Congratulations to all Americans!

[parsec1]

Heh...McVeigh is just as evil, except he was just one wacked out guy, not an entire culture. I don't remember him blowing himself up, either, for his cause.

I am not shedding tears, Chris. It doesn't matter if the libs were bashing Buddhists in the same manner...it's hate and intolerance any way you look at it.

No he wasn't just one 'wacked out guy' and he was and still is representative of a sizable proportion of your culture. I have visited and travelled in your country enough to know that.
The FBI has a whole 'Task Force devoted to 'domestic terrorism' of the McVeigh's ilk. I have a family member who is a senior officer with them.

There are thousands of domestic terrorist who would given the chance overthrow the US Government and return to the 'Gunslinging Frontier ways' including every member of the KKK amongst other 'Backwoodsmen'.

I understand Its not exclusive to the US we have them here and most likely in all other countries.
To pretend that the US is as 'pure as the driven snow' is facile to say the least.
As for committing suicide it was interesting to note that he didn't appeal against his death sentence and was executed at the first opportunity.
Just as an aside I have extensive family and friends in the US incuding two whose names are etched on
'The Wall '. One of whom I met 'In Country'

 

[dmr]

It's ok to relentlessly bash Christians, however, even though they don't make a habit of blowing themselves up along with innocent bystanders, or crashing planes into buildings in the name of Jesus.

You obviously have not heard of the so-called (self-called?) "Christians" in southeast Nebraska who perpetrated some rather hideous torture-murders in semi-recent times. (Google it.) There are also several other highly-visible cases of violence or worse by those who call themselves "Christian" and do the acts in His name. 🙁

 

[fergus]

People that earn less than $20,000 should, in my opinion, pay neither consumption tax nor income tax. They need every dollar of that to live.

The income tax side is easy to achieve; with a threshhold, or offsets (credits/rebates) or both. We use a combination here with a $6,000 tax-free threshhold plus an offset to take it to at least $20,000 (and higher if you're of retirement age).

The consumption tax issue; that's a lot harder. How would that be implemented? Would they need to pay it and claim it back (as businesses can do here)?

But agreed; a consumption tax hits the poorest the worst as they need to spend every dollar and don't have any other choice.

 

[fergus]

But I am also of the opinion that 1)it is a right to have access to health care 2)a home and 3) a job.

The 2nd one is interesting. Many so-called 3rd-world countries have their heads around this, I have been surprised when traveling to find houses being bought with government support. This has not been achieved in Australia despite our relative good fortune.

I am also of the opinion that it should be the damned duty of the ruling politicians to balance the budgets. Every year. That means that they have to set aside money in a fund for rainy days.

But wasn't the Keynes idea to borrow for the rainy days and use the good times to repay? Your idea is perhaps more sensible but we have 3-year terms for federal governments; none seem to take a long-term view. I always thought 5-year terms eg Peru gave politicians a better chance at these things.

One highlight of our Howard government was successfully repaying close to $100 billion of accumulated foreign debts. It would seem with recent spending we are back where we started, or worse.

 

[parsec1]

You obviously have not heard of the so-called (self-called?) "Christians" in southeast Nebraska who perpetrated some rather hideous torture-murders in semi-recent times. (Google it.) There are also several other highly-visible cases of violence or worse by those who call themselves "Christian" and do the acts in His name. 🙁

A couple of miles from me is the 'Cressing Temple' a stronghold of the 'Knights Templar' who took upon themselves the task of escorting Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem and perpetrated horrendous atrocities against the Muslim population to fund this.

'Let those without sin cast the first stone' ( Roger will no doubt be able to quote chapter and verse )

Having travelled extensively throughout the world I haven't yet met anybody who is totally without sin or admit to being so, including myself.

 

[splitimageview]

No he wasn't just one 'wacked out guy' and he was and still is representative of a sizable proportion of your culture.

Yes, there are wackos in every culture. That's why there are phrases like 'lunatic fringe.' But I know of no other culture that makes it a cornerstone of their beliefs that they must take over the world with their law (Sharia) and kill 'infidels' while doing it. Do you?

To pretend that the US is as 'pure as the driven snow' is facile to say the least.

Who is pretending this?

 

[splitimageview]

Having travelled extensively throughout the world I haven't yet met anybody who is totally without sin or admit to being so, including myself.

There are plenty who won't admit it. Some of them are posting in this thread. 🙂

 

[dfoo]

...
The consumption tax issue; that's a lot harder. How would that be implemented? Would they need to pay it and claim it back (as businesses can do here)?

But agreed; a consumption tax hits the poorest the worst as they need to spend every dollar and don't have any other choice.

