DescentBB

This topic is sort of a continuation of a topic deviation in the closed F%^#ing stop enabling them please!! topic. In that thread I brought up the possibility of a Ron Paul presidency...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

snoopy wrote:

null0010 wrote:Vote for a third party and you might as well not vote at all, unfortunately.

That's a self-perpetuating thing, though. I made the mistake last presidential election of voting for one of the big two, out of a dislike for one, not because I really did like either one.

Next time, I'm not voting for a candidate that I don't like. Maybe it's throwing out my vote, but my hope is that voting third party will begat itself.... the more people like me that "throw out our votes" this time, the less of a throw away it will hopefully become as it gains traction.

I think you're right on. Good topic, Will. It's become even more abundantly clear to me that the changes/solutions promised by the big two are not anywhere near enough, and I think you're right that it's in our interest not to support them. Ron Paul is looking better and better. Even it a Ron Paul presidency wreaked seeming havoc on our foreign policy it would still put more power into the hands of the American people. I think we'd be deliriously happy with such a trade-off.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Ron Paul is looking better and better. Even it a Ron Paul presidency wreaked seeming havoc on our foreign policy it would still put more power into the hands of the American people. I think we'd be deliriously happy with such a trade-off.

so, a nation with no central spending on research or infrastructure, nor outlays for any sort of social safety net for anyone, nor any regulation on any business or commercial practice is your little slice of nirvana?Thanks, but I'll pass. Heck, I'll not only pass, but spend a ton of money if I thought that loon had a prayer of winning a national election,to fight the candidacy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Ron Paul is looking better and better. Even it a Ron Paul presidency wreaked seeming havoc on our foreign policy it would still put more power into the hands of the American people. I think we'd be deliriously happy with such a trade-off.

so, a nation with no central spending on research or infrastructure, nor outlays for any sort of social safety net for anyone, nor any regulation on any business or commercial practice is your little slice of nirvana?Thanks, but I'll pass. Heck, I'll not only pass, but spend a ton of money if I thought that loon had a prayer of winning a national election,to fight the candidacy.

Callmeslick, I don't know where you get "any regulation on any business or commercial practice". I do know that he has been opposed to tariffs, and I don't think I agree with that.

I tend to think we could do without "central spending on research". I believe that business could fund research much more effectively, and what business misses universities and other learning centers may pursue.

Infrastructure is what taxes are for. I don't know where you get that either.

TopGun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I tend to think we could do without "central spending on research". I believe that business could fund research much more effectively, and what business misses universities and other learning centers may pursue.

Infrastructure is what taxes are for. I don't know where you get that either.

And where do you think that universities get most of the money they need to pursue all the research that they conduct? If you guessed "the federal government," you're right.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: I tend to think we could do without "central spending on research". I believe that business could fund research much more effectively, and what business misses universities and other learning centers may pursue.

Infrastructure is what taxes are for. I don't know where you get that either.

you might wish to read and listen to Ron Paul far more carefully. Essentially, he feels that government is not obligated or entitled to do much at all beyond defense, basic control of interstate commerce and criminal justice system. Most everything else, he eschews, at least as I've read him to date. It would be a recipe for the dissolution of the nation that would send us to third-world status in a generation or two.
On the matter of research, those of us in the biological sciences can tell you what has resulted, post-Reagan, to basic research in an era where most of the money comes from business. It isn't good, at all.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you might wish to read and listen to Ron Paul far more carefully.

That's irritating.

callmeslick wrote:Essentially, he feels that government is not obligated or entitled to do much at all beyond defense, basic control of interstate commerce and criminal justice system. Most everything else, he eschews, at least as I've read him to date.

Yeah, I think I agree with that. Don't forget securing the border and foreign treaties.

callmeslick wrote:It would be a recipe for the dissolution of the nation that would send us to third-world status in a generation or two.

I absolutely disagree. Third-world status? How do you figure? And at what point did the federal government exceeding its constitutional mandate kick us to the top, if that's what is responsible?

callmeslick wrote:On the matter of research, those of us in the biological sciences can tell you what has resulted, post-Reagan, to basic research in an era where most of the money comes from business. It isn't good, at all.

