Suppose democrats get their tax...

[Codger_64]

Huh? He's chairman of the armed services committee so he sponosors egregious legislation... because that's what the armed services committee does or something? I suspect that most Republicans voted for the bill because it's an appropriations bill for the military. They should have read the fine print and / or stripped this crap out of it.

You wish to castigate those that supported the bill I'm fine with that, but let's not pretend that this bipartisan effort was some sort of radical Republican chicanery. It was just chicanery plain and simple.

The videos of the hearings are on line. I watched them. Those Senators who attended the deliberations had to have listened and heard each of the most outlandish sections of the bill discussed including Feinstein's point-by-point objections and Graham's open admission of the facts as they have been repeated here. To claim that they didn't know what they were voting for means that they were either absent from the hearings or were doing crossword puzzles while listening to Limbaugh or Beck on their I-Pods. "I didn't know" Don't cut it.

[Codger_64]

It's largely irrelevant what sort of semantic games you like to play with yourself. If you vote democrat that's really all that matters.

This looks an awful lot like a "two wrongs make a right arguement." Unfortunately a reduction of freedom is a reduction of freedom and I don't care who is attempting it I oppose it. A Republican grab for power doesn't justify a democratic grab for power... but according to something I just saw wasn't this measure introduced by a democrat? Must not have been one of the "good" ones...

I think I already addressed this... but let's talk about partisan rhetoric. Who sponsored this bill? Carl Levin? A democrat right? Didn't democrats vote for this bill as well? So it would appear to me that this is a bipartisan bill so when one goes on about that paladin the obama and the "good democrats" defeating it... isn't one in fact engaging in partisan rhetoric... even homerism?

Notably I haven't been the one trying to place the blame on any particular political party.

Riiight.

[Preacher Man]

Fair enough. Unfortunately I can't fight fire with fire because I won't make the same slanderous remarks about Republicans that are used to demonize the liberals participating on this forum. Comments that extend to character and patriotism. They are thinly veiled ad hominem attacks of a more wide-spread abuse than personal. One can slander my family and friends, provided he doesn't discuss me.

Keep in mind that I'm actively trying to change that dynamic here. So is Esav. This is supposed to be a forum for political discussion, not political posturism or rhetoric. The fact that you try not to resort to generalities and misrepresentations of conservative ideology and positions is a testament to who you are. Generalities and misrepresentations are the tools of those who can't or won't see reality in any way except through their own ideology. That was the great problem of Marxist Russia, and one of the reasons it feel. That was the hallmark of McCarthyism. Recognizing both the strengths and weaknesses of my own positions as well as those of my opponent's is evidence of objective thinking. In general, the more generalities and misrepresentations used to present one's personal ideology, the farther away that personal ideology is from reality. I understand the frustration of arguing with someone who refuses to be objective. I'm trying to change that. In the meanwhile, the rules are the rules and one of the things we need to do to avoid personal attacks if to focus on the issues, not each other.

[jhakken]

I respect your efforts Preacher Man and will re-double my effort to tone it down, turn the other cheek, and play by the rules. This forum is so enjoyable when we are all looking for answers instead of professing to have them, and I'm as guilty of that as are many. Thanks for your herculean effort to change the tone and the model you set.

[Preacher Man]

Notably I haven't been the one trying to place the blame on any particular political party.

That was not the way it looked to me.

So it would appear to me that this is a bipartisan bill so when one goes on about that paladin the obama and the "good democrats" defeating it... isn't one in fact engaging in partisan rhetoric... even homerism?

The fact is that democrats for the most voted against it and Republicans for it. We dropped the ball big time on this one; that is the truth. Still, some focus on the democrats, while the actions of republicans is been ignored and downplayed. That is political rhetoric.

[OliverH]

n the end it depends on what you mean by "fair." There seems to be a common assumption that what's "obviously fair" is to make people pony up an equal proportion of their assets or their income or their spending. If your house is worth ten times what somebody else's house is, your property taxes would be roughly ten times as much. Or, a guy who makes $100,000 would pay ten times as much as somebody who makes $10,000. Or, if you buy ten times as much as your neighbor, you end up paying ten times as much sales tax.

But unfortunately there is no Platonic form of "tax fairness" by which one can say these are the ones that are in accord with with the universe as intended. What makes such schemes more or less "fair" than some other method--for example, simply taxing everybody for a flat amount per head, or a graduated income tax?

Well, would it be fair if the government came in and took 40% of your stuff out of your house because your neighbor had less?

It depends, I guess. The point is, on what basis are people so attached to a fixed rate as "fair?" Let's say the government took 20% of my stuff and 20% of my neighbor's stuff, but I had a lot more than he did, so that they still took twice as much from me. What makes that fair? Why am I paying twice as much as he does for the same amount of government services? Just because I have twice as much to begin with? That's not my fault, is it? He should just pay the same amount I do. Why am I being punished for being successful? (Or other justification of your choice, as long as it's out of the same grab bag of reasons currently being used to support the terrible injustice of raising marginal tax rates on rich people.)

