| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Taxes! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 8 2005, 08:43 AM (792 Views) | |
| Colo_Crawdad | Oct 9 2005, 01:42 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Lowell
|
LOL Let me suggest that Chris' most used argument in this particular discussions seems to be "victory by definition." That means when an issue is raised as a result of what the "frequently asked questions" say, he simply says, "but the book says differently, therefore that is not a valid issue." When someone of Chris' logical talents has to resort to that tactic, many red flags are raised for me. I say this in a lightly chiding manner. |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| Fr. Mike | Oct 9 2005, 01:42 PM Post #62 |
|
Member
|
I may be in the minority but I believe that most public service should be supported by user fees rather than taxes. Pay as you go. If more people had to pick up the tab personally--on the spot--for services--maybe they would consider a different route. I wonder if all the governments really want americans knowing what thier [REAL] tax burden is. Right now it is divied up among local, county, state, and federal taxes. A TRUE FLAT TAX WOULD EXPOSE THIS. |
|
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ Don't forget to say your prayers! The unborn have rights too. | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 02:02 PM Post #63 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Bill "because food, utilities, medicine and clothing are going to be my only wants" The Fair Tax taxes those consummables. The furgality argument is absurd. Assume it true. Assume everyone decides to be frugal. Then there's no reason to work so hard. Income taxes would be reduced. The nation with reduced revenue would crumble. Therefore, absurd. Uh, let's stick to reality. Accumulation of wealth depends on spending. Hide it under he mattress as Frank syas, you'll go nowhere. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 02:12 PM Post #64 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Oh, that was a winner of an argument. Can't forumlate a reasonable argument about the message, so go after the messenger. Lowell, the Fair Tax is defined by a clearly stated legislative proposal. It is explained in simple human-readable form in this thread's opening argument by Boortz, in The Fair Tax Book and the FAQ that I reference. That is the Fair Tax, it is defined by those words. For you to accuse me of reverting to the book when I don't like the FAQ and vice versa is a disingenuous argument that lacks all substance for, had you read either, you would know they say the same things. I do have to give you some credit, you at least point to some portion of the FAQ, however, quoting it out of context by cutting off the essential part of the statement, and then asking if it means something other than what it says. And when I point out it does not say what you read into it, this is your response? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Oct 9 2005, 04:18 PM Post #65 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Chris, here are the Fair Tax Q&A responses to the question I asked: How are you going to prevent every lobby group from setting up its own exceptions, making the tax both unfair and complex? Excuse me, but that is precisely backwards. Because each sale is so visible, each group can see immediately the tax involved. This will naturally set up the "NIMBY" ("Not In My Back Yard") effect, and lobbyists will be on the scent instantly, fighting to remove items from the taxable list. On top of which, since you are now taxing individual items, it's almost inevitable that most tax changes won't affect the majority of people who don't buy that item. So why would they bother to enter a long, ongoing, expensive fight to keep a tax on something they don't care about in the first place? A Recipe for Tax Disaster. Trust me, a Sales Tax is a Sales Tax. You are taxed on what you buy. And if you try to get into defining which items are Taxable Retail Sales if a certain consumer buys them, and Non-Taxable Wholesale Sales if another consumer buys them, you're going to be wishing you had your Income Tax back within 6 months. Or are you going to keep it simple by declaring that General Motors, etc. don't have to pay taxes? Obviously, that's an issue with any High Tax regime. But I don't see what it has to do with a VAT. If it's more revenue you want, you crank up the percentage. You don't make it more complex. Complexity comes in Sales Taxes from protecting special groups, just like an Income Tax, and you're back to point one. Exactly backwards, as point one. Having a tax show up under bright lights brings out our buddy NIMBY again. NOBODY wants to pay taxes, and they'll vote for the first person who'll exempt their little hobby horse. And since my argument is that there is no difference between a Sales Tax and a VAT except in our writer's mind, his "a VAT is a lobbyist’s dream" line is precisely correct, and applies to your "Fair Tax"! A point I made months ago - fix Income Tax! If you can't remove the complexities there, where you're essentially dealing with one set of yearlong transactions, you haven't got a hope with the multiple complexities of Sales Taxes! |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Oct 9 2005, 04:25 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
Spacebeing is right - the closest we could get to an ideal tax system would be a minimum Flat Tax for things we all need, and User Fees for everything else. I proposed that over 2 years ago. But Tom is probably even more right - letting ANY government mess with a system is a recipe for disaster. If it MUST be changed, do it one tiny bit at a time, and watch the repercussions before moving on. Imagine how that would work with your Income Tax Laws (and ours, which aren't much better) - just delete a paragraph every week or so - it would take a lifetime to get it down to manageable size... |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 04:37 PM Post #67 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Please explain how, because of tax visibility in "a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. ", lobbyists will manipulate Congress to raise the tax rate? When finished with that, explain how Congress will raise the rate on specific items when an amendment to the Constitution based on the Fair Tax says, to quote the FAQ again "The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. " Your argument is a great one--against the current income tax with all its loopholes and exceptions and exemptions and revenue enhancements created so Congress can hide their favoritism to every lobbyist under the sun. Because the Fair Tax proposal makes visible any Congressional action, either raising or lowering the single rate, Congress will have to answer to the people, it will make them accountable to the people who elect them. Got to go out to eat. Perhaps Frank will take up the other part of your argument. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| brewster | Oct 9 2005, 04:48 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Winemaker Extraordinaire
