excrete them onto these boards.

Looneylarry
And if we simplfy the tax code, we put so many people out of work that we go into a depression for sure :>). I have always thought that the complexity of the code was realy derivative of the effects of the lobbying of the really big cats who create reaction in the code because of the breadth of their push for further exenption from the costs driven by their own success. They not only want reduction of cost on their balance sheet, they want little guys (like me) to absorb the costs - monetary and straight infrastructure - of their doing business. In a way, I should claim to be an employee of GE.

All leftist ideologies (Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism... any big-central-government system) are anti-liberty and must be enforced at the point of a gun. America has fought throughout her history against such.

If any want to dispute what systems are "leftist," it would be helpful to ensure the terms being used are understood equally by all. The political spectrum measures a parameter of interest to the citizenry (how much is central government in control of my life), and the opposite ends are actually opposite. Thus, one end of the political spectrum is total government control, and the opposite end is pure anarchy. Both extremes are horrific. But liberty has a chance to exist on the side with less central government. That's where the U.S. Constitution resides. "Left" is the big government side, "Right" is the small government side, by definition and convention. That's how I have used them here, of course.

Dancers debating politics and macro-economics in a clear and concise manner on a pervert board??!

Well I'll be!

Personally, I think every expemption (minus environmental incentives for businesses and dependants for individuals) should be thrown out. All income should be treated equal, capital gains, etc., then after that say 17% should pay the bills, so set the flat rate at 25% then lower it as we come out of the red.

Also fuck sales tax.

"The US is long overdue for a revolution, as we all know."

-hyperboyle much? The last rebellion was the result of half of our states suddenly having to pay 65% of thier workforce and crippling the most profitable segment of thier economy, it cost an exorbitant amount of money, the loss of half a million lives, it lasted several years, and... it failed.

Our government needs change, but to say we need a revolution without the heart of an ethic crisis or the severe finacial impact of something as drastic as antebellum slavery is a bit nearsighted.

Two things, one we should look to our father, England. It was once an empire, shrank but maintains a sound economy despite it all, and without revolution. Two, unlike England, we are a nation of imigrants who all came here for one reason - greed. In the beginning religious freedom may have been a factor, but ever since we signed that constitution, every single person came here for the promise of land, labor, and money. So our government, it's taxes and policies should appreciate that and gain from it. It why I think it's rediculous we're not documenting these millions of imigrants now and collecting income tax on them and the money they wire back home.

@how: Unless you're talking about "true" conservatism, I don't see how you can see the right is for smaller gov't. Look at the retards in DC with an R behind their name and look at how they vote. It's worth mentioning that their "D" counterparts are no better.

If you want true conservatism and the scope of gov't limited, vote Ron Paul. I'll be writing him in. The man has been named a kook, a loon, the MSM will not run with him, and progs and neocons alike hate him. Bad for his shot at the presidency, great news for any thinking person. It looks like Perry is going to win, seeing as how the rightwing pundits have been all over his nuts for some time now, the MSM loves him, and he's actually a pretty good speaker. Plus TX has always done well, at least in my estimation. But voting him in would be like voting in Obama for a second term.

@Doc: We're on the verge of a severe financial crisis and we're still not out of the clear. We have presidents who care more about those illegals you're talking about than the people of the US -- why else wouldn't he round them up and close the damn border? We have the PATRIOT Act, we have soldiers dying overseas for no goddamn reason at all -- WHAT exactly have we accomplished in Iraq, if the moment we pull out it all goes to shit? -- and a myriad of other things wrong with this country that would push the people over the edge.

I still think we're overdue and I think it's going to happen. This country is reaching its boiling point quickly.

The one thing the will prevent a revolution in the U.S. is apathy. The population has become fat and lazy and basically unwilling to do something on their own.

Trust me, there wasn't even a revolution in The Great Depression and we haven't hit that mark yet. I love your fucking attitude though! If more people had and were able to communicate it to both those in power and those who vote for American Idol, then a non-violent revolution just might happen!

@looneylarry: Tell you what. Why don't you suck my dick and then I will be more careful about my grammar and spelling in the future. Either that or you can go and fuck yourself you degenerate imbecile not worthy of the oxygen you breathe. :-)

fetish, please note I did not use the terms conservative and liberal... They have been abused beyond recognition. Although I think it is obvious those who curruntly call themselves liberal are big-central-government types.

I guess any dickwad can say anything they want and then put an emoticon behind it and it's all good.

Revolution during the great depression: might want to look up the Bonus Army. There was some shooting during the first march (or camp in) with some people dying. There was a second march, but the congress at the time decided to pay them off - probably saw what was coming since the first one ended in gun fire.

Criminal Revolution: there is no secret that at this time period (the golden age of crime) prohibition and criminal activities were at a high. Why shoot a government official, unless he was (usually a police officer) getting in the way of making money? With the lawlessness taking place as well public acceptance of rebuffing even a constitutional amendment against alcohol, this certainly was a revolution of sorts.

That said, many people during the depression had access to farms/hunting grounds (whom their neighbors often would buy at auction for $1.00 and give back to the original owner) and were quite independent of the government.

These days, a lot of farm fields are owned/operated by corporations. Hell, some seed is genetically modified not to grow more than one season. Not to mention with tax credits and welfare, more than 50% of the population gets money directly from the government.

As states slowly go bankrupt, they are cutting back on welfare and cash distributions to the poor/under-employed. Michigan for example, is cutting over 40,000 people from welfare 1 oct 2011. As winter comes in then, it will be interesting to see what happens. Do they move to warmer climates? Does crime increase? Do they move in and share resources?

One of the reasons cited often for not revolting in the US, is the idea of individualism. If I make it individually, there you are. If I fail, I have myself to blame.

The Civil War/War of Northern Aggression came at a governmental level. All those "national guard" troops are actually state armies [1] (though not called so at the time.) The revolt was organized not at the citizen level, but at the state government level with money, resources, troops - and most importantly organization - available.

An interesting demarcation of this mindset is amongst sub-groups in a population usually treated unfairly (black riots in the 60s, etc.) It is a well established meme in that sub-group the local/state/federal government is not looking out for you. So when shit hits the fan...

These "flash mobs" (and I mean the black ones pillaging compared to the white ones dancing) are an interesting thing. The internet allows people to share beliefs and organize around those beliefs quite quickly. Already mobs organized by the internet have taken down more than a few middle eastern countries.


[1] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/a…

"Also, the bottom 47% of household in this country pay no income taxes"

...but they pay all kinds of payroll, property, sales, etc. taxes...most of which are regressive...just like the so-called "Fair Tax" is!

-----------------------------------------------------

"why else wouldn't he round them up and close the damn border?"

Because you can't just round up some 11 million people in the USA (which is down recently BTW) just like that, and we live in a free society in the USA...one that is primarily based on immigration of all kinds. Without immigration, the USA would be on course to be a dying nation with a shrinking population. I fully support building a wall along our southern border, if only to prove to the morons among us in the USA that walls have *never* worked to keep anyone out over time.

Actually, the taxes taken out of their payroll are refunded them at the end of the year due to tax credits and refunds. As forsakes taxes, that is a state/ community issue, not a federal issue. As for the tone of your response, where you point out taxes that poorer people pay, it makes me wonder if you have a problem with people paying taxes. Just because someone has only limited funds, they should be expected to pay their share of taxes.