TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Ok so the bailout was rejected, or whatever
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »

jeez--I was just fucking with him when I brought it up to begin with! Doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka jeez--I was just fucking with him when I brought it up to begin with! Doesn't anybody have a sense of humor anymore?

They don't like what I say but yet they have nothing better to do with their lives than hang on to my every word. lol

It's actually pretty funny if you ask me.

It's also quite obvious that they never debate via rational discourse.

It's always ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.

They couldn't debate themselves out of a wet paper bag so instead they personally attack with nothing but logical fallacies.

It's kind of funny that all of a sudden everyone wants to listen to Ron Paul.

From http://finance.yahoo.com

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X They don't like what I say but yet they have nothing better to do with their lives than hang on to my every word. lol It's actually pretty funny if you ask me. It's also quite obvious that they never debate via rational discourse. It's always ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. They couldn't debate themselves out of a wet paper bag so instead they personally attack with nothing but logical fallacies.

Not once did I attack you personally. I question your logic.

You know who else can't tolerate criticism? Left and right wing extremists...

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 yeah - that's what i wrote, but that's not what you originally wrote. You wrote that he 'was potentially writing'. Potentially modified the word 'writing' in your post, it did not describe what he was writing. you see how potentially is between 'was' and 'writing'? Its location in the middle of the verb causes it to modify the verb.

You need a personal lesson in Jainism.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X "potentially writing about something like this" I like how you edited the syntax (by omitting part of the sentence) to make it sound different than what I was originally saying but again, is this even important? lol

Actually, jer's got a point. If you say Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005 it means he could be writing, because potentially (an adverb) can only refer to the act of writing (it doesn't matter, therefore, if he omits the object or not). To convey the intended meaning, it should've read: It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about the potentiality of something like this happening, or, to put it less awkwardly, It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about how this could happen

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, jer's got a point. If you say Ron Paul was potentially writing about something like this back in 2005 it means he could be writing, because potentially (an adverb) can only refer to the act of writing (it doesn't matter, therefore, if he omits the object or not). To convey the intended meaning, it should've read: It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about the potentiality of something like this happening, or, to put it less awkwardly, It's kind of funny that, back in 2005, Ron Paul was writing about how this could happen

Lira, you are a part of the Rothschild conspiracy for world domination. Why should we believe 1 word from you?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Lira, you are a part of the Rothschild conspiracy for world domination. Why should we believe 1 word from you?

I'm part of a world domination? Erm... if you believe me, does that mean I can destroy borders and stuff?

Think of it that way: without borders, there will be no need for a visa if you want to travel abroad. With no need for a visa, hot girls can easily travel to the city you live in.

Hot women > Mind tricks

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X It's kind of funny that all of a sudden everyone wants to listen to Ron Paul.

Who is "everyone"? Fox News likes to have Paul on time to time a because hes a republican with a different view. I'd hardly say people are looking to Paul as any kind of authority on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Who is "everyone"? Fox News likes to have Paul on time to time a because hes a republican with a different view. I'd hardly say people are looking to Paul as any kind of authority on the matter.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so hasty to use a generalization such as "everyone" but in retrospect I still don't think that I was too far off when considering that I probably watched about fifty different video clips of him being interviewed from within the last two weeks alone.

Aside from the clips, there have also been numerous polls on financial webpages and sites which seem to vindicate his position amongst those who actually follow the market trends - trends which have since moved in accordance to his predictions.






Anyway, here are just a few of the clips I had bookmarked:


Ron Paul on American Morning CNN 10-01-08




Ron Paul on CNBC's Kudlow & Company




Ron Paul on Fox Business News




Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck Show




Ron Paul on Bloomberg TV



Ron Paul on CNN talking about Economy Meltdown




Ron Paul Fox News talking about the AIG bailout




Ron Paul on the Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer




Ron Paul on WBKO 2008.10.01

Do not worry. A dude from another forum I visit, has proposed a brilliant scheme, that, if it is implemented by the next president of the United States, will surely save all americans from the crisis:

quote:

Here is a stimulus package which is far out there, but I think it could work. You give every American of age $500,000. First and foremost they must pay off EVERY SINGLE debt they have. After that they are free to do what they wish with the money. Some people would have a lot left over, other would have less or even none left over, but for the people who are just struggling to get by it could give them an entirely new outlook on life, and for some people it would provide a major sense of relief because all of their debts are paid off. It could also infuse the market because people will actually have some money to spend and also people could invest it and start moving the markets again. It seems that they could print more money since our money isnt backed by anything anyway. I think the one major concern though would be de-valuation of the dollar.