"I'm fuzzy on the whole good-bad thing" -Bill Murray, Ghostbusters. Maybe there is a case to be made there. What gets passed over when business is the source of funding, then? Help me out, if you have anything specific in mind.

callmeslick wrote:reply to Sgt Thorne:

two points of yours, or questions:
1. Why do I feel that Paul's approach heads the US to third world status? Because, he would move our government back to the state that worked fine in an agrarian, pre-industrial world. We now live in a highly global economy, industrialized and urbanized. That whole Ayn Rand type approach is the ticket to a nation run by and for a handful of wealthy individuals(essentially an oligarchy) in our modern world. What you will end up with is a US that has roughly 1 million very comfortable families with the rest of the folks in utter subjugation. Sort of like how things work in such paradises as Zaire or Russia. Maybe third world may be extreme, but not the sort of 'world' most of the citizenry would find pleasant.

2. The effect of business footing the bill for Biological research? I'm going to have to condense this a bit,
but will give a gist which you can pursue in your own time and see what I'm talking about. When government was the main driver, much more basic research went on. That is to say, looking a fundamental processes and relationships. These are key to later looking a more specific aspects that get practical applications that are completely unforseen in the basic research stages. Now, you see far more emphasis on applied research, targetting potentially profitable avenues, and completely ignoring aspects which show no short term prospect of commerical value. Thus, the body of knowledge doesn't move forward at the overall rate it should, limiting, down the road, a host of unknowable good outcomes or even progress of any sort in certain fields of study. The net of all this is not good for the long term development of the field of biology or other sciences.

callmeslick wrote:1. Why do I feel that Paul's approach heads the US to third world status? Because, he would move our government back to the state that worked fine in an agrarian, pre-industrial world. We now live in a highly global economy, industrialized and urbanized. That whole Ayn Rand type approach is the ticket to a nation run by and for a handful of wealthy individuals(essentially an oligarchy) in our modern world. What you will end up with is a US that has roughly 1 million very comfortable families with the rest of the folks in utter subjugation. Sort of like how things work in such paradises as Zaire or Russia. Maybe third world may be extreme, but not the sort of 'world' most of the citizenry would find pleasant.

I'm not really familiar with Ayn Rand , but I looked over the Wikipedia article about her (what an awful name-change--she had a beautiful name). I don't see any reason, right off-hand, to draw a link between her and Ron Paul. Is there a link there, or is that an assumption on your part?

You seem to be saying that a Ron Paul presidency would consolidate wealth and power in the hands of the super-wealthy. This seems to me to be a total contradiction of everything he stands for, and in my opinion it doesn't even make sense as an unintended result of any of his proposed policies. Please elaborate.

callmeslick wrote:2. The effect of business footing the bill for Biological research? I'm going to have to condense this a bit,
but will give a gist which you can pursue in your own time and see what I'm talking about. When government was the main driver, much more basic research went on. That is to say, looking a fundamental processes and relationships. These are key to later looking a more specific aspects that get practical applications that are completely unforseen in the basic research stages. Now, you see far more emphasis on applied research, targetting potentially profitable avenues, and completely ignoring aspects which show no short term prospect of commerical value. Thus, the body of knowledge doesn't move forward at the overall rate it should, limiting, down the road, a host of unknowable good outcomes or even progress of any sort in certain fields of study. The net of all this is not good for the long term development of the field of biology or other sciences.

So it follows then that we the people must be taxed for the furthering of science. Tell me, when did the goals of science supplant the protection of individual liberty and property as our government's/country's primary concern? I'm not going to down-play the importance of scientific discovery and understanding, which is huge, in my mind, but it cannot determine our political landscape in the face of more fundamental concerns. Science is to serve us, not the other way around.

By the way I see your point up there, and I would have to agree on the negative aspects of expecting business to further science. What's wrong with, say, contribution-driven research? I would ask that folks who feel the way you do be a little more creative--give the subject a little more thought instead of being found to use scientific concerns as a crutch for an existing political system that is so wrong in so many ways.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm not really familiar with Ayn Rand , but I looked over the Wikipedia article about her (what an awful name-change--she had a beautiful name). I don't see any reason, right off-hand, to draw a link between her and Ron Paul. Is there a link there, or is that an assumption on your part?

most of the Tea Party philosophy is directly drawn from her writings(by their own claims). Rep. Paul Ryan, for instance, makes "Atlas Shrugged" required reading for staff members.

