This is in response to this:
acaiguana Says:
March 21, 2007 - 12:24
So, WhichWing, what is your view of the 'perfect' world?
Since you obviously don't like this one.
It is a serious question.
ACA
First off, I'd like to say that I won't even attempt to describe a perfect world, but I will try to share a few ideas that would, in my opinion, contribute to a better world.
Less partisanship. "Republican this and Democrat that" really gets us nowhere. We should focus on the issues at hand. Both sides have good ideas, and bad ideas. They go about accomplishing their tasks in moronic ways sometimes. Rejecting an idea right off the bat simply because it comes from the other side is very counter-productive. Again, both sides are guilty of this, so don't think that I'm pointing fingers.
Religion. I suppose this will be considered a left wing suggestion, but I am here only to share my opinion. Religion, and intolerance thereof, is a major part of the problems in the world today. Everyone should have the right to practice whatever religion they want, and however they want, so long as it does not step on other people's basic human rights. I am not opposed to "under God" and "In God We Trust." I am not opposed to things like the Ten Commandments in public settings, but I can see the argument against it in publicly funded places. Perhaps with an equal representation of all religions in those situations this discussion could be avoided altogether. I also believe that we should not legislate or govern based on any religious beliefs.
Drug policy. Our drug policy and its enforcement are far bigger contributers to crime than drug use itself. Just as with alcohol prohibition, drug prohibition leads to a black market and organized crime. Often the people who benefit most by our prohibition of drugs are the people that we as a nation don't want to see with any power. I believe that drugs should be treated the same as alcohol.
These are just a few points, and I will leave it there for now. I'd be happy to answer questions about my opinions on those topics. Also, acaiguana, please share a few of your ideas that would make this a better world.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I have to ask this, because I
March 22, 2007 - 09:21 ET by AvatarI have to ask this, because I've never gotten a straight answer from anyone yet.If you believe we should govern free of religious influence, where would our laws come from? Did the founding fathers base this nation on secularism? They couldn't have, could they? Seriously, Strong Bad. A purely secular government would HAVE to exclude morals completely, since morality itself is centered around religion. Any crime can be justified secularly. If I steal, then the idiot I stole from didn't deserve to have it, if he didn't take measures to keep me from stealing it. If I kill, the idiot didn't deserve to live, because he either was ill-prepared to protect himself, or because he was simply not strong enough/fit enough to resist, in which case he was a detriment to the human race. When you rule by secularism, you have no basis for laws whatsoever. If you base your laws on scientific evolution, what I said still applies, as survival of the fittest. You use the word 'basic human-rights'. How are those defined? Any RIGHT anyone has (the right to life, property) is based on morality, and more specifically, the Laws God laid out. You mention a combination of all religious law, as long as they agree. Have you ever wondered why the middle east is still in the dark ages?
Instead of demanding something that is both illogical and impossible, why not let the people VOTE as to who they want representing them in office? That way, the PEOPLE get what the VOTED for, instead of a limited choice of athiests and/or multi-culturalists running the government. Religion was a vital part of many civil servant's duties in years past, brought this great nation to where it is now. The only difference is people that want to change the great tradition by secularizing the government or by forcing laws that everyone 'agrees to', is what is slowing down american progress. In other words, they tried to fix something that wasn't broken.
So to sum up, what would the basis for laws be, without the moral code laid out by (for example) the 10 Commandments?
The Avatar
A purely secular government
March 23, 2007 - 00:15 ET by WhichWingA purely secular government would HAVE to exclude morals completely, since morality itself is centered around religion.
I think you can have morals without religion. All we need is compassion for our fellow human beings. I was not raised around religion and have never been involved in it. But I still know whats morally right and wrong. Each religion has some form of "The Golden Rule," and that was all that was necessary. I feel that religion's true intention was to give a person a basic guide to life in a civilized society. As is true with any writing, it's political leanings will depend on the authors personal opinions. Had the Bible and other religious texts been left simple, I think there would be much less strife.
