What is Fair? (Taxes)

[bu villain]

I was reading the well known Armchair Economist this past weekend and wanted to pose a question discussed in the book.

Given a two person town where both people have equal access to a well. Person A makes $10,000/yr and is taxed $1000/yr for use of the well (10% taxation). Person B makes $100,000/yr and is taxed $5000/yr for use of the well (5% taxation). Is this taxation policy unfair and if so, who is it unfair to? Please also include your political leaning.


The purpose of this question is to see how people define what is fair and how it correlates to their political views. There is no objectively correct answer but in politics, there seems to be a refusal to recognize the validity of different ethical frameworks. Every issue is framed as right or wrong, and honest discussion of pros/cons takes a backseat.

[Sinfix_15]

i see what you're getting at and there is more to factor in than a simple what is and isnt fair. The bigger question is what is the government doing with the taxes they collect and why is the budget so poorly managed.

So you collect $1000 in taxes from the person making $10,000/yr and $5000 taxes from the person making $100,000/yr, even though the higher paid person paid more tax money, he paid a smaller % of his income. What you should be asking is this....

if the government had $6000 in tax revenue, why did they spend $50,000? what did they spend $50,000 on? was spending $50,000 really necessary?

"no taxation without representation".... whether you pay 1% of your income or 50% of your income, your tax money is being wasted by an incompetent government. Rather than buying into this class vs class distraction, we should all recognize that we're all be screwed. Is Romney perfect? no. Is everything Obama does terrible? almost, but no. Romney is a step towards smaller government and less spending. Obama is a massive pole vault towards bigger government and more spending. The choice is clear.

It's unfair to person A and B, theyre both having their money wasted.

[Vteckidd]

I was reading the well known Armchair Economist this past weekend and wanted to pose a question discussed in the book.

Given a two person town where both people have equal access to a well. Person A makes $10,000/yr and is taxed $1000/yr for use of the well (10% taxation). Person B makes $100,000/yr and is taxed $5000/yr for use of the well (5% taxation). Is this taxation policy unfair and if so, who is it unfair to? Please also include your political leaning.



Define FAIR.

No it is not fair that someone pays 10% in the lower income bracket than someone in the higher bracket (5%). but, you dont want to penalize success either.

Im assuming you mean that both people are taxed on INCOME only, and you arent mixing things like Capital Gains :P

[David88vert]

The problem is not the way that taxes are collected, nor how much is collected. The problem that needs to be solved is how the taxes are spent. Everytime someone says "we need 'this'", they needs to show what can be given up to fund it. Our national debt is more of a threat to the well-being of this country than any foreign enemy could ever be. The government collects 2.3 trillion in taxes, but spend 3.5 trillion - this is unsustainable.

Fair would be the government spending less than they collect, and cutting expenditures back to the basic necessities. The Ryan plan to balance the budget by 2040 is just as bad as Obama's lack of a plan. Overspending until 2040 is not acceptable. Neither party is serious about being fair to the American people.

[.blank cd]

"no taxation without representation".... whether you pay 1% of your income or 50% of your income, your tax money is being wasted by an incompetent government. Rather than buying into this class vs class distraction, we should all recognize that we're all be screwed. Is Romney perfect? no. Is everything Obama does terrible? almost, but no. Romney is a step towards smaller government and less spending. Obama is a massive pole vault towards bigger government and more spending. The choice is clear.

It's unfair to person A and B, theyre both having their money wasted.This wasn't the question though. The taxation is being represented by the use of the well

[Sinfix_15]

This wasn't the question though. The taxation is being represented by the use of the well

Whatever you decide is fair..... the person paying a higher % needs to come down to the person paying a lower %. Taxes do not need to be raised on anyone until the government learns how to balance a budget. Obama is like a 16 year old girl with daddy's credit card and you democrats just want to keep raising his credit limit.

[Vteckidd]

Apparently I'm the only one who can follow simple directions lol

[Sinfix_15]

Apparently I'm the only one who can follow simple directions lol

i dont care about what % rate i pay in taxes. i dont care if a billionaire pays a smaller % of his income in taxes than me. 5% of a billionaires tax money does more for our country and economy than if i paid 100% in taxes. It's word play.... it's politics.... "That rich guy pays 5% less than you poor guys!!!!".... who cares? i care more about what is being done with the tax money. didnt answer poll because my answer isnt an option.