You seem to be saying that a Ron Paul presidency would consolidate wealth and power in the hands of the super-wealthy. This seems to me to be a total contradiction of everything he stands for, and in my opinion it doesn't even make sense as an unintended result of any of his proposed policies. Please elaborate.

fair enough question. In my opinion, Paul's approach would choke off economic mobility for the vast majority of Americans living in a post-industrial society, as his thinking reflects strict adherence to a model of government that was derived for 1790 or thereabouts. The founders were clearly bright enough to know that change(unknowable in detail) would occur, and thus designed a very malleable plan forward. They even proved they supported fundamental change by making one of the initial acts, post ratification, the passing of ten Amendments. Paul wishes to stay with such a limited concept of government that it would essentially lead to a massive percentage of Americans unable to access sufficient credit, access to education or healthcare. Ultimately, it would force them on a downward economic spiral, which would consolidate both wealth and power in a limited few(well, that's sort of the status quo, but it would make moving between classes near-impossible).

So it follows then that we the people must be taxed for the furthering of science. Tell me, when did the goals of science supplant the protection of individual liberty and property as our government's/country's primary concern? I'm not going to down-play the importance of scientific discovery and understanding, which is huge, in my mind, but it cannot determine our political landscape in the face of more fundamental concerns. Science is to serve us, not the other way around.

science IS to serve us, and in promoting sound and advanced science, all of US benefit. That is government's role, to make the society better for as many of US as possible. I love how folks always break it down to people being taxed. How, exactly, should a government be funded?

In a way, what you, and others here touch on is (to my feeble mind) the core debate that the nation as a whole has danced around. Sometime, and it better be soon, we have to have a national discussion around a few core items:
1. What role do the people wish government to play by way of a social safety net?
2. What other items do the people deem necessary that would most efficiently fall to government
(Defense and commerce jump to mind as obvious, but there are many others)?
3. Do we wish to maintain of broad-reaching foreign policy, a strict isolationist policy or one between
those extremes?

when the above 3 are settled, to the satisfaction of the majority, the question becomes, how to fund those things fairly and equitably. Sounds pretty straightforward, but as a nation, we've been ducking this for decades. The vast majority seem to be highly supportive of Social Security, Medicare, aid to the poor of a basic nature, education and research funding, vigorous(massive?) Defense, and a host of environmental and other protective regulatory programs. Yet, they do not wish to pay for them, or even consider a rational plan to do so. It is pure avoidance of responsibility on a society-wide basis.

The problem with public funding of basic research, and their derivatives, as I see it…

1. The direct payment of thousands of “lab coats” salaries.
2. Society only benefits as consumers of any products developed.
3. Large corporations make the bulk of any monetary gain.
4. The taxpayer gets little or no benefit.

Spidey wrote:The problem with public funding of basic research, and their derivatives, as I see it…

1. The direct payment of thousands of “lab coats” salaries.

doesn't work that way, or didn't when I was in graduate school, in the late '70's. Funding went to research centers which paid for salaries, equipment and other costs.

2. Society only benefits as consumers of any products developed.

society benefits in far more ways than that. The simple advancement of knowledge is a reward to the society, and can build for future developments far from forseeable at the present.

3. Large corporations make the bulk of any monetary gain.

actually, back in the day, they were forced to share royalties and such with the institutions which did any practical innovation. Of course, basic research yields no actual products or other marketble commodities, but, as I said above, advancement of knowledge holds value for a society.

4. The taxpayer gets little or no benefit.

society benefits, the taxpayers ARE the society. Why do you all keep separating 'the taxpayer' from everyone, as damn near everyone in our nation pays some taxes(either directly or indirectly)?

Your first rebuke is really splitting hairs, would it have mattered if I had said indirectly.

Your second rebuke is mostly subjective.

Your third rebuke is why I said “and their derivatives” in my post.

Your final rebuke is just flat out wrong.

callmeslick wrote:society benefits, the taxpayers ARE the society. Why do you all keep separating 'the taxpayer' from everyone, as damn near everyone in our nation pays some taxes(either directly or indirectly)?

There's a difference between building roads and paying out social security that I will never recieve, medicare I will never recieve, SSI that I will never recieve, welfare, etc.

