For my Libertarian friends

JJLehto wrote: And as I said, the wealthy can afford to be frugal and in this case they would be more frugal. I guess I would not be opposed to a consumption tax as long as it's fair. Lower earners should be exempt from certain purchases. The actual sales tax should be progressive on the item being bought. Estate and luxury tax remains. And corporations should still have to pay taxes. Also, there would be NO Social Security or welfare under this plan. There'd be no money for it, unless you put payroll taxes back. And all this would defeat the idea

But the wealthy aren't frugal.  They spend a crap load.  Who cares if they save half their income if they spend millions each year on lolcat posters?

I'm opposed to Social security anyway- I say phase that sh*t out over a period of decades. Let people save for themselves.

Here's a better idea: Let Ramen noodles and Spam be exempt.  Then if you're flat broke, you can still eat without paying taxes. 

StyLaZyn wrote: Flat tax...same rate for all, no tax exceptions for anyone, especially the wealthy who know the loopholes and how to end up paying LESS tax than the middle class.

A flat tax would be better than and less problematic than a consumption tax....but still wrong.

Again, it is regressive by nature.
It impacts lower earners hardest, the middle class would pay the bulk of taxes, and the wealthy would, in effect, be getting HUGE breaks.

What would the flat tax be? 15%
If that was the case, let's say you make $375,000 right now. Under that flat tax, that'd be a 20% cut.
Let's say the flat tax was 25%, then that would REALLY kill lower earners, especially if there are NO exceptions, (which there could not be because as you said people would loophole out of it)

They would have more income. But 23 cents of every dollar would be spent on what they buy.
So OK, lower earners might be alright, and could be exempt. But a 23% sales tax (and I just use that number since it was the one proposed) is pretty f*cking high, so middle class families may have more money overall but so much would be spent on consumption. I imagine overall they'd have less money.

And as I said, the wealthy can afford to be frugal and in this case they would be more frugal.

I guess I would not be opposed to a consumption tax as long as it's fair.
Lower earners should be exempt from certain purchases.
The actual sales tax should be progressive on the item being bought. Estate and luxury tax remains.
And corporations should still have to pay taxes.
Also, there would be NO Social Security or welfare under this plan. There'd be no money for it, unless you put payroll taxes back. And all this would defeat the idea

Sadly enough our tomatoes aren't producing very well this year.  I could spare some cayenne peppers to throw at you though.  The cayenne plant is being very fruitful.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2009 at 15:50

Well, the whole thing is that if you try to replace the income tax, there are all kinds of hurdles with implementation.  And I don't believe for one minute that those who have rigged the current system for their benefit won't find a way to do it again.

By the way, I wouldn't complain too much at being tossed tomatoes if they're tasty home grown ones.



And, oh yeah, there definitely has to be a tax exemption on prog, whenever we can agree on just what that is.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2009 at 15:47

Hey man you never know. There are people, and not just a few that really DO want to nix the income tax and replace it with all sales tax.
Especially being the libertarian you are, how could I know you were kinda joking

Although if any DOES condone a consumption tax, at least my argument still stands


Edited by JJLehto - July 15 2009 at 15:27

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.   I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.    By the way, I disagree. I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then!

AHHHHH....I take it you mean the "fair tax" or removing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax?
Here is my problem with that:
It would be a regressive tax. Those at lower incomes, (and not just the poor) the working class, lower middle, even middle class in some areas spend all, if not most of their income. They have to. Between what you MUST buy the few things you would want, usually all of their income is spent.
Like wise as income goes up, spending goes DOWN. Yes, obviously they buy things but they save a lot more of their income.
If you want proof, my old roommate came from a very affluent family, (he said his WHOLE family is worth about $1 million) but he lived SO frugally. Seriously, his place looked like a slob lived there.
Side note: His family also kept most of their money in offshore accounts, and of course gets tax breaks from Bush

But anyway. As income goes up you spend less, and save more...because you can. SO, a consumption tax unfairly impacts lower earners. They would be paying the bulk of the tax and almost all of their income would be going to taxes...
Also, the sales tax would have to be high. The number in the "Fair Tax Act" puts it at 23%. That could really impact their ability to purchase. I know I would spend alot less if I had to pay a 23% sales tax!

How is shifting the tax burden to the middle class good? And call me socialist all you want, but a progressive income is the right thing to do. Why do you think the income tax has ALWAYS been progressive, and from the 30's to 81 it was WAY more progressive than it is now.

If a consumption tax like that was imposed I am going to Canada. See ya later eh!?

Only way I would support a consumption tax is if it is....surprise: a progressive sales tax.
Lower earners would HAVE to receive some money back.
Not to mention there would still have to be an estate and luxury tax. Also there would still have to be corporate taxes.


Edited by JJLehto - July 15 2009 at 15:20

My basic issue with Libertarianism as a concept is that it sort of assumes that maximum freedom is created by a lack of or 'minimal' presence of government restraints, while in fact you are born under the yoke of natural restraints which good government can effectively remove. Hence, having more government does not make you less free, it can, in fact, guarantee your freedom.

Hence, removing the freedom to murder allows a right not to be murdered to be effectively enjoyed. Pooling resources via tax to create roads and the general right to travel by car (and by foot safely) is a form of government subtracting 'economic freedom' per se (in the sense of not giving them absolute independence with regard to the use of their money), but at the same time allowing a vastly expanded general freedom to travel efficiently and in relative safety and indeed to move socially and economically, to travel a longer distance to work in something that suits you better, to give you more opportunities in education, social life, work, purchasing, selling etc.

Now, is road maintenance an absolute necessity of government. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it is (unless you're defining necessary government intervention as something private agreement couldn't accomplish)... everyone could walk, live more locally and stop financing these roads, but I think that nonetheless it is creating freedom of a much more important kind and much more significant extent than would be possessed by retaining that amount of tax money.

So, basically, that's my beef with libertarianism itself and why I consider myself a liberal socialist... I think economic restraints and government control can, if properly exercised and exercised with an appropriate measure of restraint, result in a society where we collectively possess more genuine and guaranteed freedom.

Regardless, very interesting clip, but I can't say I'm convinced by her arguments here (and I admit, I haven't read enough of her work to say I understand them in context). Firstly, her definition of objective existence appears to me insufficient and after that I can't really see how she's going to the end results from there.

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.   I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.    By the way, I disagree. I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then!

Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive.  Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items.  That might be ok.  Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc.  That might be alright.  Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation.  For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%.  Something like that would be fine.