Liberal, Moderate, Conservative

[Wind Song]

Which national issues define your politics the most?

Income disparity is one of mine. The richest ten percent in America controls two thirds of America's net worth.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

[Noir]

Secularism, giving both freedom of religion and freedom from it, whichever a person so choses, and that the three separate branches of politics should remain just that, separate.

[SassyLady]

Which national issues define your politics the most?

Income disparity is one of mine. The richest ten percent in America controls two thirds of America's net worth.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

So??

Most liberals want to take the money from the richest ten percent and give it to the government to control....how is that better for us? We still wouldn't have any more control than we do now.

Off topic for a moment....

Windsong.. I see that you label yourself as a "senior member".... senior as in "age" or senior as in "been here a long time". I, too, am a senior member .... both in age and as a long time member of this board.

[fj1200]

Which national issues define your politics the most?

Income disparity is one of mine. The richest ten percent in America controls two thirds of America's net worth.

Conservative. Why people are concerned about things that do not affect them.


Off topic for a moment....

Windsong.. I see that you label yourself as a "senior member"...

That's probably an autofill based on her number of posts. She hasn't changed it yet.

[darin]

Income disparity is my favourite thing about our nation. I LOVE the fact people make a HUGE range of wages. I'm all for more of it.

When everyone makes $1,000,000 per year, we'll pay $15,000/month in heating bills, $40,000/month in rent, etc. Income disparity keeps prices low.

I'm a fiscal conservative; when I see the wanton waste in our government spending I get a little frustrated.

[Wind Song]

Off topic for a moment....

Windsong.. I see that you label yourself as a "senior member".... senior as in "age" or senior as in "been here a long time". I, too, am a senior member .... both in age and as a long time member of this board.

I haven't been here long. It's not my choice on the label.


So??

Most liberals want to take the money from the richest ten percent and give it to the government to control....how is that better for us? We still wouldn't have any more control than we do now.

"Most" liberals? I don't think that and I'm a liberal. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, but I don't want to be ripped off. Here's a typical GOP solution that hurts people in my income range.

Here's an example of Herman Cain's flat tax proposal and how unfair it is:
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000, but would reduce the taxes owed by a similar family earning between $500,000 and $1 million by almost $60,000. The center also estimated that families in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would enjoy an average annual tax reduction of nearly $1.4 million...
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/income_distribution/

[ConHog]

Which national issues define your politics the most?

Income disparity is one of mine. The richest ten percent in America controls two thirds of America's net worth.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

And you don't think that is at least in part because those folks have earned it while others have not? I mean seriously it is almost communist in nature to say "nope , you have enough and comrade wind song could use more so give that here"

I say almost, because in reality under communism the top 1% own 99% of the wealth, they just pretend to redistribute anything.

IF communism could ever be practiced in its true form and everyone could be given enough to live an equal happy life I don't think there is anyone here who wouldn't agree with you; but beings as humans are involved we absolutely know that that will never be the case. Someone will always be the "greedy rich"


"Most" liberals? I don't think that and I'm a liberal. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, but I don't want to be ripped off. Here's a typical GOP solution that hurts people in my income range.

Here's an example of Herman Cain's flat tax proposal and how unfair it is:
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000, but would reduce the taxes owed by a similar family earning between $500,000 and $1 million by almost $60,000. The center also estimated that families in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would enjoy an average annual tax reduction of nearly $1.4 million...
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/income_distribution/



You do realize not all conservatives agree with Cain's proposals right?


How would you feel about no income tax, just strictly a national sales tax, applied evenly across the board. No rebates, no refunds, no exemptions, no loophiles. Just you buy you pay sales tax (at the retail level)

[Wind Song]

Try checking out the link I provided on Herman Cain's proposal. It's a typical GOP scheme. Benefits everyone in upper income brackets.

[ConHog]

Income disparity is my favourite thing about our nation. I LOVE the fact people make a HUGE range of wages. I'm all for more of it.

When everyone makes $1,000,000 per year, we'll pay $15,000/month in heating bills, $40,000/month in rent, etc. Income disparity keeps prices low.