There was a news article on Yahoo! a while back that showed how your taxes are spent by percentage, and I was appalled.

The day they do manditory drug testing for SSI and Welfare beneficiaries I will become a much happier man.

SilverFJ wrote:

callmeslick wrote:society benefits, the taxpayers ARE the society. Why do you all keep separating 'the taxpayer' from everyone, as damn near everyone in our nation pays some taxes(either directly or indirectly)?

There's a difference between building roads and paying out social security that I will never recieve, medicare I will never recieve, SSI that I will never recieve, welfare, etc.

There was a news article on Yahoo! a while back that showed how your taxes are spent by percentage, and I was appalled.

The day they do manditory drug testing for SSI and Welfare beneficiaries I will become a much happier man.

You do know that there is no more welfare per say anymore, thanks to Clinton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_R ... iation_Act

And before Clinton, we had Reagan.

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/135/reagan.html

Also, if the Republicans succeed in destroying SSI and Medicare (both anathemas to their very ideology of Objectivisim and Capitalism), you won't benefit from it. If, however, the lawmakers in Washington set their sights on fixing the system instead of trashing it, you just might have a better chance if getting your benefits in the future. But those wily Republicans keep using the repressed envy tactic to get people to destroy something that's for their own benefit by saying the deadbeats are ruining the system. The Social Security Trust Fund is not supposed to run out until 2037, and that's if our esteemed lawmakers don't make an effort to reform the system or quit stealing from it for other programs.

Spidey wrote:Your final rebuke is just flat out wrong.

really? How so?

I separated the taxpayer in this example, because they are a smaller group within the larger one. (federal income tax, as that is the source of federal research grants)

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Your final rebuke is just flat out wrong.

really? How so?

They may pay some sort of tax but nearly half of US households don't pay any federal taxes. "NOTICE I SAY SOME SORT OF TAX" I didn't say, that they don't pay any taxes.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax ... axes_N.htm

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/17/super ... lnk3|56683

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm not really familiar with Ayn Rand , but I looked over the Wikipedia article about her (what an awful name-change--she had a beautiful name). I don't see any reason, right off-hand, to draw a link between her and Ron Paul. Is there a link there, or is that an assumption on your part?

most of the Tea Party philosophy is directly drawn from her writings(by their own claims). Rep. Paul Ryan, for instance, makes "Atlas Shrugged" required reading for staff members. ..

Why is it so important for you to point out that Muslims as a whole do not necessarily reflect the teachings of their prophet and Koran and it is important for us to understand that there are different degrees of adherence to those teachings at work within the body of Islam so we shouldn't assign the full weight, if any at all in some cases, to the Muslim population. Yet...
If the Tea Party draws some philosophy from a book they must all be considered followers of that books everyword?

Just pointing out your selective application of logic apparently biased to suit your politics.

Spidey wrote:I separated the taxpayer in this example, because they are a smaller group within the larger one. (federal income tax, as that is the source of federal research grants)

EVERYONE pays taxes, whether footing a corporate tax bill by purchases, Federal Income tax or various fees, they are all part of the revenue stream.

Will Robinson wrote:Yet...
If the Tea Party draws some philosophy from a book they must all be considered followers of that books everyword?

huh? Every word? Where did I write that? Tea party advocates frequently cite Ayn Rand as a guiding light, which is all I implied.

Just pointing out your selective application of logic apparently biased to suit your politics.

actually, you are just pointing out, for the umpteenth time, that you cannot read English and feed it back without some sort of made up BS for the mere sake of making some political point. Or, as the Ramones used to sing, "Ignorance is Bliss".

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yet...
If the Tea Party draws some philosophy from a book they must all be considered followers of that books everyword?

huh? Every word? Where did I write that? Tea party advocates frequently cite Ayn Rand as a guiding light, which is all I implied.

I suspect 95% of people who attend tea party rallies and go to the town hall meetings don't even know who Ayn Rand is.

It is a fact that people who receive income from tax generated revenue can pay no taxes, this can be easily demonstrated.

The fact is, true taxation can only occur when a portion is taken out of wealth created in the private sector, all else is a book keeping gimmick.

woodchip wrote:I suspect 95% of people who attend tea party rallies and go to the town hall meetings don't even know who Ayn Rand is.