For the most part, we can all agree on basic societal rules. Don't take what is not yours. Don't cause harm to another person, or their belongings. Really, beyond that you are getting more into your own personal beliefs. You follow those 2 rules around me and my stuff, and you can do whatever you want to yourself or your place.
You cannot have morals wihout
March 23, 2007 - 00:23 ET by NL207You cannot have morals wihout religion.
Moral relatavism is amorality in the absence of religion. Why? Becuase when morality is redefinable by men, that is exactly what happens when it is to the convenience of the beholder.
Think about this. It is most certainly true.
I agree WW
March 23, 2007 - 01:11 ET by acumenI think you can have morals without religion.
I agree. A virtuous life is a noble endeavor and certainly possible without religion. Unfortunately, as witnessed daily, very few of us are capable of living a virtuous life without religion. Certainly some religions are detriminal to virtue but I think you would agree the orthodox Judeo-Christian religions support a virtuous lifestyle. For some of us weaker souls, pulled away from virtue by the world and our own concupiscence, religion acts as a support mechanism for virtuous behavior and the promise of forgiveness by employing true contriteness for our failures and a desire to improve (among other things), in effect, removing despair from the equation.
I disagree however with your opinion of the Bible being left simple. It is in fact simple. It is man's attempt to mold the teachings of the Bible to match their expectations that have caused the strife. Ghandi was noticed reading the Bible habitually and asked why he did not become a Christian if he was so captivated with Biblical scripture. His reply was that he witnessed how Christians lived. It's not the teachings of the Bible that condemns or endorses religion, it is our individual failure or success in living those teachings.
But I am really not worthy of giving true (Christian) religion the explanation it deserves. I would recommend reading The Lives of the Saints if you are interested in gaining more knowledge about the Christian religion. All of the Saints were just like you and me.....until they started living religion in the purest form, i.e.: total detachment from worldly pursuits, love of neighbor above love of self, etc. Then they rose to heights that truly virtuous Greek philosophers could only dream of reaching.
My point is this: 'Morality
March 23, 2007 - 14:05 ET by AvatarMy point is this: 'Morality' cannot exsist without religion. You take it for granted now, because laws have been morally based in scripture for Centuries upon centuries. A PURE secularist government CANNOT dictate morals, because that would infringe on both freedom and natural selection.
It's not going to take people long to figure out that a secular government means anarchy, since morality is not a secular issue.
Again, laws based morally in scripture has built this nation into the most powerful nation on earth in a very short span of time (historically speaking). I see no need to change it because a vast minority is offended by scripture.
The Avatar
You seem to say that we would
March 23, 2007 - 16:17 ET by WhichWingYou seem to say that we would have no morals had there been no religion. As if compassion would not be a part of the human psyche had the Bible not been written. I gotta think that even cavemen had compassion for one another, don't you think?
Which...they had a tendency t
March 23, 2007 - 16:28 ET by bassndudeWhich...they had a tendency to hunt and eat each other. That the kind of compassion your referring to?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I think we still suffer fro
March 23, 2007 - 16:42 ET by WhichWingI think we still suffer from a few cavemen like that today, that doesn't mean that the majority of us don't have morals, and the same goes for them.
Why do we have to bring the c
March 23, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhy do we have to bring the cavemen into this? First it was GEICO, and now you guys...can't a caveman get a break anymore?!
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
I don't seem to say it, I A
March 23, 2007 - 19:19 ET by AvatarI don't seem to say it, I AM saying that. Compassion is NOT a natural emotion. Kindness is NOT a natural emotion. Not to the Christian, not to the athiest. Morality is, by the most part, taught from earlier than you can remember, such that it feels like it's there. The human instinct is selfish, self preservation.
Your caveman example. I am not an evolutionist, however, if I were, I would have to conclude that every act a caveman commited was for his own self interest. There would be no co-operation unless there was something to gain. According to evolution, what is alive today and what is extinct is due to the survival of the fittest. BY DOING WHATEVER YOU MUST DO TO LIVE.