I'm a fiscal conservative; when I see the wanton waste in our government spending I get a little frustrated.

Whew and I about die when I get an electric bill of $200/month.

[Wind Song]

You do realize not all conservatives agree with Cain's proposals right?


How would you feel about no income tax, just strictly a national sales tax, applied evenly across the board. No rebates, no refunds, no exemptions, no loophiles. Just you buy you pay sales tax (at the retail level)

That is what Herman Cain is proposing and it doesn't work. Can you read?

A homeowner who buys an existing home would not pay sales tax on the purchase, but a renter would pay sales tax forever on his rent. (Also, most states tax rental property at higher rates than they tax owner-occupied homes, so a sales tax on top of the "extra" property tax would be heaping more tax on top of an existing unfair tax.) For renters who want to buy a home but are unable to do so, a sales tax applied to rent but not to purchase effects an unconscionable tax penalty for not being able to buy a home, and transfers many billions of dollars from lower-income renters to higher-income homeowners.

[ConHog]

That is what Herman Cain is proposing and it doesn't work. Can you read?

A homeowner who buys an existing home would not pay sales tax on the purchase, but a renter would pay sales tax forever on his rent. (Also, most states tax rental property at higher rates than they tax owner-occupied homes, so a sales tax on top of the "extra" property tax would be heaping more tax on top of an existing unfair tax.) For renters who want to buy a home but are unable to do so, a sales tax applied to rent but not to purchase effects an unconscionable tax penalty for not being able to buy a home, and transfers many billions of dollars from lower-income renters to higher-income homeowners.

See here you again. YOU are wrong and you get defensive with ME. No that is NOT what Cain proposes. I propose ONLY a national sales tax, he proposes adding a sales tax and adjusting income taxes. He also doesn't promote getting rid of loopholes , refunds, etc etc. I DO.

By the way, you would no more pay sales tax on your rent then you do now. Wait, do some states actually collect sales tax on rent? That's crazy.

[Wind Song]

See here you again. YOU are wrong and you get defensive with ME. No that is NOT what Cain proposes. I propose ONLY a national sales tax, he proposes adding a sales tax and adjusting income taxes. He also doesn't promote getting rid of loopholes , refunds, etc etc. I DO.

By the way, you would no more pay sales tax on your rent then you do now. Wait, do some states actually collect sales tax on rent? That's crazy.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm

Herman Cain's proposal won't work. Neither will a national sales tax.

A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals.
A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend.
Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated.
Tens of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system.
Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.
We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security.
The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive.
Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely increase.
Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed.
Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax.

[ConHog]

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm

Herman Cain's proposal won't work. Neither will a national sales tax.

A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals.
A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend.
Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated.
Tens of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system.
Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.
We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security.
The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive.
Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely increase.
Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed.
Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax.


Do you even understand those points or did you just cut and paste?

Let's start with number 1

What a load of BS. What the rich are paying is irrelevant to what the "poor" are paying. 10% of your purchases is 10% of your purchases regardless of how much you purchase.

[Little-Acorn]

Here's an example of Herman Cain's flat tax proposal and how unfair it is:
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000


Considering the vast amount the government does for that family of four, why do you consider this $4,000 annual payment to the government, to be "unfair" to them?

[ConHog]

Considering the vast amount the government does for that family of four, why do you consider this $4,000 annual payment to the government, to be "unfair"?

Exactly. And what they totally seem to ignore is that the lower income a person is the MORE they get from the government.

Ask Sky if she's at least willing to accept that the earned income credit needs to be removed.

[Wind Song]

Do you even understand those points or did you just cut and paste?

Let's start with number 1

What a load of BS. What the rich are paying is irrelevant to what the "poor" are paying. 10% of your purchases is 10% of your purchases regardless of how much you purchase.

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter. The poor would be disproportionally negatively affected by a flat sales tax. For upper-income they use up only a small percentage of their income for the basics. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.

Do you live in a state with a sales tax? I do now. For many years I lived in a state with no sales tax and you can bet your life I prefer that.

[logroller]

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter. The poor would be disproportionally negatively affected by a flat sales tax. For upper-income they use up only a small percentage of their income for the basics. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.