Really?

Of about 10 people I know off the top of my head who identify themselves as Tea Partiers, I know for a fact that at least 6 of them are familiar with Ayn Rand. Hell, one of them referenced Rand in a Facebook post yesterday.

-------

Sure, some Tea Party folk just see the movement in terms of fighting overexpenditure, but Rand's worldview is very foundational to that perspective.

Ideas like "small government, small taxes" / "everyone striving for themselves helps us all" come directly from Rand's writings.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Yet...
If the Tea Party draws some philosophy from a book they must all be considered followers of that books everyword?

huh? Every word? Where did I write that? Tea party advocates frequently cite Ayn Rand as a guiding light, which is all I implied.

I suspect 95% of people who attend tea party rallies and go to the town hall meetings don't even know who Ayn Rand is.

Exactly, but slick wants people to believe they are all just mindless drones doing the bidding of some conservative master in the shadows. It is really stupid to think any operative is able to control the groundswell that is the Tea Party, if that power existed Obama would never have been elected, we would be at the mercy of slicks imaginary puppet master and the republicans wouldn't be dealing with all the internal fighting they have going on right now. It is a lame attempt to put the Tea Party phenomenon into a neat little bogeyman box so the idiot leftwingers can identify it as an enemy and rally against it. either that or slick actually believes the crap he's spewing.

Spidey wrote:It is a fact that people who receive income from tax generated revenue can pay no taxes, this can be easily demonstrated.

The fact is, true taxation can only occur when a portion is taken out of wealth created in the private sector, all else is a book keeping gimmick.

really? So, when a poor person or a man on unemployment has to pay sales tax, that doesn't count? When a person buys a product which is priced upward to cover the maker's taxes, that doesn't count. Odd definition of taxation there. Even by your definition, US taxes at the Federal level are ridiculously low.

as to the tea party thing, I think I'm going to start a new thread, and let you have at my views in that.....

Ok, I should have made myself clearer, I’m speaking mostly in regards to income taxes.

Yes, sales taxes are paid by just about everyone, but I was trying to limit the discussion to the revenue that provides for research grants.

……………………

If you are trying to say everyone has the right to benefit from tax revenue, whatever the source…then I would agree. But if you going to tell me that everyone contributes to the tax base at the federal level…then we disagree.

Spidey wrote:Ok, I should have made myself clearer, I’m speaking mostly in regards to income taxes.

Yes, sales taxes are paid by just about everyone, but I was trying to limit the discussion to the revenue that provides for research grants.

and, my point is that income taxes are but one of many revenue sources the government has.

If you are trying to say everyone has the right to benefit from tax revenue, whatever the source…then I would agree. But if you going to tell me that everyone contributes to the tax base at the federal level…then we disagree.

the latter is exactly what I am saying, since when the poorest among us buys anything, or pays a federal usage tax(gas tax,etc), they are contributing at the federal level. Indirectly, through corporate tax built into price, or directly through the collected fees. We are ALL taxpayers, to widely varying degrees.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:It is a fact that people who receive income from tax generated revenue can pay no taxes, this can be easily demonstrated.

The fact is, true taxation can only occur when a portion is taken out of wealth created in the private sector, all else is a book keeping gimmick.

really? So, when a poor person or a man on unemployment has to pay sales tax, that doesn't count? When a person buys a product which is priced upward to cover the maker's taxes, that doesn't count. Odd definition of taxation there. Even by your definition, US taxes at the Federal level are ridiculously low.

Just an aside here:
The Fair Tax is like a sales tax to replace income tax that has a unique component that provides every taxpayer a check called a prebate every month to reimburse them for the taxes they will pay on basic necessities. So when the FairTax eliminates income tax the politicians have no tax code to use to create loopholes to trade for votes. If they want to change the level of the prebate it will be the same for every taxpayer.
So there are some ways to make a simple tax system fair to the poor and at the same time put a tax on more of the money the wealthy recieve and on all the black market transactions, drug deals etc that currently go untaxed.

trying to get the congress to vote to enact what is basically a confiscation of one of their favorite weapons is a hell of a fight though.

What is wrong with a flat income tax with a $30,000 or so waiver? In other words, tax all income(cap gains, employment, interest, everything) over the waiver limit at one flat rate? That gives the poor a break, makes most people pay something, eliminates the loophole pandering, and doesn't create the paperwork inherent in a sales tax.