So back to my point. If you make laws based on secularism, there is no basis for enforcement, and therefore, anarchy.
The Avatar
Are you claiming that rules
March 23, 2007 - 21:34 ET by WhichWingAre you claiming that rules and idea used in religion can't not be used by a secular government? Basic ideas in religion are universal ideas for civilization, and religion has no copyright on them that I am aware of. People who reject the idea of an organized religion do not necessarily reject everything they teach.
Right, but, there is no basis
March 24, 2007 - 01:35 ET by AvatarRight, but, there is no basis for which anyone should follow the law. Any law could be challenged in the court of law, and be overturned on basis that the law (let's say, stealing) is a moral value derived from religion. In order to remail purely secular, that's how the government MUST function. A secular government CAN'T pick and choose what it likes from religions, otherwise, it's not secular,
I also maintain, that the present system has built this nation to what it is now, there's no sense trying to fix something that isn't broken.
The Avatar
This is what I said before:
March 24, 2007 - 06:54 ET by WhichWingThis is what I said before:
For the most part, we can all agree on basic societal rules. Don't take
what is not yours. Don't cause harm to another person, or their
belongings. Really, beyond that you are getting more into your own
personal beliefs. You follow those 2 rules around me and my stuff, and
you can do whatever you want to yourself or your place.
Personal freedom that does not impose on another's personal freedom. Sit in your house and smoke crack all day if you want, but if you get in your car and run over my kid after smoking all that crack, then you need to be punished.
You said this: "I also maintain, that the present system has built this nation to what
it is now, there's no sense trying to fix something that isn't broken."
And I would reply that there's nothing wrong with trying to improve our system.
Both sides have good ideas,
March 22, 2007 - 09:26 ET by Jack BauerBoth sides have good ideas, and bad ideas.
Who gets to decide which are the good ideas, and which are the bad ideas?
You do. And I do.
March 23, 2007 - 00:33 ET by WhichWingYou do. And I do.
Less partisanship
March 22, 2007 - 09:41 ET by MightyMouthSorry to toss a wet blanket but, human nature will preclude your well intentioned, yet idealistic wishes.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm not betting on any of t
March 23, 2007 - 00:38 ET by WhichWingI'm not betting on any of these ideas coming to fruition, I'm just sharing them. You got any?
Yes I have. No rich people
March 23, 2007 - 14:26 ET by MightyMouthYes I have.
No rich people in public office. If you have money, go spend it, but don't make the rules for the rest of us.
Since there wont be rich people in power there will be no need for Attorneys. Common sense is a better way to run the goverment anyhow.
In order to accomplish this we will have to FIRE the entire legislature and hire a complete new crew.
And finally, please GOD... cancel the "View"!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
How about an adjustment on
March 23, 2007 - 16:21 ET by WhichWingHow about an adjustment on that first one MightyMouth. You can enter public office if your rich, but you shouldn't get rich by being there.
So WhichWing
March 22, 2007 - 16:28 ET by SportPoliticsSo WhichWing, 1. that's whining to stop partisanship. I gotta tell you, I'm sick of hearing whiners whine that partisanship should stop. Usually, those are the very worst offenders. If whiners would just shut the hell up about it, they wouldn't have wasted even more time in their pathetic complaint that cannot possibly stop the partisanship, but merely aggravates everyone all the more by the constant reminder by the finger shaking arrogant jackass morally superior piece of crap. The way to help alleviate it is to come up with brilliant new ideas that make a trade off between the two positions encouraging to both sides. If you were actually helping the situation you'd be too busy and interested to focus on whining about it. Certainly the whiners aren't spending their time thinking. It's so damned prevalent now, it's a pathetic cleche' worthy of a bed wetting pissy pants liberal tree hugger who wants to prop up their own ego and status by pretending they are "for good". STUFF IT. Our Founders sometimes SHOT eachother with loaded pistols with "oh dear" REAL BULLETS over a political argument. GET OVER IT.
