Political Crossfire Forums

[Random Evil Guy]

Snarf wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote:

is stealing always morally wrong?
No...

correct. finally. moral values aren't black and white. they aren't good or bad. sometimes stealing/lying/killing is acceptable. which is why, some, libertarians are dead wrong when they claim taxation is wrong because it is stealing. stealing isn't always wrong. moral values aren't absolute. they depend on the situation.

[Taliesin]

NobleOne wrote: thintheherd wrote: Johannes wrote: What about Robin Hood?
What about him??

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor...

You are perpetuating the myth that RH was a socialist. In fact he robbed the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and his fellow statists.

RH was a libertarian hero!

...Does it really matter?

[thintheherd]

Random Evil Guy wrote: Snarf wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote:

is stealing always morally wrong?
No...

correct. finally. moral values aren't black and white. they aren't good or bad. sometimes stealing/lying/killing is acceptable. which is why, some, libertarians are dead wrong when they claim taxation is wrong because it is stealing. stealing isn't always wrong. moral values aren't absolute. they depend on the situation.

Correct? Finally?

Jeez... I didn't know it was a pop quiz. If you thought you knew the answer before asking what was the point of asking in the first place?

Oh, and I would argue that morals are indeed black and white. Emergency/unforeseen situations notwithstanding, that's what makes them morals. Their adherence to what one believes is right. All else is believed as wrong. Black and white.

[Saf]

Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class). Income taxes are something that I see as a necessary evil (this is coming from a libertarian). However, we could RADICALLY reduce the amount of taxation in this country by cutting spending, ending illegal wars and ending corporate welfare.

[RueTheDay]

thintheherd wrote: Oh, and I would argue that morals are indeed black and white. Emergency/unforeseen situations notwithstanding, that's what makes them morals. Their adherence to what one believes is right. All else is believed as wrong. Black and white.

That's just an excuse for not wanting to defend the position of moral absolutism. You can't just say morals are absolute except in the case of this vague thing called "emergencies". First you would need to come up with a precise definition for an emergency, then you would need to justify why previously absolute morals do not apply under such a situation, then you would need to come up with a way of determining under which circumstances what morals don't apply. Otherwise people will simply consider everything an emergency in order to avoid moral constraints.

[thintheherd]

Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class). Income taxes are something that I see as a necessary evil (this is coming from a libertarian). However, we could RADICALLY reduce the amount of taxation in this country by cutting spending, ending illegal wars and ending corporate welfare.
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax.

[Conserv\Traditionalist]

Without Government, there is anarchy. In order to maintain government there must be taxes. The American pays several different taxes to different governments to do they're job. Federal, State, County, and city. As long as they are there you must pay them to service you. If you want less service for
less taxation then vote for it. If you think the taxes are used wrongfully then get the official out of there.

By the way, when is stealing right? Some of you have lost me completely on that.

[thintheherd]

RueTheDay wrote: thintheherd wrote: Oh, and I would argue that morals are indeed black and white. Emergency/unforeseen situations notwithstanding, that's what makes them morals. Their adherence to what one believes is right. All else is believed as wrong. Black and white.
That's just an excuse for not wanting to defend the position of moral absolutism. You can't just say morals are absolute except in the case of this vague thing called "emergencies". First you would need to come up with a precise definition for an emergency, then you would need to justify why previously absolute morals do not apply under such a situation, then you would need to come up with a way of determining under which circumstances what morals don't apply. Otherwise people will simply consider everything an emergency in order to avoid moral constraints.
It's no excuse. I'm not the 'moral absolutism' champion here and have nothing to 'defend'. I told you that I believe my morals are absolute beyond what I consider an emergency or unique circumstance. Black and white yes but not universally applicable. Morals are a personal matter- and as such I am under no obligation to do define anything. Nor is it up to any individual to define anything of the kind as it applies to anyone other than themselves.

RueTheDay wrote: Otherwise people will simply consider everything an emergency in order to avoid moral constraints.
Yeah... So?? What do you care and what are these 'moral constraints' you speak of? Regardless, anyone using felonious excuses for skirting their own set of moral constraints shows nothing but their lack of personal conviction and integrity.

[Roy L]

thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

[RueTheDay]

Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.

[thintheherd]

RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion. If it were simply a flat consumption tax I were referring to I might agree, however, I am referring to the proposed FairTax proposal which contains caveats that include inherent progressiveness as well as temporal neutrality.

Please, read the book, check the research done by the experts, refer to the FairTax FAQ's to answer those questions you might have and then we'll discuss it. Perhaps on one of the recent threads devoted to it.