[.blank cd]

I'm still trying to figure out where the OP said anything about Obama OR Romney OR the hypothetical place being the USA. LOL

[BanginJimmy]

I havent read any responses yet and I will not read any of them before me.


I said it is unfair to person B at first, but I would like to come back and say not sure. There are simply too many assumptions to make to really decide. Does it cost 6k a year to run the well? Are both A and B using the same amount of water?

If it costs 6k a year to run and both use the same water, I think it is fair to both. Even paying half the rate, B is paying 5x the amount for the same product.

Assuming both use the same water, those are just standard rates and the well could be run cheaper, it is unfair to B.

If B is using a significant amount more than B, it is unfair to A. If B is using 10x the amount that A is using, he would be paying the same percentage.



If you are trying to make a point about our taxes, you oversimplified it to the point of irrelevance. By Websters definition of fair, you can only see fair in 1 of 3 ways. Both parties pay the same rate. Both parties pay the same amount. Neither of these are even remotely comparable to our tax system.

When you hear Obama talk about making our tax system more fair, or the rich need to pay their fair share, he actually means the opposite unless you look at it in the last way. To give everyone the same amount AFTER taxes. Person A makes 300k, person B makes 50k, govt needs 75k per person. In Obama's world, fairness means person A pays 200k in taxes, B pays nothing. That 200k gets split into to pies though, 150k to pay the tax burden for both A and B, then the other 50k goes to B so both A and B have the same amount after taxes are paid.

[nelson9995]

I havent read any responses yet and I will not read any of them before me.


I said it is unfair to person B at first, but I would like to come back and say not sure. There are simply too many assumptions to make to really decide. Does it cost 6k a year to run the well? Are both A and B using the same amount of water?

If it costs 6k a year to run and both use the same water, I think it is fair to both. Even paying half the rate, B is paying 5x the amount for the same product.

Assuming both use the same water, those are just standard rates and the well could be run cheaper, it is unfair to B.

If B is using a significant amount more than B, it is unfair to A. If B is using 10x the amount that A is using, he would be paying the same percentage.



If you are trying to make a point about our taxes, you oversimplified it to the point of irrelevance. By Websters definition of fair, you can only see fair in 1 of 3 ways. Both parties pay the same rate. Both parties pay the same amount. Neither of these are even remotely comparable to our tax system.

When you hear Obama talk about making our tax system more fair, or the rich need to pay their fair share, he actually means the opposite unless you look at it in the last way. To give everyone the same amount AFTER taxes. Person A makes 300k, person B makes 50k, govt needs 75k per person. In Obama's world, fairness means person A pays 200k in taxes, B pays nothing. That 200k gets split into to pies though, 150k to pay the tax burden for both A and B, then the other 50k goes to B so both A and B have the same amount after taxes are paid.

So in your world Obama is a socialist?

[BanginJimmy]

So in your world Obama is a socialist?

He has some socialistic tendencies, but he is more of an economic fascist.

Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)

[green91]

If 10% is good enough for the church, it ought to be good enough for the government.

A flat rate consumption tax across the board is equal for everyone, its directly proportional to what they spend.

[Vteckidd]

Fair Tax is the only way to really make it work across the board "fairly".

[BanginJimmy]

It may come as a surprise to everyone, but I also agree with the fairtax.

[nelson9995]

I may be wrong... but won't the fairtax make things harder for the poor or the middle class?

If we are all paying 23% at the register, than that helps the wealthier because they keep all their money, and pay exactly what the less wealthy person pays for goods... I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but am I correct?

[BanginJimmy]

I may be wrong... but won't the fairtax make things harder for the poor or the middle class?

If we are all paying 23% at the register, than that helps the wealthier because they keep all their money, and pay exactly what the less wealthy person pays for goods... I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but am I correct?


You are not correct in any sense.


Get these books, read them, then comment.

The FairTax Book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346885476&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fair+tax)
FairTax: The Truth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027CSNOO/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)

[Sinfix_15]

You are not correct in any sense.