2. More pathetic whining on the religion crap. You stated the "safe zone" standard liberal crap. SHOVE IT FOOL. In other words your 2nd paragraph was so bland and idiotic, noone knows if you think that perfect world is actually going on right now, where legislation or governance is not based on religion. So you didn't even ask for changes. FAILURE again, even after you gave aciaguana the impression you could not bear the way things are. I see in #3 we get to your "source issue".
3. Another spank the monkey standard anything goes liberal whine all of us have heard at least ten thousand times now. You FLUNKED. I learned NOTHING. I could have found everything you said at ALL the first 50,000 google links by typing in "rolling stoned"or "high times". You didn't even include a Jeff Spicoli joke. Again, PATHETIC.
You have failed. In the words of the irritating fool liberal balboa, " Why is this even here?"
Thanks anyway. Let me know if you actually arrive at anything other than a parroting duplicate series of brain farts. I suspect your total contribution will continue to be global warming gas. Later.
I forgot to mention at the
March 23, 2007 - 00:30 ET by WhichWingI forgot to mention at the top that this was going to be a civil discussion. Disagreements encouraged, but a post that looks like yours will get us no where. I posted this in response to someone else's question, if you aren't interested in the discussion, then don't join in it.
Your post had 'whine,' 'whiner' or 'whining' in it 8 times. That sounds like whining to me.
You chose to capitalize a few words, here they are: "STUFF IT" "SHOT" "REAL BULLETS" "GET OVER IT" "SHOVE IT FOOL" "FAILURE" "FLUNKED" "NOTHING" "PATHETIC" Where do you expect a conversation to go with all your emphasis being placed on words or phrases like that?
Here's a couple of other fun quotes from your post:
If you feel the need, start another thread and bash me and my awful opinions over there, but please don't come in here and ruin this one.
You're lucky... Sport appea
March 23, 2007 - 14:14 ET by MightyMouthYou're lucky... Sport appears to like you. I have seen him actually get pissed at people and then WATCH OUT!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You can whine ALL you want ab
March 24, 2007 - 10:37 ET by UnsaneYou can whine ALL you want about a civil discussion, but that marks you as a Leftist, who further defines "civil discussion" as "100% total agreement with me".
You want a better world? Here's what I would do:
1) The gradual privatization of Social Security so that we may control our own financial destinies, not the government.
2) The federal government amends the 16th Amendment to have taxation of incomes at 15% across the board with zero exemptions whatsoever. That, coupled with a balanced budget amendment (which, for all the Left's whining about the debt, has not been proposed by this Congress as yet), just might force the federal government to spend money more wisely, and not on bridges to nowhere and things of that nature.
3) Drugs should still be criminalized. I like the idea of a United States that has things called "standards" in its society. Besides, the nations that have decriminalized them all have one noticeable commonality: All Are Going Nowhere.
4) The federal government needs to be pulled out of such things as education and the realm of medicine (Medicaid, Medicare).
5) The United States must be feared worldwide in order to defend us and our allies, no matter how grateful (ex-Warsaw Pact members) or utterly ungrateful (France and other Western European whiners) our allies are. If the United States is feared worldwide, the less bad things will happen to the United States. Why didn't a terrorist attack like 2/26/93 or 9/11/01 happen in the United States during the 1980s? Perhaps because Tripoli was bombed for less...
Violence is historically proven to work every time it is properly applied. Therefore, we need a powerful military. It is sad but true what Vegetius said: "If you desire peace, prepare for war."
Such is what I would do, but then, I have more faith in individuals and private institutions than any Leftist...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
It would be nice if you cou
March 24, 2007 - 17:51 ET by WhichWingIt would be nice if you could make your arguement without having to say 'leftist this and that,' but I guess that's hoping for too much.
1. Gradual privitization of Social Security. If that's the aim, why wouldn't we get rid of the system altogether? If you are taking money out of my paycheck and then telling me I get to control it, then just leave it in my check. What I'm saying is, if its privitized, lets take it out of their hands entirely.