Do you live in a state with a sales tax? I do now. For many years I lived in a state with no sales tax and you can bet your life I prefer that.

Well, not everything is taxable--groceries for one, but if you look at what the poor would spend on, say clothing, I'd bet its more than is necessary to simply remain clothed. So I'm quite sure its not as cut and dry regressive as one would like to paint it. Interestingly, if you look at what the characteristics of new rich, frugality is nearly universal. I think what is a far more pervasive impact is the cultural identity defined by the haves and have-nots; where the have-nots just want to have-- not realizing they don't need those things. Rather or not one chooses to spend more on certain things is a freedom, and I think its important we recognize our role in promoting ideals which hold wealth equivalent to things-- they're not. It's about resources and how to put them to their highest and best use. The wealthy do this well, the poor, not so much. The answer to it all is people having more of the info, flat taxes are simple and easily understood. Whereas our current tax code is so complex, only those with a lot of resources can capitalize.

[Little-Acorn]

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter.

The poor would be ... negatively affected by a flat sales tax. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax

Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.


So what you're saying is, the government is pricing itself out of the market, as far as poor people are concerned?

Perhaps the government should do less, so it will be able to charge less?

[ConHog]

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter. The poor would be disproportionally negatively affected by a flat sales tax. For upper-income they use up only a small percentage of their income for the basics. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.

Do you live in a state with a sales tax? I do now. For many years I lived in a state with no sales tax and you can bet your life I prefer that.

Yes , I do live in a state that collects a sales tax. And they do collect on groceries even. I don't like that, and voted against it, as well as I would vote against a national sales tax on groceries.

However, as has been pointed out to you (and I doubt you will admit this) wealthy people become wealthy because they save, poor people generally do not. And I don't want to hear that poor people can't save because they don't have enough money. Why is that the poor almost universally smoke, drink, gamble, and have pets? Those are luxuries that a person who is crying about being poor should not indulge in. If one doesn't spend money on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets then certainly a person wouldn't have to pay sales tax on them.


Your "problem" , and you're not alone, is that you think EVERYONE should be entitled to all the goodies in life and if the poor can't afford to help fund the government because they want the goodies to, then by God they shouldn't have to. That is incorrect thinking. Bills come first, even my children know that. Funding the government is a bill. If you can't afford to pay your share of the bill before buying a $40 carton of smokes, perhaps the $40 of smokes isn't necessary.

Let's move on to number 2, shall we?

A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.

This just shows a pure lack of budgeting skills. You fit your spending to match your income. Not the other way around. There really isn't much more we can say about this one.

[fj1200]

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm

Herman Cain's proposal won't work. Neither will a national sales tax.
A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals.
A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend.
Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated.
Tens of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system.
Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.
We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security.
The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive.
Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely increase.
Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed.
Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax.


1. A national sales tax is different from the Fairtax is different from a VAT. Are you aware of the differences? If you were then many of the examples above would go away. The list doesn't account for embedded taxes nor does it account for the Fairtax prebate that is proposed. #5 Attorneys would lose their jobs. :laugh: Like the massive compliance costs we are burdened with are actually a job creator. :laugh:

[ConHog]

1. A national sales tax is different from the Fairtax is different from a VAT. Are you aware of the differences? If you were then many of the examples above would go away. The list doesn't account for embedded taxes nor does it account for the Fairtax prebate that is proposed. #5 Attorneys would lose their jobs. :laugh: Like the massive compliance costs we are burdened with are actually a job creator. :laugh:

Shhh I hadn't got to #5 on her copy and paste list yet LOL, but you're right . now we're supposed to boohoo for IRS agents who are suddenly not needed? LOL

[Thunderknuckles]

6. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.

Highly doubtful. The tax advantage is a nice perk but I would say people are motivated more to buy a home more for the long term investment and the fact that a mortgage payment on a home is a hell of lot less than renting the same home. There are also other intangibles like "pride of ownership", "American Dream", yadda, yadda.


Bottom line. Renting is the equivalent of throwing away your money every month. It was the primary motivator for me to buy a home.

[ConHog]

7. Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.