[quietmike]

It depends, I guess. The point is, on what basis are people so attached to a fixed rate as "fair?" Let's say the government took 20% of my stuff and 20% of my neighbor's stuff, but I had a lot more than he did, so that they still took twice as much from me. What makes that fair? Why am I paying twice as much as he does for the same amount of government services? Just because I have twice as much to begin with? That's not my fault, is it? He should just pay the same amount I do. Why am I being punished for being successful? (Or other justification of your choice, as long as it's out of the same grab bag of reasons currently being used to support the terrible injustice of raising marginal tax rates on rich people.)

If it was unfair to tax you the same rate as your neighbor, because you owned more and would pay more, how much more unfair is it to tax you at a higher rate because you make more?

The most "fair" way would be to divide the federal budget by the number of adults and send everyone a bill. Or maybe a user fee system.
Barring that a flat percentage, based either on income, or preferably consumption, would be the second most fair as everyone would pay the same RATE, instead of the same amount.

[Codger_64]

If it was unfair to tax you the same rate as your neighbor, because you owned more and would pay more, how much more unfair is it to tax you at a higher rate because you make more?

The most "fair" way would be to divide the federal budget by the number of adults and send everyone a bill. Or maybe a user fee system.
Barring that a flat percentage, based either on income, or preferably consumption, would be the second most fair as everyone would pay the same RATE, instead of the same amount.

And what would it do to you financially if that flat rate were, say, $150,000 per year?

[quietmike]

And what would it do to you financially if that flat rate were, say, $150,000 per year?

It would bankrupt me. But is it better to pretend that is not the true cost? If people paid the true figure they would quickly realize they could not afford such an expensive government, and would vote accordingly.

Ferrari would have a much broader base if they could get third parties to foot the bill.

[Codger_64]

I say we put it on credit cards. It would bankrupt me also. As would $100,000. Or $50,000. I wonder... is there anyone that a $150,000 tax bill wouldn't bankrupt?

[quietmike]

I say we put it on credit cards. It would bankrupt me also. As would $100,000. Or $50,000. I wonder... is there anyone that a $150,000 tax bill wouldn't bankrupt?

With our debt at 15 trillion, and a population of 300 million, with roughly half being adults, that would be a $100,000 tax bill for everyone.

[Codger_64]

Actually it would be a bit more if you only counted citizens with lawfully reported income. I learned years ago via a wife with credit cards that you can neither borrow nor spend your way out of debt.

[quietmike]

I learned years ago via a wife with credit cards that you can neither borrow nor spend your way out of debt.

Me too. She tried like hell though! She would be a perfect fit in government.

[Codger_64]

Me too. She tried like hell though! She would be a perfect fit in government.

You don't want to get me started on wife/debt stories. She kept getting cash advances on one card to make payments on it and on the others. At over 17% interest. She was, by the way, a government worker.

[quietmike]

You don't want to get me started on wife/debt stories. She kept getting cash advances on one card to make payments in it and on others. At over 17% interest. She was, by the way, a government worker.

No offense, but that is too funny!

[Codger_64]

No... funny is... that she was fired by Slick Willy before Bonzo went to Washington. And... she was a welfare case review and compliance hearing officer for DHS.

[quietmike]

No... funny is... that she was fired by Slick Willy before Bonzo went to Washington. And... she was a welfare case review and compliance hearing officer for DHS.

That would make a good book.

[OliverH]

If it was unfair to tax you the same rate as your neighbor, because you owned more and would pay more, how much more unfair is it to tax you at a higher rate because you make more?

The most "fair" way would be to divide the federal budget by the number of adults and send everyone a bill. Or maybe a user fee system.
Barring that a flat percentage, based either on income, or preferably consumption, would be the second most fair as everyone would pay the same RATE, instead of the same amount.

Wait a minute. Why exempt children from the count? After all, an awful lot of government services are expressly aimed at giving stuff to kids--WIC, AFDC, public schools, school lunches, various "healthy child" initiatives, etc. Why should somebody with no kids have to pay the same amount as somebody with four kids? And why do conservatives not in general complain about the unfairness of a flat-rate tax? In fact, just such a scheme is widely advertised and accepted by those who advocate it as a "fair tax." So is it really fair, or is that just propaganda?

The point of my mock outrage is simply to illustrate that what's "fair" is a judgment call and one that's usually resolved by social consensus. People who make declarations about what's fair need to be able to defend those declarations, not simply assert them as if they are stating a law of nature.

[quietmike]

The point of my mock outrage is simply to illustrate that what's "fair" is a judgment call and one that's usually resolved by social consensus. People who make declarations about what's fair need to be able to defend those declarations, not simply assert them as if they are stating a law of nature.

Blacks didn't fair too well under consensus opinion of fairness a few years back. True fairness can never be a popularity contest.

[Charlie_Harper]

Suppose your wildest dreams are realized and taxes are increased on those filthy rich people. What do you think the effect will be?

A good way to try to answer this question is to look at history. In the Clinton era, taxes were much higher. The deficit was going down rapidly and was projected to be totally zero by 2012. The country was thriving. In fact, this was one of the most prosperous periods in our history.

Would that happen again? Hard to say, but it is a reasonable forecast.