Get these books, read them, then comment.

The FairTax Book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346885476&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fair+tax)
FairTax: The Truth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027CSNOO/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)

Could you offer a brief summary, reading a book is too much commitment for me. Fair tax is more of a change for poorer people who pay little to no taxes than it is for the wealthy? I'm asking, i dont know.

[BanginJimmy]

Could you offer a brief summary, reading a book is too much commitment for me. Fair tax is more of a change for poorer people who pay little to no taxes than it is for the wealthy? I'm asking, i dont know.

Very quickly as there are already 2 books about the subject and I'm not going to write a third.

1. Eliminates all income, corporate, death, capital gains etc taxes and repeals the 17 Amendment (income tax and IRS)

2. Institutes a national 23% sales tax on all new consumer products.

3. Based on the poverty level, every household receives a "prebate" check from the govt totaling the tax for the basic necessities.


On average, everything you buy has imbedded taxes totaling ~22%. The FairTax eliminates all of these taxes and replaces them with a point of sale national sales tax. As of right now, products will average 1% more expensive, not 23% more.


Will the poor pay more in taxes? If anything, they will pay less. They will no longer have to pay sales taxes on their purchases up to the poverty line for the number of people in the household. The wealthy will actually end up playing significantly more. Where the fairtax really makes a difference is with people that do not earn their income in a legal, and taxabe, way.

The books are short and easy to read. It is worth the $20 investment.

[geoff]

The fair tax is the only true way to make sure everyone pays their "fair share". And not in the sense that it gives a break to the poor or more taken from the rich. Illegal immigrants make up a large percentage of construction workers and other business'. I worked for a guy back in the day that paid an illegal $175 a day, 6 days a week. That is roughly $54,600 and at a tax rate of let's say 10% = $5460. Let's say there are around 100,000 construction workers that get paid this amount; That's $546,000,000 in taxes that can never be collected. Yet, illegals can still recieve welfare and what not that they never pay for. The fair tax makes sure that every person in America pays taxes to continue our way of living. Now, if we could only get control of government spending...

[David88vert]

The fair tax is the only true way to make sure everyone pays their "fair share". And not in the sense that it gives a break to the poor or more taken from the rich. Illegal immigrants make up a large percentage of construction workers and other business'. I worked for a guy back in the day that paid an illegal $175 a day, 6 days a week. That is roughly $54,600 and at a tax rate of let's say 10% = $5460. Let's say there are around 100,000 construction workers that get paid this amount; That's $546,000,000 in taxes that can never be collected. Yet, illegals can still recieve welfare and what not that they never pay for. The fair tax makes sure that every person in America pays taxes to continue our way of living. Now, if we could only get control of government spending...

Most of the illegals that I have encountered do pay taxes - with SSN's that aren't theirs. In the end, they don't file taxes, but they don't get refunds either. Since they aren't claiming deductions, they end up paying the maximum tax rate. The only ones not paying are the for-cash day laborers. Typically, you don't see the same people staying for day laborers very long, as they either target more consistent jobs or head back to their homeland.
I've had a lot of experience with immigrants.

[David88vert]

Too many are concerned with how the taxes are collected, rather than with the real problem. Get spending under control THEN worry about collection. Until spending is reined in, you are accomplishing nothing with collection.

[BanginJimmy]

Too many are concerned with how the taxes are collected, rather than with the real problem. Get spending under control THEN worry about collection. Until spending is reined in, you are accomplishing nothing with collection.

Agree completely. Until the spending issue is addressed we could all be taxed at 100% and the govt would still find a way to spend more than it takes in.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

My goal with this post isn't to say the current tax structure in the US is fair or unfair because that is a subjective word. Likewise, I'm not making any comment about how the government spends money. Sinflix had the idea when he stated that it's how you define it so I wanted to know "How do you define it, personally?" Some may define it as everyone paying the same percentage of income. Others will define it as paying the same gross amount. Still others will have different definitions. I understand everyone wanting to address the issues that come next (e.g., how our government spends those tax dollars) but first can we just discuss the different definitions people have for what makes a tax policy fair? I think it is helpful to understand where people are coming from on this issue.