LOL As if we're to believe that there are mass of people out there who would have to borrow the money to pay a few thousand dollars a year in sales tax they would owe.


Anyone who would need to do so , needs to fall back on what I said earlier. DON'T spend money you can't afford to spend.

If a pack of smokes cost $6 and the extra 60 cents you would owe in federal sales tax makes them unaffordable. DON"T buy them. Pretty simple.

[jimnyc]

I'm an old fashioned conservative, not today's conservatives who are closer to liberals. The last candidate I saw that I truly identified with was Fred Thompson in '08. Do a search on Youtube or elsewhere about his awesome announcement to run speech and you'll see why. But I suppose ANY of the announced candidates thus far would be better than Obama. I gave him his fair chance and he royally fucked up. Transparency promising liar!

Hell, I don't care if no one wants to watch it, but here's the clips of Thompson I spoke of:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yeEmhz3KljI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[fj1200]

6. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
Highly doubtful. The tax advantage is a nice perk...

True, and I think that there are actually few people who qualify given that the standard deductions are greater for most people IIRC. Regardless, we shouldn't be using the tax code to be encouraging debt.

[Little-Acorn]

Considering the vast amount the government does for that family of four, why do you consider this $4,000 annual payment to the government, to be "unfair" to them?



So what you're saying is, the government is pricing itself out of the market, as far as poor people are concerned?

Perhaps the government should do less, so it will be able to charge less?

Where did Wind Song go?

I'm most interested in a reply to these questions.

[ConHog]

Where did Wind Song go?

I'm most interested in a reply to these questions.

You abused her

bye

[Wind Song]

So what you're saying is, the government is pricing itself out of the market, as far as poor people are concerned?

Perhaps the government should do less, so it will be able to charge less?

What I think the "elites" want, (those with enough discretionary income to cover a VERY nice lifestyle) is to eliminate ALL government services, and worsen things for the poor. Perhaps, not help the poor at all unless they look like African famine victims.

They want any serivces for the poor to come from charities. Charities aren't enough. I think some Americans want the US to go back in time 50 years. I think others prefer we go back to slavery.


Where did Wind Song go?

I'm most interested in a reply to these questions.

I work.

[Little-Acorn]

(silly talking points deleted)

Charities aren't enough.

That's true, they are not enough.

Why do you suppose that is?

BTW, you mentioned several times that you believed that taxes hit the poor too hard. Would you say that the government is "pricing itself out of the market" for poor people?

Would it help if government did less, and so was able to charge less?



Here's an example of Herman Cain's flat tax proposal and how unfair it is:
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000

Considering the vast amount the government does for that family of four, why do you consider this $4,000 annual payment to the government, to be "unfair" to them?

[ConHog]

What I think the "elites" want, (those with enough discretionary income to cover a VERY nice lifestyle) is to eliminate ALL government services, and worsen things for the poor. Perhaps, not help the poor at all unless they look like African famine victims.

They want any serivces for the poor to come from charities. Charities aren't enough. I think some Americans want the US to go back in time 50 years. I think others prefer we go back to slavery.

Why do you gripe about generalizing and then do it yourself?

I'll take the most hardcore conservatives I can think of on this site, just as an example. RSR,DMP,Jim, and Gunny and say that NONE of them want do completely do away with entitlements.

It's not all or nothing Sky.

[SassyLady]

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter. The poor would be disproportionally negatively affected by a flat sales tax. For upper-income they use up only a small percentage of their income for the basics. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.

Do you live in a state with a sales tax? I do now. For many years I lived in a state with no sales tax and you can bet your life I prefer that.

How can you say that "all" discretionary income for poor is subject to sales tax, and yet a "small portion" of discretionary income for the rich is subject? Isn't the point of a sales tax a flat tax on what ever is purchased....whether from discretionary or non-discretionary income?

Also, if one has less ability to pay, then perhaps they shouldn't be spending. Oh, wait.....are we all supposed to act like the government ..... that we don't have to be responsible with our spending habits.