I urge you to get in contact with Obama and McCain ASAP and inform them of this little genius discovery.

quote:

Originally posted by noikeee Do not worry. A dude from another forum I visit, has proposed a brilliant scheme, that, if it is implemented by the next president of the United States, will surely save all americans from the crisis: I urge you to get in contact with Obama and McCain ASAP and inform them of this little genius discovery.

What's that like a $50 trillion bail-out package? Not that I couldn't use an easy half-mill.

How about just revamping the tax code and going to the "Fair Tax?"

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka What's that like a $50 trillion bail-out package? Not that I couldn't use an easy half-mill.

yeah - that means every american would get 500K, but at the same time, every american would have an indirect liability to china in the amount of 500K. not a good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How about just revamping the tax code and going to the "Fair Tax?"

whether the tax is fair depends on what you consider fair. having one rate doesn't make a tax fair it makes it easy. in any event, the rich are more likely to evade taxes by underreporting. rich people never pay anything near the statutory rates. this occurs mostly because the rich have income that is more easily manipulated than the income of less wealthy people. Most people making less than 100K a year have one source of income, wages, which are reported on a W-2 and are very difficult to understate. Rich people, on the other hand, have income from many sources including business income (which can be understated by overstating business expenses) which is much more easily manipulated. Our current self-assesment system inherently favors those who have the means to manipulate the system. changing it to a flat rate won't make that any less true because you first have to determine taxable income.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/ta...021beltway.html

If the tax was a tax on consumption (i.e. like a national sales tax and do away with income tax), it would seem to me that the rich would pay a lot more as they are arguably the most gluttonous spenders.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka If the tax was a tax on consumption (i.e. like a national sales tax and do away with income tax), it would seem to me that the rich would pay a lot more as they are arguably the most gluttonous spenders.

oh - i had my republican tax proposals mixed up. actually, consumption taxes have proven to be regressive over the short/medium term (it is arguable whether consumption taxes are regressive over the life of the average taxpayer considering savings is deferred consumption). Since rich people can save a greater percentage of their income, they would not be taxed on the income they invest. On the other hand, poor people spend almost all of their income, so nearly all of their income would be subject to the consumption tax. This is a common misconception among people, thus, the push for consumption tax among republicans (a way to actually reduce tax burden on the rich while staying under the radar). In addition, taxing consumption is a disincentive for consumer purchases, which as we all know, consumer purchases drive the economy.


for example: if we had a consumption tax of 20% on all purchases (without exemptions), someone making $1,000,000 and saving $500,000, would be pay $83K in consumption taxes on $417K in purchases. That persons ETR on the 1M in earnings is 8.3%. On the other hand, a person making $100,000 and saving $20,000, would pay $13K in taxes on $64K in purchases. That persons ETR on the 100K is 13%.


The key to reducing your tax burden with consumption taxes is to increase the percentage of your income that is invested. Since rich people save a much greater percentage of their income, their tax burden would be reduced. while it is true they would pay an overall greater amount, the percentage burden would be reduced, making it quite unfair to less privileged.

Have you read The Fair Tax? I have not read the book but have read snippets from the authors. They have several provisions in there which are meant to level the playing field somewhat.

Personally I think you're too focused on there being a winner and loser and it sounds like an issue of class warfare the way you argue it. I like that conceptually, the IRS is all but eliminated, everybody keeps their entire paycheck with no issue of having to file a ridiculously complicated tax return every year, and you can manage your own tax burden much more effectively. Also, if you want to be more patriotic and pay more in taxes, just go out and buy more shit! It's the Amurkin way!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Have you read The Fair Tax? I have not read the book but have read snippets from the authors. They have several provisions in there which are meant to level the playing field somewhat. Personally I think you're too focused on there being a winner and loser and it sounds like an issue of class warfare the way you argue it. I like that conceptually, the IRS is all but eliminated, everybody keeps their entire paycheck with no issue of having to file a ridiculously complicated tax return every year, and you can manage your own tax burden much more effectively. Also, if you want to be more patriotic and pay more in taxes, just go out and buy more shit! It's the Amurkin way!

someone still has to collect the consumption tax, so the irs would still be necessary. why is it class warfare when i oppose a regressive taxing system? also, there are huge business registration problems when we require all businesses to register for collection of the tax on a national level. we would just shift the problems from those in an income tax system to those in a consumption tax system.