Get rid of all consumption taxes. Why do we need multiple forms of taxes? I think the primary reason for multiple forms of taxation is to support different jurisdictions (municipal, state, federal). I would change taxation to be far simpler. Tax income. All income, no matter the source (ie: capitals gains, interest, work income are all taxed).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Consumption taxes are for the most part relatively painless, assuming you don't tax essentials (basically, food). If you are REALLY poor -- secondhand clothes from charity shops, etc. -- you don't pay the consumption tax anyway.

They are paid in small bites -- VAT on £200 is only £35 -- and are relatively easy to collect. Often (new clothes, new car, etc.), the purchase is discretionary. The only real objection to VAT (effectively a sales tax) is that the taxayer has to act as an unpaid tax collector, but even then, it's not that difficult. Fuel tax? I'd rather pay a few pence a litre, when I buy the petrol, than hundreds more at the end of the year with income tax.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Consumption taxes are for the most part relatively painless, assuming you don't tax essentials (basically, food). If you are REALLY poor -- secondhand clothes from charity shops, etc. -- you don't pay the consumption tax anyway.

They are paid in small bites -- VAT on £200 is only £35 -- and are relatively easy to collect. Often (new clothes, new car, etc.), the purchase is discretionary. The only real objection to VAT (effectively a sales tax) is that the taxayer has to act as an unpaid tax collector, but even then, it's not that difficult. Fuel tax? I'd rather pay a few pence a litre, when I buy the petrol, than hundreds more at the end of the year with income tax.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, respectfully, the world is not the UK. In the Canada at least, many things that I view as essentials are taxed. Many food stuffs are taxed. Clothing is taxed. Fuel for heating my house. Gas for my car. This isn't the UK; there is no decent public transportation where I live. How can I go without these things. They are essentials of living.

 

[fergus]

Get rid of all consumption taxes. Why do we need multiple forms of taxes? I think the primary reason for multiple forms of taxation is to support different jurisdictions (municipal, state, federal). I would change taxation to be far simpler. Tax income. All income, no matter the source (ie: capitals gains, interest, work income are all taxed).

Consumption taxes ensure all people are taxed at least somewhat; if you only tax income, those who work in the cash economy don't pay any tax.

And in some countries both income and consumption taxes are federal, it's not jurisdictional.

There is still the problem that consumption taxes affect lower income earners too much, yet high income earners can afford the tax lawyers to find 'legal' ways around income tax rules. Anyone who comes up with a workable solution to both of these issues will be paid handsomely by various governments I imagine.

 

[fergus]

Roger, respectfully, the world is not the UK. In the Canada at least, many things that I view as essentials are taxed. Many food stuffs are taxed. Clothing is taxed. Fuel for heating my house. Gas for my car. This isn't the UK; there is no decent public transportation where I live. How can I go without these things. They are essentials of living.

The UK system sounds simple and well thought out, but ours is a lot worse with the consumption tax applying to almost everything apart from fresh foods and medical services. Foods that have been processed are taxed.

Bizarre tax rule: if you buy a cold chicken to eat, it's tax free. If it's cooked (and still hot) it's taxed. But if the cooked chicken cools down again, it becomes tax free once more... once exemptions are introduced the rules become farcical in their application.

... you should see the student's faces when I try and explain our consumption tax ("GST") rules... 🙄

 

[parsec1]

Yes, there are wackos in every culture. That's why there are phrases like 'lunatic fringe.' But I know of no other culture that makes it a cornerstone of their beliefs that they must take over the world with their law (Sharia) and kill 'infidels' while doing it. Do you?



Who is pretending this?

Well I might say the US with its obsession with imposing by military force its capitalistic ideas and its version of democracy which it doesn't practice within itself on other countries
A member of the 'Free Republic 'website and a Lawyer insisted that the US was NOT a democratic society but a 'Constitutional Republic ' but then maybe thats what you would expect from them.
As far as Islam goes there is nothing in their 'Bible' the 'Holy Kora'n' that
suggests anything about 'taking over the world' nor is it the 'cornerstone of Islamic beliefs any more than a gun toting redneck Texans ideology that the Dollar represents 'The Almighty' is Americas.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, respectfully, the world is not the UK. In the Canada at least, many things that I view as essentials are taxed. Many food stuffs are taxed. Clothing is taxed. Fuel for heating my house. Gas for my car. This isn't the UK; there is no decent public transportation where I live. How can I go without these things. They are essentials of living.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I'm not saying that the choice of what should be taxed or shouldn't be taxed is always rational -- or even that it is sensible, where it is rational. All I'm saying is that a tax that is applied in many small bites is less painful than one where it's all saved up for bigger income tax. That's equally true in the UK; in France where I live; or in the USA or anywhere else.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there's a $0.25 tax per litre on petrol; that you drive 20,000 km a year; and that your car can go 10 km on 1 litre of petrol. Each time you put 40 l. in the car, you pay $10 in tax.

Across the course of a year, you use 2000 litres of petrol, so that's $500 on your income tax. I'd rather pay it in $10 bites, thanks.