[BanginJimmy]

You missed 1 form of fairness. There is a segment of the population on the left that believe in income equality. This means they think everyone should have the same amount left over after taxes.


The only way to move to a fair tax structure is to move away from taxing income and start taxing consumption. I would even be OK with a return of luxury taxes on anything but food and housing. An extra 1% tax on a car over 100k. 1.5% extra on boats over 500k. An extra .5% on any consumer electronics over 10k. You get the idea.

[.blank cd]

The only way to move to a fair tax structure is to move away from taxing income and start taxing consumption. I would even be OK with a return of luxury taxes on anything but food and housing. An extra 1% tax on a car over 100k. 1.5% extra on boats over 500k. An extra .5% on any consumer electronics over 10k. You get the idea.I would add housing over 200% median home value by state, cars over $50k, and ALL boats. I don't know too many consumer electronics over $10k. A home entertainment center can get expensive but that's a sum of a bunch of cheaper components. I'd like to read more about fair tax, but I'd rather read it from the source, whoever penned it out.

[Sinfix_15]

I would add housing over 200% median home value by state, cars over $50k, and ALL boats. I don't know too many consumer electronics over $10k. A home entertainment center can get expensive but that's a sum of a bunch of cheaper components. I'd like to read more about fair tax, but I'd rather read it from the source, whoever penned it out.

Why all boats?

[.blank cd]

Why all boats?All luxury watercrafts rather.

[Sinfix_15]

All luxury watercrafts rather.

How would you define a luxury watercraft?
http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg115/JetSkiBrian/DSC_0258.jpg

[.blank cd]

Yeah. I could go with that.

[Sinfix_15]

Yeah. I could go with that.

So, if i buy a watercraft, pay registration, pay for a tag, pay for a license to drive it, pay for a fishing license and use that watercraft to fish, i should have to pay extra for a luxury vehicle?

In my opinion, the price of a vehicle dictates the tax. We should be very tight with the things we call luxuries. If i buy a $50,000 car, i paid taxes on $50,000. That's more taxes than i would pay if i purchased a $10,000 car. If i own 5 cars and 5 boats, then i pay taxes on 5 cars and 5 boats. I dont like the idea of over taxing excess or taxing people "because they can afford it". Here's a crazy off the wall suggestion........................ how about a government that manages it's spending with it's revenue?

[BanginJimmy]

I would add housing over 200% median home value by state, cars over $50k, and ALL boats. I don't know too many consumer electronics over $10k. A home entertainment center can get expensive but that's a sum of a bunch of cheaper components. I'd like to read more about fair tax, but I'd rather read it from the source, whoever penned it out.

Here you go. Written by Neil Boortz and former congressman from Ga John Linder.



The FairTax Book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fair-Tax-Book-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346885476&sr=8-1&keywords=the+fair+tax)
FairTax: The Truth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0027CSNOO/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=)

[David88vert]

Boortz's statements have not always been truthful concerning Fair Tax. What you need to read is the latest proposal, which is HR25
Here is the actual bill

Text of H.R.25 as Introduced in House: Fair Tax Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h25/text)

[bu villain]

You missed 1 form of fairness. There is a segment of the population on the left that believe in income equality. This means they think everyone should have the same amount left over after taxes.

I missed many more than one. Everyone has their own definition. I want to hear everyone's definition. That's the only way to know what someone means when they say tax policy is fair or unfair.

Why all the focus on waterbound vehicles all of a sudden. Was hoping to keep this more philosophical. I think the fair tax isn't ideal but it's probably the most realistic and effective compromise I've heard.

[ahabion]

Still reading the Fair Tax that BanginJimmy posted... but from previous and limited knowledge of the Fair Tax, right at the get go it was the obvious best solution for everyone. Oh how I would love to to take home ALL of my salary.

[David88vert]

There are many things that will still have to be answered before Fair Tax can work. Take the example of the automobile industry that Fair Tax supporters have been unable to answer so far.

Under Fair Tax 2011, new cars would be taxed, but used cars would not. How do you define what makes it new or used?