From the Fair Tax website with respect to a couple of your arguments:

quote:

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people" The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases. Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families. Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides. Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most. In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals. In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free. How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures? The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks. In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here. Secondly, not everyone's average net tax burden falls. For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system. Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

quote:

"The FairTax will not be enforceable and evasion will be rampant" The truth: More than 80% of all tax returns are eliminated under the FairTax--every individual filing. What remains are retail outlets collecting the FairTax. Of these, 80 percent of all retail sales now occur at large retail chains like Wal-Mart. The point is oversight will still reside under the Treasury Department but the government's responsibility will be over a far smaller "universe" of tax collection points making compliance oversight far less costly and far more effective than the current system which costs $265 billion a year in compliance costs and still comes up $350 billion a year short of what is owed.

quote:

The FairTax Basics The FairTax has been called the most thoroughly researched tax reform plan in recent history. This section offers a quick introduction to the FairTax and tax reform. Scholarly research tells us that . . . * The FairTax rate of 23 percent on a total taxable consumption base of $11.244 trillion will generate $2.586 trillion dollars $358 billion more than the taxes it replaces. [1] * The FairTax has the broadest base and the lowest rate of any single-rate tax reform plan. [2] * Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case. [3] * Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10. [4] * The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be. [4] * Consumption increases by 2.4 percent more in the first year, which grows to 11.7 percent more by the tenth year than it would be if the current system were to remain in place. [4] * The increase in consumption is fueled by the 1.7 percent increase in disposable (after-tax) personal income that accompanies the rise in incomes from capital and labor once the FairTax is enacted. [4] * By the 10th year, consumption increases by 11.7 percent over what it would be if the current tax system remained in place, and disposable income is up by 11.8 percent. [4] * Over time, the FairTax benefits all income groups. Of 42 household types (classified by income, marital status, age), all have lower average remaining lifetime tax rates under the FairTax than they would experience under the current tax system. [5] * Implementing the FairTax at a 23 percent rate gives the poorest members of the generation born in 1990 a 13.5 percent improvement in economic well-being; their middle class and rich contemporaries experience a 5 percent and 2 percent improvement, respectively. [6] * Based on standard measures of tax burden, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax. [7] * Charitable giving increases by $2.1 billion (about 1 percent) in the first year over what it would be if the current system remained in place, by 2.4 percent in year 10, and by 5 percent in year 20. [8] * On average, states could cut their sales tax rates by more than half, or 3.2 percentage points from 5.4 to 2.2 percent, if they conformed their state sales tax bases to the FairTax base. [9] * The FairTax provides the equivalent of a supercharged mortgage interest deduction, reducing the true cost of buying a home by 19 percent. [10]

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka From the Fair Tax website with respect to a couple of your arguments:

i know alot about consumption taxes as i have studied VAT and state and local taxes extensively. In the quoted portion, the text notes that the rich will be taxed at an ETR of 23 percent on dividends and cap gains. I would like to know how it is still a consumption tax if the 23 percent rate applies to dividends and cap gains. If the author means the 23 percent will apply when those dividends and cap gains are used for consumption, then the author has mistated that the rate as an effective rate, and also underestatimated the rate at which the rich re-invest.

in the first paragraph the author states the poor are subject to an 11 percent tax while the rich are subject to a 23 percent tax. How exactly are they going to differentiate the purchases made by rich from purchases made by the poor so that different rates will apply? Doesn't this draw a line that you are unwilling to draw with income taxes (ie., what is rich)? In many cases the rich buy some of the same products as the poor. If the author intends to give credits to the poor to lower the effective rate on the poor, then it clearly shows the fair tax isn't fair to the poor; otherwise, why would a credit be necessary? If higher tax rates apply to different products, there will be many of the same definitional problems that are pervasive in our current income tax scheme. a tax becomes difficult to administer, and compliance costs increase when the tax is subject to interpretation. Only when a single rate applies to all purchases does the system become easy to administer.

Those explanations are rather unhelpful. They don't really do much other than champion the tax without providing any means for accomplishing what has been said.

On major problem with a national consumption tax is that almost every state already applies a consumption tax. If a national consumption tax were to apply, it would be likely that congress would try to prohibit states from using sales taxes. In that case, states would just increase their income taxes, and we would get nowhere. The federal government would simply switch places with the states and the states with the federal government.