2. I agree with this proposal. Or, I've also heard of the "Fair Tax." It replaces all taxes with a national sales tax. Then your wages aren't taxed, just what you spend.
3. Last month use of cannabis (marijuana) by high school seniors:
18.1% in the Netherlands (1996);
23.7% in the U.S. (1997).
(Sources:
The Trimbos Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Monitoring the
Future Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy)
Any lifetime use (prevalence) of cannabis by older teens (1994):
30% in the Netherlands;
38% in the U.S.
(Sources:
Center for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam; Monitoring the
Future Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy)
Recent (last month) use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995):
15% in the Netherlands;
16% in the U.S.;
24% in the U.K.
(Sources:
Trimbos Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Monitoring the Future
Survey, University of Michigan and White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy; Council of Europe, ESPAD Report)
Any lifetime use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995):
29% in the Netherlands;
34% in the U.S.;
41% in the U.K.
(Sources:
Netherlands Institute of Health and Addiction, U.S. National Institute
for Drug Abuse; Council of Europe, ESPAD Report)
Heroine addicts as a percentage of population (in 1995):
160 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
430 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport;
White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)
Murder rate as a percentage of population (in 1996):
1.8 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
8.22 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Bureau of Statistics; White House Office of National Drug Control Policy)
Incarceration rate as a percentage of population (1997):
73 per 100,000 in the Netherlands;
645 per 100,000 in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Justice; White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy)
Crime-related deaths as a percentage of population:
1.2 per 100,000 in the Netherlands (1994);
8.2 per 100,000 in the U.S. (1995).
(Sources: World Health Organization; Uniform Crime Reports, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation)
Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement:
$27 per capita in the Netherlands;
$81 per capita in the U.S.
(Sources: Netherlands Ministry of Justice; White House Office of National Drug Control Strategy)
The main problem with the current drug policy is that it does not prevent the use of drugs, or educate about the dangers, it only locks you up for it.
4. I disagree here, especially on the education front. Anything supported by our tax dollars needs to be regulated and held accountable to the taxpayer. On the other point, Medicare and Medicaid, I'm not informed enough on the subject to have an opinion.
5. Alot of nations are scared of Middle Eastern nations that support terrorism, but that doesn't seem to be helping them.
One thing you conveniently le
March 25, 2007 - 21:21 ET by UnsaneOne thing you conveniently leave out about the Netherlands:
They Are Going Nowhere. The last nation on earth we need to emulate is the Netherlands.
Read my response to the so-called "fair tax" (yeah, right) below. I cannot support a tax that ruthlessly attacks "C" and will lead to higher prices across the board.
You wish that everything our tax dollars was spent on was held to account. If that were the case, our public schools would be cranking out armies upon armies of Salks, Baarnards, Shakespeares, Mozarts, Watsons and Cricks. They are not. Hence I would love to institute very serious reform of our public schools. The ideas I have, though, would just enrage the public at large, especially my idea of having high schools de-emphasize athletics as the centerpiece of everything. But I will leave that for another time.
Not to mention if our tax dollars were held to account, Senator Stevens (R-AK) wouldn't have gotten the $231 Million to build a bridge from north Anchorage across the Knik Arm. They want that bridge there? Having lived there before, I understand why they would want one, but why must I here in TX pay for the thing, and not, say, Alaskans, or people willing to pay a toll to cross the thing?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I definately agree with de-
March 26, 2007 - 09:27 ET by WhichWingI definately agree with de-emphasizing athletics in schools, and am interested in hearing more of your ideas for public schools. But taking the government out of it, I don't see how it happens. Are you saying leave in the funding and take out the oversight? What are saying, specifically.
The U.S. university system is
March 29, 2007 - 21:18 ET by UnsaneThe U.S. university system is envied all over the world. What is one reason it works so well? Competition between public and private institutions, and public vs. public, and private vs. private institutions. Something like this should be done with the grade school system in the United States. But teacher's unions, who are all about protecting and coddling teachers, rather than acting in the best interests of the students, are against this, because they know that quite a few in their ranks will meet the unemployment lines if that vision is to unfold.