What we typically consider a new car, like a GM/Ford/Honda/etc, will have the tax added. Your 20K car would be 25K. And I doubt that the tax would be financeable, so you will need to pay a lot more when you go to purchase one. This will mean that people will keep their cars longer, which will reduce auto sales, and lower the amount of taxes collected on new cars.

How about companies that take refurbished bodies (old ones), and drop them on a new driveline? It would not be decalred new, and I suspect that you would have a lot of companies pop up quickly that perform this refurbishing. No tax under Fair Tax for it, and who would police it if the IRS was abolished? On top of that, since it was used, the companies would be tort exempted, allowing improperly built cars onto the roads.

Killing the auto industry so that you can pay a little less tax might not be fair to the American auto workers.

There are lots of situations that need to be thought out before enacting a "Fair" Tax.

[sport_122]

So in your world Obama is a socialist?

In Obamas world he's a socialist. He would never call it that because it will scare people. A rose of another name is still a rose.

[.blank cd]

In Obamas world he's a socialist. He would never call it that because it will scare people. A rose of another name is still a rose.I dont think Obama has ever claimed to be a socialist, nor has the Socialist party of America, or any other socialist party in the world for that matter ever agreed that he was a socialist. Do you have an example of a truly socialist policy or idea of his that would make him seem socialist? People who have actually lived under actual socialist regimes seem to have a different idea of exactly how "socialist" Obama really is.

[BanginJimmy]

There are many things that will still have to be answered before Fair Tax can work. Take the example of the automobile industry that Fair Tax supporters have been unable to answer so far.

Under Fair Tax 2011, new cars would be taxed, but used cars would not. How do you define what makes it new or used?

What we typically consider a new car, like a GM/Ford/Honda/etc, will have the tax added. Your 20K car would be 25K. And I doubt that the tax would be financeable, so you will need to pay a lot more when you go to purchase one. This will mean that people will keep their cars longer, which will reduce auto sales, and lower the amount of taxes collected on new cars.

How about companies that take refurbished bodies (old ones), and drop them on a new driveline? It would not be decalred new, and I suspect that you would have a lot of companies pop up quickly that perform this refurbishing. No tax under Fair Tax for it, and who would police it if the IRS was abolished? On top of that, since it was used, the companies would be tort exempted, allowing improperly built cars onto the roads.

Killing the auto industry so that you can pay a little less tax might not be fair to the American auto workers.

There are lots of situations that need to be thought out before enacting a "Fair" Tax.

A few things here.

1. that 20k car would not be 25k. It would still be about 20k. The difference is that all of the taxes that were paid in piece parts would be gone and replaced by the fairtax that is collected at the point of sale. Sales taxes are financable now, no reason to believe they wont be after the fairtax.

2. Enforcement and collections would still be done, and it may even done by an agency called the IRS. The difference is that it will be noting like what we think of it now.

3. NTSB and state agencies would still be around to regulate what vehicles would get on the road. Just like I cannot rebuild and license a vehicle today, these pop up companies will not be able to do it because of the fairtax.

4. Specific regulations would still need to be written to cover specific industries. This is true with any piece of legislation, no matter how major or minor.

5. New cars will still be purchased by the people that purchase them now. There is no reason to believe any particular market, except tax preparers, will be destroyed by the fairtax.

[BanginJimmy]

I dont think Obama has ever claimed to be a socialist, nor has the Socialist party of America, or any other socialist party in the world for that matter ever agreed that he was a socialist. Do you have an example of a truly socialist policy or idea of his that would make him seem socialist? People who have actually lived under actual socialist regimes seem to have a different idea of exactly how "socialist" Obama really is.


I know you werent addressing me but I will interject anyways.


Obama is a socialist when dealing with individuals, and an fascist when dealing with business.

He believes the govt should only allow you to have a certain amount of money an anything else you get should be spread around. This is his socialist side.

His fascist side is simple. He believes in private ownership of business, but he believes it is the govts job to dictate what their profits should be, what products are brought to market, and how and where they are allowed to produce their products.

[Slow Motion]

[I] see what you're getting at and there is more to factor in than a simple what is and isnt fair. The bigger question is[,] what is the government doing with the taxes they collect and why is the budget so poorly managed[?]