Well, not everything is taxable--groceries for one, but if you look at what the poor would spend on, say clothing, I'd bet its more than is necessary to simply remain clothed. So I'm quite sure its not as cut and dry regressive as one would like to paint it. Interestingly, if you look at what the characteristics of new rich, frugality is nearly universal. I think what is a far more pervasive impact is the cultural identity defined by the haves and have-nots; where the have-nots just want to have-- not realizing they don't need those things. Rather or not one chooses to spend more on certain things is a freedom, and I think its important we recognize our role in promoting ideals which hold wealth equivalent to things-- they're not. It's about resources and how to put them to their highest and best use. The wealthy do this well, the poor, not so much. The answer to it all is people having more of the info, flat taxes are simple and easily understood. Whereas our current tax code is so complex, only those with a lot of resources can capitalize.

This is by far one of the best posts I've read tonight. :clap::clap:


6. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
Highly doubtful. The tax advantage is a nice perk but I would say people are motivated more to buy a home more for the long term investment and the fact that a mortgage payment on a home is a hell of lot less than renting the same home. There are also other intangibles like "pride of ownership", "American Dream", yadda, yadda.


Bottom line. Renting is the equivalent of throwing away your money every month. It was the primary motivator for me to buy a home.

When my husband was transferred to another city he lived out of motels for a year. Then we rented an apartment for a year ... we then decided to take some of the equity we had in our first home and buy another one so that we were not throwing away that monthly payment and helping someone else. We had to suck it up for a while, but we now have two homes.

[fj1200]

What I think the "elites" want...

They want... I think some Americans... I think others...

Sources please for what you "think."

[fj1200]

... NONE of them want do completely do away with entitlements.

Why should anything be an entitlement?

[ConHog]

Why should anything be an entitlement?

It shouldn't be. I was only saying that most of us are okay with the government doing some things even though they shouldn't have to.

[logroller]

Why should anything be an entitlement?
People are entitled to the truth; to be free from fraud and such. That goes for govt spending or even private resources which have the high likelihood of affecting others. Truth is ill-provided by the private sector: media, advertising and such. I realize there exists a great deal of freedom for these entities, but the truth entitlement is something govt has the ultimate responsibility to provide.

truth entitlement...I'm reminded of Col Jessup-- "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" -- which oddly enough, maybe the truth.:laugh:

[LuvRPgrl]

The poor have very little discretionary income. Almost all of their money goes to the basics, food, clothing and shelter. The poor would be disproportionally negatively affected by a flat sales tax. For upper-income they use up only a small percentage of their income for the basics. Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich. Thus, a sales tax would be regressive, meaning the percentage of your income that's eventually taxed is at a much higher rate for lower-income individuals, who have much less ability to pay, and the rate decreases as your income increases.

Do you live in a state with a sales tax? I do now. For many years I lived in a state with no sales tax and you can bet your life I prefer that.

This is a real strange piece of gobbly gook.
As for sales tax, here in CA, necessities are not taxed. so most of the sales tax is targeted at discretionary spending.
If the poor do little discretionary spending(as you claim), and that is what is taxed, they dont pay taxes, or much.
If the rich mostly spend their money on discretionary items, (which you claim_) then most of their spending will be taxed.

so what's the problem?

Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich.
This statement by you seems to be completely contradictory to your opening sentence in this post.

Oh, as for real estate prices plummeting. Wouldnt that make more afffordable housing for the poor.
Plus, if the prices plummeted, it would increase the numbers who could buy, that would create more demand, which would drive the prices up

[ConHog]

This is a real strange piece of gobbly gook.
As for sales tax, here in CA, necessities are not taxed. so most of the sales tax is targeted at discretionary spending.
If the poor do little discretionary spending(as you claim), and that is what is taxed, they dont pay taxes, or much.
If the rich mostly spend their money on discretionary items, (which you claim_) then most of their spending will be taxed.

so what's the problem?

Alll of the discretionary spending of the poor is going to be hit by a national sales tax, but only a small portion is affected for the rich.
This statement by you seems to be completely contradictory to your opening sentence in this post.

Oh, as for real estate prices plummeting. Wouldnt that make more afffordable housing for the poor.
Plus, if the prices plummeted, it would increase the numbers who could buy, that would create more demand, which would drive the prices up

Logical post is logical.