My views on education are long winded; I'll break down some more at a later date.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Incidentally, why are you so
March 25, 2007 - 21:29 ET by UnsaneIncidentally, why are you so ashamed of being a Leftist? I am a Right winger and make no bones about it...
5) In the end, terrorism is a piss-poor, cowardly way to get your point across. It is much better to assemble an army on the field and go to battle, but since some have long since figured out that assembling an army isn't effective against some countries, terrorism is used instead. Historically speaking, it is a poor way to get your point across.
Unless, of course, you are some whiny, appeasing European country, like Italy in 1985 (who let the Achille Lauro hijackers get away scot-free after the United States intercepted and forced the plane that carried them to land), or others such as Germany, who turned loose, among others, the terrorists that killed the Israeli athletes in the 1972 Olympics, or the Spanish, whose resident appeaser, Zapatero, just let go an ETA terrorist to "house arrest", much to the distaste of the Spanish voting public...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'm not ashamed of my politic
March 26, 2007 - 09:22 ET by WhichWingI'm not ashamed of my political views.
Unsane I like all on your list. Item 2 ---leaves a hole
March 24, 2007 - 18:17 ET by misterbillUnsane I like all on your list. Item 2 ---leaves a hole in the situation of off the book payments. This, of course, includes a very large number of illegals. If we were to go to a sales tax, we would then be taxing everybody. This, I believe, will alleviate a lot of the illegals not having declared income and W2 forms.The part that is unknown to me deals with the fact that the upper 10% of incomes pays a much larger percent of the taxes. Will their sales tax dollars come anywhere near what they contribute now?? Anyone???
PS re:Number 1- my wife put money into a 401k. It was for 4 years only. The amount of money the 401k has grown to will yield over $300 a month at a 6% return rate. The amount of social security growth she has experienced in the same time period (the 4 year 401k and 6 subsequent years), has increased her estimated SS payment at 62 years of age by about $160 per month. Come on privatization.
On national sales taxes and the unfairness thereof
March 25, 2007 - 21:12 ET by UnsaneWhy I don't want a national sales tax:
1) Attacks "C" of "C+I+G+X-M" (the equation of GDP). C = consumer spending, and is the largest component of the economy.
2) Do we really need a federal bureaucracy keeping tabs on each and every business in the United States, ensuring they all pay their sales taxes? Some on NB have whined that the IRS now is too oppressive towards people - apparently they never saw what happens to a business that doesn't pay its sales taxes, as I have.
3) The 16th Amendment MUST be removed before a sales tax is imposed in any event...
4) This is a sure-fire way to force prices to go up across the board. Sure, it isn't a VAT (which taxes at every point of production), but it may as well be. Think of an auto-repair shop in the aftermath of the imposition of a national sales tax. Do you seriously believe that the business will not pass on the sales taxes it must pay for its office supplies, telephones, fax machines, tools, auto parts, and so on, to YOU? Of course it will!
Hence, for me, the national sales tax doesn't fly with me at all...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You have to back up a step
March 26, 2007 - 09:13 ET by WhichWingYou have to back up a step or two to better understand the national sales taxes. Yes, right off the bat everything will be more expensive. But, at the same time, using the national sales tax INSTEAD of income tax leaves you with more money. Ever noticed the difference in your paycheck between net and gross pay? I know this won't mean your check is now tax free, there's still Social Security (for now), Medicare, and state income tax (not for you in Texas). And I think one of the main arguements made by supporters of the "Fair Tax" is that it is much easier to traxsales than it is to tax income. Which would mean less tax evasion and less cost for enforcement.
Or, at the very least, can't we do one or the other? Income tax and sales tax and this tax and that tax. The amount of times your dollar is taxed is ridiculous. We can agree on that, can't we?