|
You've got it backwards, Chris. They won't lobby to raise the rate. As I stated quite clearly, they'll lobby to REMOVE the rate from their pet item. If you want to pursue it, I would state that of course the overall rate will have to go up sooner or later as items get dropped, and revenues decline. But that won't be the lobbyists doing... That will be blamed on the government of the day. I never mentioned anything of the sort. NOBODY will raise the rate on individual items! Only REMOVE Them! We just keep coming back to Point 1. C'mon Chris, are you trying to tell me that you're going to wake up every morning to check whether the tax still exists on Waterproof 2x4 Lumber, or Organically Grown California Asparagus? Or the other 10,000,000,000 or so items sold across America? Lobbyists/legislators could hide ANYTHING in there! It would be much easier to memorize the Income Tax Act, even in its present form, then watch when the gov't changes a comma. |
My Favourite CampsiteBow Valley Provincial Park, Kananaskis Country, Alberta | |
![]() |
|
| bikemanb | Oct 9 2005, 05:14 PM Post #69 |
|
Liberal Conservative
|
Chris, Let me see if I get this right, I am going to spend myself comfortable? Maybe by buying stocks, bonds and mutuals if you want to classify that as spending, but not consumable electronics, cars and motorhomes. The motorhome is kind of like a boat, a hole in the storage shed that I periodically throw money into, it may feed my ego but it hasn't put a cent into my savings. |
|
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise. Benjamin Franklin | |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Oct 9 2005, 07:11 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Lowell
|
Chris, If identifying the use of logical fallacy by a poster is what I did, you should be proud. I have taken lessons from the master at such identification, yourself. You accused me of quoting out of contexrt. Here is what I quoted from the FAQ:
Just what are you suggesting that I took "out of context?" As I recall your first response was simply to say that it was explained differently in the book. That's what I was chiding you about. Of course, for some reeason, you responded that I was "attacking the messenger." I dont think so, I think I was chiding lyou for the use of a logical fallacy known as "victory by definition." |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 07:23 PM Post #71 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Bruce, backwards? Don't think so, not if we're discussing the Fair Tax. A few excerpts from your argument: "...they'll lobby to REMOVE the rate from their pet item...the overall rate will have to go up sooner or later as items get dropped....NOBODY will raise the rate on individual items! Only REMOVE Them!....check whether the tax still exists on Waterproof 2x4 Lumber, or Organically Grown California Asparagus? Or the other 10,000,000,000 or so items sold across America? Lobbyists/legislators could hide ANYTHING in there!..." Good enough. Not trying to change the meaning by taking it out of context. The gist of your argument is someone will decide what goods or services get put on or taken off some list to be taxed. If not, correct me. Problem is, there is no such list. One of the arguments against the Fair Tax is health care and medical expenses should be exempt. But they are not. Nothing is exempt. No one in government decides what is and is not taxed. Lobbyists, because of this, are the chief opponent to it, with politicians second. This is all stated very clearly, again from the FAQ:
Is that definitional. Why of course it is, because that is how the constitutional amendment would define it. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 07:29 PM Post #72 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
To make money you must spend it. Perhaps you spend money on goods, and turn around and resell. Perhaps you hire service people, and turn around and contract them out. Perhaps you purchase real estate, in order to fix it up and resell it. And, yes, perhaps you spend money on investments like stocks, bonds and mutuals, to earn money in return. I'm not saying everything we spend money on has a ROI. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 07:58 PM Post #73 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"As I recall your first response was simply to say that it was explained differently in the book." As I recall I likely said what the book says is different than what you wre saying. You in accusing me of victory by definition were not advancing your argument or arguing against mine. It was set forth not for or against any argument being made. Only against me. You made the accusation I switched sources depending on whether they supported my argument, that I was somehow being dishonest. As I have already stated, and you now ignore, the sources all say the same thing. That being the case you have not identified a logical fallacy, but merely made an accusation. Besides, the purpose of identifying a logical fallacy in a discussion ought to be to further your argument by pointing out how another's argument is fallacious, correcting it, and otherwise employing it to advance your argument. Besides, that is exactly what proponents of the Fair Tax seek to achieve: Definition by constitutional amendment. As for you quoting out of context, you had earlier cited only a portion of the FAQ statement, leaving out "at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption". I specifically pointed that out in my response, since that did advance my own argument: "It says 'Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed.'". If while I was responding, say, you edited and added more, I can't help that, but since you added the part that advanced my argument against yourself, then you did not in the end quote out of context, and I retract the accusation, even apologize for the misunderstanding. I see yours is stamped "This post has been edited by Colo_Crawdad on Oct 9 2005, 12:20 PM" Mine is stamped "This post has been edited by cmoehle on Oct 9 2005, 12:19 PM" At any rate, now both your quote and mine argue against Corky's "Any consumption tax makes the government a partner in every business transaction". |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Colo_Crawdad | Oct 9 2005, 08:04 PM Post #74 |
![]()
Lowell
|
Chris, LOL If I am to accept all that you said in that last post about the identification of logical fallacies, then I am certain that I will never again read you answering someone by simply labeling their argument as a"attacking a straw man" for that would surely indicate that you are questioning their honesty. (Do read the sarcasm intended into this post.) |
| "WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Oct 9 2005, 08:23 PM Post #75 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
And your point re the discussion of Fair Tax? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |








My Favourite Campsite
1:03 PM Jul 11