TEATARD VOTERS

[Off_White]

Flat earthers for a flat tax!

 

[Fairweather]

the once grass roots movement that actually made sense and stood for things that where tangible and not retarded. like auditing the fed, going to a gold standard, a base income tax of around 10% of everyone's income, rich poor middle class. and turned it into a religious, romp of retards that cant read a newspaper and practice witchcraft.

 

Wow. Nothing to see here with this one, folks. Move along...

[whirlwind]

that is how it started, Ron Paul started the movement awhile ago, how it evolved into what it is now, well who knows.

and btw what would be wrong with a flat tax? how's is it not fair? and auditing the fed, making them accountable for the things they do, and dening them the ability to charge interest for the money it "loans" the government, which in fact, is the money it collects from the tax payer via the IRS, or produces out of thin air.

[Fairweather]

Do the flat-tax math and it falls apart. If the poor and middle class paid their "fair share" under a flat tax, their taxes would rise dramatically. The wealthy, who pay the lion's share already, would fare better on the backs of the vast majority. Unless we take a notion to repeal the 16th Amendment, a progressive income tax remains the best way to maintain social harmony. Put into climbing terms, try thinking of it as a mountain that gets progressively steeper as you approach the top. The only reason guys like me are considered right-wing is that we don't see any value in punishing wealth and those who produce it. The lefties you find here don't think anyone should be allowed to reach the aforementioned summit.

 

As for your gold standard nonsense, you may want to put this very-fringe notion aside for good. Take a look also the idiots who promoted free silver in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, or, antithetically, at Nixon's unilateral unpegging of the US Dollar from international gold in the 70's. This economy is based on one thing: faith in the federal government's ability to make good on its monetary commitments. That faith is in jeopardy because of unchecked, politically-motivated spending on both sides of the aisle.

[whirlwind]

I'm confused, i under stand the point about the gold standard, but it seams having a monetary system backed by something is better then having fiat money. maybe gold isn't the answer.

as far as a flat tax goes, if everyone paid 10% then the rich would pay 10% of 1,000,000 = 100k and the poor would pay 10% of 20k= 2k

Edited November 24, 2010 by whirlwind

[Off_White]

nicely put FW

[JayB]

Do the flat tax math, and it falls apart. If the poor and middle class paid their "fair share" under a flat tax, their taxes would rise dramatically. The wealthy, who pay the lion's share already, would fare better on the backs of the vast majority. Unless we take a notion to repeal the 16th Amendment, a progressive income tax remains the best way to maintain social harmony. Put into climbing terms, try thinking of it as a mountain that gets progressively steeper as you approach the top. The only reason guys like me are considered right-wing, is that we don't see any value in punishing wealth and those who produce it. The lefties you find here don't think anyone should be allowed to reach the aforementioned summit.

 

As for your gold standard nonsense, you may want to put this very-fringe notion aside for good. Take a look also the idiots who promoted free silver in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, or, antithetically, at Nixon's unilateral unpegging of the US Dollar from international gold in the 70's. This economy is based on one thing: faith in the federal government's ability to make good on its monetary commitments. That faith is in jeopardy because of unchecked, politically-motivated spending on both sides of the aisle.

 

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it, and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

 

[olyclimber]

[olyclimber]

Less than a decade ago, former Georgia Republican Congressman Bob Barr was the bete noire of the marijuana reform movement. Now, he works for it. That’s right, Bob Barr, the man who single-handedly derailed medical marijuana in Washington, DC, has been hired as a lobbyist by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP).

 

 

 

Ironically, Barr will now lobby for the rights of states to set their own medical marijuana policies without interference from the federal government. It was his 1998 “Barr Amendment” to the annual DC appropriations vote that blocked DC officials from counting the votes in that year’s medical marijuana initiative, which won with 69% of the vote.A former prosecutor in the Atlanta suburbs, Barr was always “tough on drugs,” but otherwise showed civil libertarian tendencies. After being defeated in 2002 in a campaign that featured attack ads using medical marijuana patients, Barr parted ways with the Republican Party, joining the Libertarians in 2006. He also became a lobbyist for his former arch-rival, the American Civil Liberties Union.

[olyclimber]

THE ACLU!

[Hugh Conway]

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it, and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

Yeah, we need more big bags of money chasing the few opportunities in the world today! That'll stop bubbles!

 

[JayB]

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it, and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

Yeah, we need more big bags of money chasing the few opportunities in the world today! That'll stop bubbles!

 

Actually - the shortage of investment opportunities generating a high-rate of return is far more likely to generate unsound investments than an abundance of them.

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Do the flat-tax math and it falls apart. If the poor and middle class paid their "fair share" under a flat tax, their taxes would rise dramatically. The wealthy, who pay the lion's share already, would fare better on the backs of the vast majority. Unless we take a notion to repeal the 16th Amendment, a progressive income tax remains the best way to maintain social harmony. Put into climbing terms, try thinking of it as a mountain that gets progressively steeper as you approach the top. The only reason guys like me are considered right-wing is that we don't see any value in punishing wealth and those who produce it. The lefties you find here don't think anyone should be allowed to reach the aforementioned summit.