So you collect $1000 in taxes from the person making $10,000/yr and $5000 taxes from the person making $100,000/yr, even though the higher paid person paid more tax money, he paid a smaller % of his income. What you should be asking is this....

[If] the government had $6000 in tax revenue, why did they spend $50,000? what did they spend $50,000 on? was spending $50,000 really necessary?

"[No] taxation without representation".... [W]hether you pay 1% of your income or 50% of your income, your tax money is being wasted by an incompetent government. Rather than buying into this class vs class distraction, we should all recognize that we're all be screwed. Is Romney perfect? no. Is everything Obama does terrible? almost, but no. Romney is a step towards smaller government and less spending. Obama is a massive pole vault towards bigger government and more spending. The choice is clear.

It's unfair to person A and B, theyre both having their money wasted.


Bruh, I agreed with everything in bold. I would have called you "Plato" if you only left out the "Romney vs Obama" stuff. (SN: Only because it distracts us from the profound words of wisdom you spoke, and drifts back into political views.) We should definitely question the government as a whole and ask WTF?

[.blank cd]

I know you werent addressing me but I will interject anyways.


Obama is a socialist when dealing with individuals, and an fascist when dealing with business.

He believes the govt should only allow you to have a certain amount of money an anything else you get should be spread around. This is his socialist side.

His fascist side is simple. He believes in private ownership of business, but he believes it is the govts job to dictate what their profits should be, what products are brought to market, and how and where they are allowed to produce their products.

He said this? Or is this your opinion? Can you link me to where he's put this in practice?

[BanginJimmy]

He said this? Or is this your opinion? Can you link me to where he's put this in practice?

His socialist side:

He told Joe the Plumber we needed to spread the wealth around.
Obama-Spread the wealth around - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM)

"I believe in redistribution"
Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4)


The fascist side:
1. Obamacare dictates what an insurance company can profit (20% of premiums minus overhead)
2. Told GM and Chrysler bond holders to pound sand and bypassed bankruptcy law to give the unions control of the companies. In the case of GM, he used the justice dept to remove the CEO and replace him with someone more friendly to the administration.
3. He planned to bankrupt the coal industry while dumping billions in taxpayer money into the black hole of green energy companies.

[bu villain]

His socialist side:

He told Joe the Plumber we needed to spread the wealth around.
Obama-Spread the wealth around - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoqI5PSRcXM)

"I believe in redistribution"
Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4)


Redistribution is an aspect of socialism but it is not synonymous. A progressive tax structure is redistribution but I doubt you would accuse all the proponents of it socialists. The fact is many people use "Socialist" as a scare tactic or insult because ignorant people believe in this false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism when our society is very much based on elements of both. Unless you are one of the most die hard libertarians, you probably support many social constructs we currently enjoy.

[BanginJimmy]

Redistribution is an aspect of socialism but it is not synonymous. A progressive tax structure is redistribution but I doubt you would accuse all the proponents of it socialists. The fact is many people use "Socialist" as a scare tactic or insult because ignorant people believe in this false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism when our society is very much based on elements of both. Unless you are one of the most die hard libertarians, you probably support many social constructs we currently enjoy.

Is this saying you agree with me? That Obama's policy towards individuals is socialist. Since you didnt comment on the fascist side, I assume you agree with that also?


What is a good example of redistribution of wealth in an economic system other than socialism and communism? I dont know of one.


A progressive income tax is not redistribution until you start getting into negative liabilities. Yes, we have that. No, it isnt right.


People do use socialist as a scare tactic, but in the case of Obama, it is justified for some of his initiatives.

[.blank cd]

People do use socialist as a scare tactic, but in the case of Obama, it is justified for some of his initiatives.Equating the initiatives of a sitting president to an evil übernationalist regime to systematically sway uneducated voters is justified? Why? And why is this the GOP narrative?

[bu villain]

Is this saying you agree with me? That Obama's policy towards individuals is socialist. Since you didnt comment on the fascist side, I assume you agree with that also?