As for compliance, those numbers seem way off. in any event, try to get walmart on board for carrying most of the tax compliance burden. While the cost may go down, the burden will also shift to sellers, the strongest lobbyists of all.

under the fair tax how are corporations taxed. Since corporations aren't final consumers their purchases shouldn't be taxed otherwise there would be a 'cascading' tax effect; meaning taxes will be paid on the tax cost built in the product. Do you propose that corporations go untaxed? or would there still be an income tax paid by corporations? if that's the case, the argument for a fair tax is limited because the income tax isn't entirely eliminated.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 in the first paragraph the author states the poor are subject to an 11 percent tax while the rich are subject to a 23 percent tax. How exactly are they going to differentiate the purchases made by rich from purchases made by the poor? Rich people buy some of the same products as the poor. If the author intends to give credits to the poor, then it clearly shows the fair tax isn't fair to the poor; otherwise, why would a credit be necessary?

They would still pay the same prices at the point-of-sale, but based on their reported incomes they would receive monthly "tax credit" checks meant as a rebate towards basic necessities (as I understand it).

quote:

Those explanations are rather unhelpful. They don't really do much other than champion the tax without providing any means for accomplishing what has been said.

Perhaps you should read the book, which is much more in depth and explanatory of how things would work.

quote:

On major problem with a national consumption tax is that almost every state already applies a consumption tax. If a national consumption tax were to apply, it would be likely that congress would try to prohibit states from using sales taxes. In that case, states would just increase their income taxes, and we would get nowhere. The federal governmetn would simply switch places with the states and vice versa.

methinks you're creating obstacles that may or may not present themselves, but may merit some scrutiny. I'm not sure if this is discussed or not, but I would imagine it is.

quote:

As for compliance, those numbers seem way off. in any event, try to get walmart on board for carrying most of the tax compliance burden. While the cost may go down, the burden will also shift to sellers, the strongest lobbyists of all.

I don't understand why you think it would be so difficult--just about every single retail establishment already complies with tax reporting--what makes you think that they would suddenly choose to violate federal law?

I for one am all for completely revamping our current, absurdly complicated tax code and the concept of the Fair Tax appeals to me. On the surface it sounds superior to what we have in place now.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't understand why you think it would be so difficult--just about every single retail establishment already complies with tax reporting--what makes you think that they would suddenly choose to violate federal law?

tax compliance is costly, and ugly. even with computers you would be surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I for one am all for completely revamping our current, absurdly complicated tax code and the concept of the Fair Tax appeals to me. On the surface it sounds superior to what we have in place now.

obviously i'm biased as a tax lawyer. complexity gives me a job. FYI, i have studied cosumption taxes, and i am certainly not opposed to them, i just think taxing only consumption is the not the correct answer.

how would you propose taxing corporations? since they aren't consumers, any tax they pay on purchases would be built into the price of the product, and consumers would pay tax on a portion of the price which was previously taxed. thus, consumption taxes don't tax business purchases. so, how would a corporation be taxed? would they go untaxed? would a corporate income tax still apply? if that's the case the argument for a fair tax is weakened.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 tax compliance is costly, and ugly. even with computers you would be surprised. obviously i'm biased as a tax lawyer. complexity gives me a job. FYI, i have studied cosumption taxes, and i am certainly not opposed to them, i just think taxing only consumption is the not the correct answer. how would you propose taxing corporations? since they aren't consumers, any tax they pay on purchases would be built into the price of the product, and consumers would pay tax on a portion of the price which was previously taxed. thus, consumption taxes don't tax business purchases. so, how would a corporation be taxed? would they go untaxed? would a corporate income tax still apply? if that's the case the argument for a fair tax is weakened.

Do you believe that government is required to tax every entity in some way or another to justify its existence?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you believe that government is required to tax every entity in some way or another to justify its existence?

that's a good question. our current system takes contrary positions on this issue. we allow LLCs, REITs, partnerships, S corporations, and RICs to all go untaxed. However, we apply a double tax (corporate level and dividend tax) on public corporations. My personal view is that profit making entities in which the owners have limited liability should be taxed separately from its owners because the business entity has rights and protections under law and should contribute taxes for the maintenance of those rights. However, I think taxes on business should be low because individuals consume more government resources (not exclusively, as corporations can sue in court, etc...). perhaps something in the 15% - 20% range.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.