 

As for your gold standard nonsense, you may want to put this very-fringe notion aside for good. Take a look also the idiots who promoted free silver in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, or, antithetically, at Nixon's unilateral unpegging of the US Dollar from international gold in the 70's. This economy is based on one thing: faith in the federal government's ability to make good on its monetary commitments. That faith is in jeopardy because of unchecked, politically-motivated spending on both sides of the aisle.

 

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it, and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

It would have to replace the income tax, and would require a constitutional amendment. By its very definition it would be progressive. Unfortunately, it wouldn't serve to sate the class warfare instincts of certain leftist malcontents--like the ones we find here in the form of j_b, Prole et al.

[olyclimber]

Shortage of investment opportunities! So that's why the market tanked? I never heard that one before.

[JayB]

Shortage of investment opportunities! So that's why the market tanked? I never heard that one before.

 

The market peaked as a consequence of too many dollars chasing too few sound investment opportunities.

 

The market tanked because people desperate for the kind of returns that sound investments can generate overpaid for crappy investments that could never return enough to justify the prices that "investors" bought them for.

 

The conga-line of retards that got a 10-figure and counting cornholing on real-estate in the PNW alone is a testament to this fact.

 

 

[JayB]

Do the flat-tax math and it falls apart. If the poor and middle class paid their "fair share" under a flat tax, their taxes would rise dramatically. The wealthy, who pay the lion's share already, would fare better on the backs of the vast majority. Unless we take a notion to repeal the 16th Amendment, a progressive income tax remains the best way to maintain social harmony. Put into climbing terms, try thinking of it as a mountain that gets progressively steeper as you approach the top. The only reason guys like me are considered right-wing is that we don't see any value in punishing wealth and those who produce it. The lefties you find here don't think anyone should be allowed to reach the aforementioned summit.

 

As for your gold standard nonsense, you may want to put this very-fringe notion aside for good. Take a look also the idiots who promoted free silver in the late 19th and early twentieth centuries, or, antithetically, at Nixon's unilateral unpegging of the US Dollar from international gold in the 70's. This economy is based on one thing: faith in the federal government's ability to make good on its monetary commitments. That faith is in jeopardy because of unchecked, politically-motivated spending on both sides of the aisle.

 

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it, and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

It would have to replace the income tax, and would require a constitutional amendment. By its very definition it would be progressive. Unfortunately, it wouldn't serve to sate the class warfare instincts of certain leftist malcontents--like the ones we find here in the form of j_b, Prole et al.

 

Agreed.

 

Even if you could demonstrate that something is objectively superior to the income tax in every category, I think that erstwhile progressives would cling to the income tax for it's cosmic virtues.

 

 

[whirlwind]

im still confused why a flat tax is so bad. and the progressive tax, is it the more u make the lower the % u pay or vise versa?

[olyclimber]

You are sure not looking below the surface, are you Jay?

 

I don't claim to understand all the reasons for the collapse, but what you are describing sound like symptoms, and not the real problem(s). Or perhaps you believe such problems and collapses are part of a normally evolving market. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if "nature" was allowed to run it's course. Would you have preferred that over what we have now?

[prole]

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if "nature" was allowed to run it's course. Would you have preferred that over what we have now?

 

What good is having a coercive arm of the State if you can't use it?

[Hugh Conway]

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

Yeah, we need more big bags of money chasing the few opportunities in the world today! That'll stop bubbles!

 

Actually - the shortage of investment opportunities generating a high-rate of return is far more likely to generate unsound investments than an abundance of them.

 

No shit?

 

[prole]

Now would these two examples be considered sound or productive?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/sports/baseball/18investors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&hp

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/business/15lawsuit.html?scp=1&sq=investing%20in%20lawsuits&st=cse

 

Jesus Christ! These people's money should be expropriated outright. A seven year old could find a more beneficial use for it in the Fred Meyer toy aisle.

[JayB]

My hunch is that a progressive consumption tax would have the same or better public perception-of-fairness going for it and would do a much better job of promoting savings, investment, production, and long-term productivity/economic growth.

 

Yeah, we need more big bags of money chasing the few opportunities in the world today! That'll stop bubbles!

 

Actually - the shortage of investment opportunities generating a high-rate of return is far more likely to generate unsound investments than an abundance of them.

 

No shit?

 

Just ask the guys running, say, German pension funds if they'd have been chasing yield in CDO-tranches stuffed with neg-AM, no-doc ARMs if there'd been better options out there that offered the same potential return.

[prole]

Just ask the guys running, say, German pension funds if they'd have been chasing yield in CDO-tranches stuffed with neg-AM, no-doc ARMs if there'd been better options out there that offered the same potential return.

 

Well it's a good thing that humanity doesn't have any real problems to deal with so these opulent twat bankers can sit around waiting for a pick-up game of craps that taxpayers get stuck for when they roll snake-eyes.

[olyclimber]

dude thats just the market working its magic. its all part of the process. we can't do anything about it! its evolution, baby. you can't beat it!

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I voted for Bob Barr. Aren't you the guy who was all gung-ho for John Edwards?

 

LOLZ. Sounds about right for porter.