It's also a nice, proportional tax. I have a thirsty Land Rover; I pay more tax. But I also have a motorcycle and a moped, so if I use them, I pay less in tax. How are you going to achieve that degree of equity with an income tax?

Likewise, let's say the tax on a bottle of whisky is $5. Someone who buys a bottle a week pays $260 a year. Someone who doesn't drink pays nothing. Again, how do you achieve that degree of equity with an income tax?

This is why my view is the exact opposite of yours. Consumption taxes are vastly superior to income tax, because you can decide how to spend your income.

Cheers,

R.

 

[40oz]

Presumably because they haven't really thought about the issue in any real detail.

OK, so anyone who disagrees with you "has not thought about the idea in any real detail." That's your stand? Why isn't it just as fair to state that you have proven incapable of rational thought?

My main problem with the conservative movement is this belief system that hinges on everyone else being blind and stupid. A world view predicated on the notion that there is "the one true people," self-identified, and everyone else isn't fit to speak much less make decisions. The bizarre stance that nobody should tell you how to live or decide anything for *you,* but you are perfectly willing to tell other people how they should live.

Why not entertain the notion that people have different ideas, and the best solution to a problem takes into consideration those differing ideas with the understanding that there is something of value to be learned by listening to those you disagree with?

There are literally millions upon millions of people who disagree with many conservative suggestions for changing our society, but would take strong disagreement with being labelled a socialist or "liberal" just because their own knowledge and experience and personal morals disagree with out-spoken conservatives.

The number one sign of a person unable to participate in rational discourse is the assertion that the other party is incapable of understanding. What that person is really saying is they are unwilling to grant the other person any creedence as a thinking being. Thinking beings can understand and still disagree.

If you are going to assert that anyone who disagrees with you "has not thought about the idea in any real detail," I'm going to assert that by making that very statement, you have demonstrated that you have not considered any position but your own. You dismiss any possible downside without considering it's merit. It's obvious that by ignoring the possibility of a valid counter-argument, you refuse to think about issues at all.

It appears you refuse to think about any issue in any detail, as that would require you to grant validity to other viewpoints. You seriously believe it's not possible for you to ever be wrong?

 

[dfoo]

I made several posts earlier on in this discussion that explained in detail why I believe the flat tax is fair. You couldn't be bothered to respond to a single thing I said. Also, I do not view myself as a conservative.

And what you wrote above is particularly ironic given that you started the whole discourse on this topic with this gem:

The only people behind a flat tax are idiots to think everyone else is as dumb as they are. Give it up. Hire an accountant if you can't do your own taxes.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I'm not sure what is!

 

[40oz]

I made several posts earlier on in this discussion that explained in detail why I believe the flat tax is fair. You couldn't be bothered to respond to a single thing I said. Also, I do not view myself as a conservative.

And what you wrote above is particularly ironic given that you started the whole discourse on this topic with this gem:



If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I'm not sure what is!

The idea that we should all pay the same regardless of how much we benefit is ludicrous. I can understand why someone might think that way, but I don't agree that it is remotely fair or even logical.

You claim that the only people that don't agree with a flat tax haven't thought about it. I claim the only people in favor of it think the rest of us are too stupid to see it for what it is. I make no claim that people who want it haven't thought about it.

I can imply some people aren't as smart as they think they are. You claim you're the only one who can think. There is a difference.

 

[40oz]

A flat tax is no different than joining a group at a restaurant. At the end of the night somebody suggests we split the bill evenly amongst the group. You only had water and a bowl of soup. I don't think it's fair to split the bill that way and I had the lobster.

The more you argue that you should pay "your fair share," the less intelligent you sound.

Now if you had the most expensive portion and insisted we split the bill evenly, you would have just as much protest. We'd all understand why you think it should be that way, but still nobody would agree that it is "fair." And again, the more you insisted we all finance your night out, the less intelligent you would seem. The fact that you could not grasp the inherent unfairness of such a system does not mean everyone else "has not thought about the idea in any real detail."

Quite the opposite, I'd argue. And any logical person would agree.

 

[dfoo]

The idea that we should all pay the same regardless of how much we benefit is ludicrous.

I never said everyone should pay the same. I said everyone should pay the same percentage. That is not a subtle difference!

The more you argue that you should pay "your fair share," the less intelligent you sound.

Are you capable of having a discussion without insulting the person you are talking with?

 

[40oz]

I never said everyone should pay the same. I said everyone should pay the same percentage. That is not a subtle difference!



Are you capable of having a discussion without insulting the person you are talking with?

You are the one who stated that anyone who had a problem with a flat percentage rate tax hadn't thought about the issue in any real detail.

A flat percentage tax is quite a bit similar to splitting the bill evenly. The argument is that everyone is getting equal benefit when that clearly is not true at all.