I do agree that Obama has some policies that are socialist in nature but I don't agree that all his policies are of that nature. Certainly not enough to label him overall as a socialist. I would argue that just about every politician from either party agrees with a number of socialist constructs. I didn't comment on the facism side because I think the socialism debate is more interesting and the conversation is already splintering enough.


What is a good example of redistribution of wealth in an economic system other than socialism and communism? I dont know of one.

As I stated, our current progressive tax system is a form of redistribution. Surely you agree not everyone pays and benefits proportionally which is by definition redistribution. The child tax credit is redistribution to parents. The mortgage tax credit is redistribution to home owners. Do you consider us to live in a socialist or communist state?



A progressive income tax is not redistribution until you start getting into negative liabilities. Yes, we have that. No, it isnt right.

Why do you need to get into negative liabilities to consider it redistribution? Not to mention we already have an income tax system that results in negative liabilities anyways so there is really no point in having that argument. And we aren't talking about right or wrong (that is up to an individual to decide), we are talking about the definition of words, specifically redistribution and socialism.


People do use socialist as a scare tactic, but in the case of Obama, it is justified for some of his initiatives.

I don't disagree that some of his policies are more socialistic in nature but to call him a socialist in order to frighten people is a disgraceful exageration. If you aren't prepared to recognize police, firemen, etc as socialist institutions then you shouldn't be using that label as a political tactic. Take Obamacare for example. If Obamacare is socialist, then what is a single payer system? By using extreme terminology, you ignore the degrees inbetween and render the term almost meaningless.

[BanginJimmy]

I don't disagree that some of his policies are more socialistic in nature but to call him a socialist in order to frighten people is a disgraceful exageration.

Every politician in the country uses exaggeration and some, like the president simply lie when the truth isnt what they want the idiot voters to know.

4 Pinocchios for Obama’s newest anti-Romney ad - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-obamas-newest-anti-romney-ad/2012/06/20/gJQAGux6qV_blog.html)

That was an OFA ad approved by Obama and so full of blatant lies even the Wash Post cant cover it up.





If you aren't prepared to recognize police, firemen, etc as socialist institutions then you shouldn't be using that label as a political tactic.

Do you even know what socialism is?
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Please point out the portion of the definition that includes govt services. When you cant, you can sit here and admit that fire and police are not socialist.






Take Obamacare for example. If Obamacare is socialist, then what is a single payer system? By using extreme terminology, you ignore the degrees inbetween and render the term almost meaningless.

Obamacare has a few instances of socialism and MANY examples of fascism.

[bu villain]

Every politician in the country uses exaggeration and some, like the president simply lie when the truth isnt what they want the idiot voters to know.

Saying both sides do it is not a valid defense in my book. Obama has done some fucked up shit in my book but I won't excuse him because Bush did some similar dirt.


Do you even know what socialism is?
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)

Please point out the portion of the definition that includes govt services. When you cant, you can sit here and admit that fire and police are not socialist.

The first definition - "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". The government/people collectively own the police and fire departments, administer them, and they distributes those services to the people.

My real question to you here is... Is every conceivable socialist program inherently bad?


Obamacare has a few instances of socialism and MANY examples of fascism.

I already agreed Obama has some socialistic elements. Do you say Obamacare is a socialist program? If so, how would you describe a single payer system that would differentiate it from Obamacare?

[BanginJimmy]

The first definition - "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". The government/people collectively own the police and fire departments, administer them, and they distributes those services to the people.

If this is the definition you want to use then so be it. I guess you think fires and crime are the production they control.




My real question to you here is... Is every conceivable socialist program inherently bad?



Bad in intentions or bad as in poorly run and managed.

I cant think of a single socialist society that isnt poorly run.


I already agreed Obama has some socialistic elements. Do you say Obamacare is a socialist program? If so, how would you describe a single payer system that would differentiate it from Obamacare?

If I had to pick I would say fascist.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bu villain]

If this is the definition you want to use then so be it. I guess you think fires and crime are the production they control.

No it is the service of law enforcement and fire control/rescue they control. If you want to argue that providing essential services is meaningfully different than production of a physical product that's up to you but we are getting further from the central argument which is still:

The government collects revenue unequally from the citizens and redistributes that money unequally in various ways (e.g., tax cuts, government services, social programs etc). That alone is not enough to label the people who advocate such initiatives as socialists. Both sides of the isle support redistribution, only in different configurations and yet neither side are socialist as they both largely advocate private markets.