If you are saying “Waiver” as analogous to the standard deduction, then I would have to agree with you.

I have been saying for years (and hinted towards it in my post you regarded as rhetoric) that a 25,000 or more standard deduction is exactly what the income tax code needs to be moral.

agree flat tax. NO WAIVER. you live here you help support things. EVERYONE can afford something.

So then it’s fair if someone pays money in taxes that provides…say a college education for somebody else’s child, at the same time preventing that person from sending their child to college?

callmeslick wrote:What is wrong with a flat income tax with a $30,000 or so waiver? In other words, tax all income(cap gains, employment, interest, everything) over the waiver limit at one flat rate? That gives the poor a break, makes most people pay something, eliminates the loophole pandering, and doesn't create the paperwork inherent in a sales tax.

Well in theory, and in a static scenario it is fine assuming that number is the right breaking point. But obviously it isn't static so it would have to be adjusted and that keeps the power in the fed via the IRS to make adjustments and, fr example, if the IRS still exists the politicians can hand out exemptions for votes. $30,000 becomes $50,000 less $20,000 in exemptions if you qualify etc
Or like they do with Social Security tax, the first $75,000 (not sure exactly what the real number is right now) is taxed then everything you make above that isn't. That is quite ridiculous since the poor guy earning $25,000 has ALL his income hit with that tax but the guy earning $750,000 only has 10% of his income subject to it!

The sad truth is if the 16h amendment isn't repealed then the whole insidious process will stay in play. Your $30,000 threshhold will be but one of the hundreds of thousands of pages in the congressional book of bribes and dirty tricks known as the TaxCode.

The bill to implement the Fair Tax has the repeal of the 16th amendment as it's trigger...you can't pass the fair tax without the repeal or else you just give the bastards another tax to add to the ones they have and that is why a flat tax without the repeal of the 16th is a bad idea.
The prebate is necessary to protect the lower income citizen from the tax burden and it makes it easier to sell to the voters since they get to see how much they would get monthly from the government. None of this 'you have to pass it to see what's in it' crap! They will know exactly how much they get.
It is fair since everyone gets the same amount. The rich will spend well above the basic necessity level and everything they buy will have a tax built in to it. The poor will spend at or below the basic level and pay nothing unless they increase their income or find money...

The only number congress can change will be the amount of the prebate so they can't give anything to the rich they don't also give to the poor.
Check it out, the economic studies and models of how it will affect us all are very promising. the immediate impact on the economy is very good too. investment into america will be great again.
You won't find very many politicians on either side who want to back it and many of them are spinning all sorts of lies about it which should tell you something about how much of a threat it is to their incredible power to create and thrive off of corruption.

This “prebate” you are talking about seems to serve the same purpose as the standard deduction…what’s the point?

Actually sounds more dubious, if it’s something that has to be “paid out”, rather than a deduction.

I can’t agree with any “prebate” with regards to a sales tax, I would prefer if certain things were left untaxed instead, those being…food…clothes etc.

Both systems could have the same results…that being fair, and proving for ones own needs before providing for someone else’s.

Spidey wrote:This “prebate” you are talking about seems to serve the same purpose as the standard deduction…what’s the point? ..

The point is a "standard deduction" is one of many deductions that are arbitrarily established by the politicians who sell them in exchange for votes, contributions, etc. By calling that one standard you must have had to distinguish it from the non-standard ones...
As long as there is an IRS and a tax code things can be put in and taken out in the name of all sorts of causes and all sorts of definitions of "fairness".
So if you wipe out the 16th amendment with the passage of H.R.25 you need to reestablish the mechanism by which the government doesn't place a tax burden on providing yourself and your family with the basic necessities of life. You can't just make all food nontaxable (or other items), at least not for the purpose of creating a level of tax burden that starts above the basic expenses a person or family pays out but doesn't create a new problem at the same time because, for example, if ALL food is nontaxable you could make food your 'barter coin', buy lots of it and trade tax free well above the basic necessity level for other items that you then don't pay tax on either because you didn't 'buy it' where the guy who doesn't look to abuse the system has everything he spends above that level taxed.

