What is Fair? (Taxes)

[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.

[.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

"I believe in redistribution"
Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube


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

"I believe in redistribution"
Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution" - YouTube

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.

[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.

[.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?

[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.

[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.

[WhiteAccord]

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

End Thread

[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