Bad in intentions or bad as in poorly run and managed.

I cant think of a single socialist society that isnt poorly run.

I'm not advocating a completely socialist society, far from it. As I said before, there are more than two choices. I feel our democracy is poorly run (despite it being run better than most) but that doesn't mean there is no merit in democracy and capitalism. Instead of looking at it in a such a black and white way, I want to take the best ideas from many different ideologies.



If I had to pick I would say fascist.

Then you have a completely exagerated view of what is fascist. Most first-world countries have some sort of single payer system. To label that as fascist is farcicle. Unless you are arguing the representative governments of all these countries are shams, the laws they pass, by definition, can't be fascist as the primary feature of facism is that it is dictatorial not representative.

[WhiteAccord]

9-9-9 Tax is fair and for the government spending less than what they consume is fair.

End Thread

[BanginJimmy]

Most first-world countries have some sort of single payer system. To label that as fascist is farcicle.

Single payer is the perfect definition of socialist.




Unless you are arguing the representative governments of all these countries are shams, the laws they pass, by definition, can't be fascist as the primary feature of facism is that it is dictatorial not representative.

I guess I wasnt clear. Obamacare is a rooted in fascism. Privately owned companies with complete govt control.

I did make it clear that I only though Obama was fascist on his economic issues.

[bu villain]

Single payer is the perfect definition of socialist.

I agree but that's not what you said before. You said Obamacare was socialist and single payer was fascist.


I guess I wasnt clear. Obamacare is a rooted in fascism. Privately owned companies with complete govt control.

I did make it clear that I only though Obama was fascist on his economic issues.

Still not facism. Government control is not fascist when the government is elected by the people.

[BanginJimmy]

I agree but that's not what you said before. You said Obamacare was socialist and single payer was fascist.

If I did, I was backwards. Obamacare is fascist, single payer is socialist.




Still not facism. Government control is not fascist when the government is elected by the people.

And again. Obama's economic philosophy is rooted in fascism. I understand that we are not a fascist country.

Obama is stretching a bit towards supreme power though.

First is was the Black Panthers and simply ignoring voter suppression and intimidation.
Then it was sidestepping bankruptcy law for the UAW.
Then is was ordering the justice dept to ignore federal immigration laws, in effect, offering amnesty without congressional approval
Then it was sidestepping Congress in welfare work requirements.
Now Obama is offering to pay legal bills and judgements to defense contractors if they agree to violate the WARN Act.

[bu villain]

Obama is stretching a bit towards supreme power though.

First is was the Black Panthers and simply ignoring voter suppression and intimidation.
Then it was sidestepping bankruptcy law for the UAW.
Then is was ordering the justice dept to ignore federal immigration laws, in effect, offering amnesty without congressional approval
Then it was sidestepping Congress in welfare work requirements.
Now Obama is offering to pay legal bills and judgements to defense contractors if they agree to violate the WARN Act.

You forgot the worst one of all in my opinion: The ordered killing of American citizens without trial. This is one of the main reasons I will probably vote for Johnson. I still do not believe facism is the proper word to describe our ongoing expansion of executive power as it will roll back as soon as we stop voting for people who want to expand it.

[BanginJimmy]

You forgot the worst one of all in my opinion: The ordered killing of American citizens without trial. This is one of the main reasons I will probably vote for Johnson. I still do not believe facism is the proper word to describe our ongoing expansion of executive power as it will roll back as soon as we stop voting for people who want to expand it.

I dont care if it is an American citizen if they are outside of the US.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[David88vert]

I dont care if it is an American citizen if they are outside of the US.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

You should care. American citizens have rights which still must be recognized by our government anywhere in the world.

[BanginJimmy]

You should care. American citizens have rights which still must be recognized by our government anywhere in the world.

I understand completely. Maybe a better way to handle this would be a hearing before a federal judge to legally declare him a n enemy combatant. I just don't agree with full Constitutional protections for a combatant operating overseas.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2