No, the national sales tax do
March 26, 2007 - 21:17 ET by UnsaneNo, the national sales tax does NOT leave me with more money! The costs of the national sales tax will be passed on in the form of higher prices across the board!
What, do you really think that the federal government is NOT going to assess a sales tax on a ream of paper (for example) a business wants to buy? Do you truly believe that the said business will NOT pass that cost along to the consumer, out of the sheer kindness of their hearts?
And it will not be any easier to enforce a national sales tax. There will still need to be a bureaucracy in place to collect the tax and to keep all those who would otherwise evade the tax in line (again, do you think businesses in TX just pay the sales tax out of the kindness of their heart).
The people who cry the loudest about a national sales tax are those who want Americans saving money anyways. This "It will leave you with more money!" argument, if you have the simplest understanding of how business works, is a joke.
Dream on. Give me a 15-17% income tax across the board with no exemptions whatsoever.
Finally, the sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation there is. No thank you, on many many counts.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Honestly, I'm not opposed t
March 27, 2007 - 07:03 ET by WhichWingHonestly, I'm not opposed to a flat tax either, I was just trying to clarify my understanding of the "fair tax." But I think your example makes circles around itself. Of course the business is going to pass on the cost of tax to you, but they do that already.
I also did not imply that the IRS would no longer be necessary. But consider that they are already collecting sales tax, and would no longer need to collect an income tax. That cuts out alot of work.
I have made a few incorrect
March 27, 2007 - 07:08 ET by WhichWingI have made a few incorrect statements about the "fair tax." It does actually call for the elimination of federal and state income tax, as well as social security and medicare. Knowing that, I would have to again point out the difference between your net pay and gross pay. It also says it would abolish the IRS (with existing state sales tax agencies doing the collecting).
Here is what their site says:
"Abolishes the IRS"
March 28, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Unsane"Abolishes the IRS" - What a lie. Who in the hell will enforce the sales tax and collect the revenue then? Even in my scenario, there will STILL be an IRS; just a infinitely smaller, more efficient one.
"Closes all loopholes" - So does my plan if you bother to read it - "and brings fairness to taxation" - How? You DO know that sales taxes of all kinds falls disproportionately harder on those least able to pay, correct? (meaning, a "regressive" tax) Can you explain to me how THAT is "fair"?
"Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding" - Without explaining how, of course. I'd prefer privatizing both. Do me a favor and do some research into what some lucky Galveston County residents managed to do with Social Security back in the early 1980s...
"Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy" - So does my idea, and all without attacking "C", and forcing prices to go up everywhere.
"Allows American products to compete fairly" - Well, they do now. It isn't my fault or anyone else's that products made in the United States are of such crappy quality or done with scant attention given to the end consumer that they don't sell...nor is it my fault that American products are often made with unionized labor, which sets an artificially high price for labor.
"Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities" - Who decides what a "basic necessity" is? YOU? A bunch of bureaucrats?
"Enables retirees to keep their entire pension" - So does my idea, as it will not tax incomes over and over again. The "flat tax" as envisioned by Steve Forbes leaves things like capital gains the hell alone.
"Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck" only to have it gobbled up having to pay for everything at greatly inflated prices as this sales tax is embedded in everything, as the sales tax paid to produce the products and services used is passed down to the consumer.
Think things through. Just because they look good on paper doesn't mean they will stand up in reality...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You should send that to someo
March 29, 2007 - 00:10 ET by WhichWingYou should send that to someone at that website, you've picked about every part of their policy, and they would be able to address what you say better than I. I just wanted to correct the errors I had made in my statements about their policy.
Can you expand on the plan you are talking about?
Steve Forbes' 1996 vision. I
March 29, 2007 - 21:14 ET by UnsaneSteve Forbes' 1996 vision. I have modified it slightly to include:
1) No exemptions (he wanted $500 per child)
2) I'd want it Constitutionally mandated (making it harder to tinker with)
3) 17% taxation under Mr. Forbes' vision began at $36,000/yr, IIRC.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)