A prebate works really well if you just think it through any scenario you can imagine it seems to hold up. No matter what congress does to the prebate level they cause it to happen to EVERYONE equally. So you can't use taxes to do favors. the prebate and the poverty level it is relative to are the only numbers congress gets to play with.
By eliminating the IRS you cut out all the corporate welfare etc. Every time a CEO throws a party for his friends every piece of cheese, every slice of pie, every bottle of champagne etc. etc. sucks a little tax out of him and there is no business expense to write it off under. The company can't buy him a car without the tax being paid on it so you don't have to trust or investigate him to see if he claimed the use of the car as personal income.

It's not just some weird idea like the kind of stuff I toss out here from time to time. It is a really well thought out plan. Read up on it, check out the calculators and papers on their web site. Read the FAQ, so many of the questions you will come up with will be answered there and so many of the lies that many in congress are trying to spread are shot down in flames by the actual details of the plan you can find there.
The only thing I can think of is one that others have brought up which is, capital gains, whether to tax them or not. The benefit for not taxing them is pretty great since every dollar invested in the U.S. suddenly comes with a major incentive over investing in any other countries markets since the profits made here are tax free.
On the other hand, many of those IRS agents that lose their jobs will find work fast as we have to monitor closely how people try to transfer compensation through something that qualifies as a capital gain. No system is perfect but it isn't like we don't already have to watch that anyway.
The logistics to implement a sales tax type of operation is already in place so that is no burden.

Before you dismiss it you need to look seriously at the web site and find out some things for yourself, I'm no expert, I've forgotten more than I remember since I started with the same skepticism you have now years ago and have since eliminated my doubts with studying it so I won't do a great job of explaining it compared to the Fair Tax web site

And who is going to collect this tax…Business?

Yea, I thought so…

I looked at the web site the last time or two you posted it, sounds like a great idea on the surface, but has some serious problems below that.

Take here in Philly….more retail stores than you can shake a stick at collect no local sales tax…why…because the government taxes their gross recipts, and makes it damn near impossible to exist otherwise. So they operate underground.

So you need to fix a massive amount of things, before any national sales tax can work.

Starting with amending the constitution…lol good luck with that one, with our luck, we would end up with both taxes.

Spidey wrote:And who is going to collect this tax…Business?

Yea, I thought so…

I looked at the web site the last time or two you posted it, sounds like a great idea on the surface, but has some serious problems below that.

Take here in Philly….more retail stores than you can shake a stick at collect no local sales tax…why…because the government taxes their gross recipts, and makes it damn near impossible to exist otherwise. So they operate underground.

So you need to fix a massive amount of things, before any national sales tax can work.

Starting with amending the constitution…lol good luck with that one, with our luck, we would end up with both taxes.

The Fair Tax can not be put into effect without the simultaneous repeal of the 16th amendment, that is part of the bill, so you can't wind up with both taxes. None of the other plans provide that important reform. that is a huge difference to note.

As far as shops in Philly operating underground. The FairTax didn't create those law breakers (or freedom fighters depending on your perspective), they already exist under the current IRS system so you can't point at that as something we must avoid by not implementing the FairTax!
Second, it sounds like you have an 'oppressive-political-class-using-taxes-to-extort-from-businesses' problem...you said Philly...hehe surprise surprise. That is a local problem, the fair tax eliminates the federal governments ability to do that but the FairTax can't fix Philly's local corruption problem. It won't do the whole middle east thing and it won't do 'Philly'.

However Philly could be helped by more jobs, keeping the whole gross amount on their paychecks instead of just the net amount with (approximately) an additional $4000 per person in hand ....that might cool a few people down a touch and the FairTax does do all those things and a few more that will help, even Philly.

Yea, I understand…

You and I always seem to end up in the same place with these discussions…that being, you trying to convince me of something that will never happen.

I hope someday we do have some kind of “fair tax” no matter what form it takes…but I doubt it.

I've been pretty skeptical of the FairTax, but it's starting to win me over.

One of the primary concerns I had is that it would be a less progressive tax (statistical measure of tax rate increase corresponding to taxability), but it turns out that's not the case.

I still think the proponents are a bit too pie-in-the-sky about it sometimes, but I'm starting to appreciate the simplicity of the idea. 'Course, good luck getting it passed.