[fj1200]

People are entitled to the truth; to be free from fraud and such. That goes for govt spending or even private resources which have the high likelihood of affecting others. Truth is ill-provided by the private sector: media, advertising and such. I realize there exists a great deal of freedom for these entities, but the truth entitlement is something govt has the ultimate responsibility to provide.

truth entitlement...I'm reminded of Col Jessup-- "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" -- which oddly enough, maybe the truth.:laugh:

Yes, but not exactly the reference intended now is it? :slap: Government should certainly enforce basic rights, life, liberty, property, plus those things which are required for a free market to operate; contracts, etc. Those are things to which we are all entitled but not by "gift" of government.

[ConHog]

Yes, but not exactly the reference intended now is it? :slap: Government should certainly enforce basic rights, life, liberty, property, plus those things which are required for a free market to operate; contracts, etc.

very true. I was merely saying earlier that most don't mind giving some assistance in the form of food and shelter. Now of course we know that these programs have expanded beyond anything remotely resembling reasonable help and that there is rampant abuse.

[revelarts]

Which national issues define your politics the most?

Income disparity is one of mine. The richest ten percent in America controls two thirds of America's net worth.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

That's a problem caused as much by gov't and corporations in tandem as by the 10 percenters alone.

It's one that I think is dealt with among other items tangentially by my top issues.
the constitution and the bill of rights.
As generally understood by the original writers and promoters and detractors of the day.
ALL OF IT. not just the parts parties like depending on which way the wind is blowing.


Smaller gov't that would emerge kill some of the 10 percenters biz. no gov't contracts for useless weapons etc.. Also end subsides and protection for big oil and end bail outs of certain banking concerns and take away the money monopoly from the private banks known as the federal reserve, hey none of that stuffs not in the constitution.
And it would probably begin to crumble big agra and big phrama depending on how constitutional many FADA and Fodd Safety laws can hurdle the Constitution.


All wars would have to be declared the congress,
People would have the right the to trial by jury in ALL cases.
Freedom from gov't intrustion
no income tax (well that old amendment could be repealed , but the ORIGINAL constitution had NO income tax)

getting back to the constitution heals a whole lotta ills, it will never be perfect but it was designed primarily to "Establish Justice and .... promote the blessings of Liberty" not so much safety or health care.

but i'm still not sure people are really ready to try for that agian. It's pretty well dead at this point, and not many really miss the WHOLE thing.
It still seems more people are into the notion of a BIG GOV't that's either going to PROTECT them -by hook or crook-, or a big GOV't that's going to TAKE CARE OF them -by crook or hook-.

Abstractly civil Freedom and Justice, are my 2 main issues and the constitution covers that just fine for me on a federal level.












<tbody>






































</tbody>

[LuvRPgrl]

I haven't been here long. It's not my choice on the label.



"Most" liberals? I don't think that and I'm a liberal. I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes, but I don't want to be ripped off. Here's a typical GOP solution that hurts people in my income range.

Here's an example of Herman Cain's flat tax proposal and how unfair it is:
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Cain’s proposal would increase the annual tax bill of a typical family of four earning $50,000 a year by more than $4,000, but would reduce the taxes owed by a similar family earning between $500,000 and $1 million by almost $60,000. The center also estimated that families in the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households would enjoy an average annual tax reduction of nearly $1.4 million...
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/income_distribution/

.
and the lies go on and on

[ConHog]

.
and the lies go on and on

Is it a lie if you're just stupid? I tried to have this debate on another forum but overall they weren't very intelligent and couldn't handle the concept, and maybe this deserves it's own thread. BUT is a person a liar if they pass on information that is false simply because they are too dumb to look and see that is false? Or is Sky , in this example, REFUSING to look into things herself because she KNOWS what she's repeating is a li

I mean in this example. On the one hand she bitches that the rich have loopholes which get them out of paying any taxes and then turns right around and says that a sales tax would lower their taxes . LOL

Maybe what is really boils down to is she doesn't care what she has to say, or how low she has to stoop , what she REALLY wants is for the rich people , and by rich she really means anyone with more than her, should pay for everyone else and integrity be damned.