[RueTheDay]

thintheherd wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion. If it were simply a flat consumption tax I were referring to I might agree, however, I am referring to the proposed FairTax proposal which contains caveats that include inherent progressiveness as well as temporal neutrality.

Please, read the book, check the research done by the experts, refer to the FairTax FAQ's to answer those questions you might have and then we'll discuss it. Perhaps on one of the recent threads devoted to it.

I am well aware of the specifics of the FAIR Tax and why it is a bad idea, thank you. Perhaps it is you who should do some more research on taxes on economic rent and why they are an infinitely better idea than the FAIR Tax nonsense.

[Roy L]

thintheherd wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion.
Wrong. You are talking to people who understand taxation economics WAY better than you do. You can use this as an opportunity to learn, or you can just beat your "Fair"Tax drum. Your choice.
Quote: If it were simply a flat consumption tax I were referring to I might agree, however, I am referring to the proposed FairTax proposal which contains caveats that include inherent progressiveness as well as temporal neutrality. It's nothing but a scam to make the economic rent incomes of the rich untaxed as well as unearned. Deal with it.
Quote: Please, read the book, Sorry, but I am not going to help fund their already-lavishly-corporate-funded disinformation campaign by buying their stupid book.
Quote: check the research done by the experts, Check Adam Smith's Canons of Taxation Quote: refer to the FairTax FAQ's to answer those questions you might have and then we'll discuss it. Perhaps on one of the recent threads devoted to it. You can start discussing it now, by answering the arguments I made in my previous post. If you want to move the discussion to a different thread, you'll have to say which one.

[The Ferryman]

Some forms of taxation are stealing, like 20 year old tax codes still in effect that don't fit today's economy.
For example, a married couple making a combined income over $150,00.00, cannot write off certain expenditures related to the renting of another property that they own.
My CPA is my Robin Hood.

[NobleOne]

The Ferryman wrote: My CPA is my Robin Hood.

What is a CPA?

[thintheherd]

RueTheDay wrote: thintheherd wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion. If it were simply a flat consumption tax I were referring to I might agree, however, I am referring to the proposed FairTax proposal which contains caveats that include inherent progressiveness as well as temporal neutrality.

Please, read the book, check the research done by the experts, refer to the FairTax FAQ's to answer those questions you might have and then we'll discuss it. Perhaps on one of the recent threads devoted to it.

I am well aware of the specifics of the FAIR Tax and why it is a bad idea, thank you. Perhaps it is you who should do some more research on taxes on economic rent and why they are an infinitely better idea than the FAIR Tax nonsense.
OK, I've been reading your other posts... Nasty as they are for no real good reason, I've come to the conclusion that knowing 'the specifics' may not be enough. I fully intend to do more research of my own volition but will only engage you in the future on the subject if you move beyond the 'specifics' of the proposal.

No animosity here, your choice.

[thintheherd]

Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: Saf wrote: Sales taxes are bad because they discourage spending and put a bigger burden on the worst off in society (unless they are only applied to "luxary" items in which case they squeeze the middle class).
Sorry, you are wrong about consumption taxes. For a Federal alternative to our regressive income tax system you need to check out: FairTax. No, actually YOU are the one who is wrong about consumption taxes. I have examined the "FairTax" proposal, and it is just bad economics. Earned income (production) and sales (consumption) are just two sides of the same economic coin. You can't tax one without taxing the other, except to the extent that production is exported and consumption imported. Because the USA imports a lot of its consumer goods, it may be able to gain a small advantage by taxing economic activity at the point of consumption rather than the point of production. But this advantage would be at the expense of both its ability to recover economic rent income (which is NOT the result of production) as revenue and of economic justice. While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.

Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion.
Wrong. You are talking to people who understand taxation economics WAY better than you do. You can use this as an opportunity to learn, or you can just beat your "Fair"Tax drum. Your choice.
Quote: If it were simply a flat consumption tax I were referring to I might agree, however, I am referring to the proposed FairTax proposal which contains caveats that include inherent progressiveness as well as temporal neutrality. It's nothing but a scam to make the economic rent incomes of the rich untaxed as well as unearned. Deal with it.
Quote: Please, read the book, Sorry, but I am not going to help fund their already-lavishly-corporate-funded disinformation campaign by buying their stupid book.
Quote: check the research done by the experts, Check Adam Smith's Canons of Taxation Quote: refer to the FairTax FAQ's to answer those questions you might have and then we'll discuss it. Perhaps on one of the recent threads devoted to it. You can start discussing it now, by answering the arguments I made in my previous post. If you want to move the discussion to a different thread, you'll have to say which one.
As for you... "WAY better"? Did you say "WAY better? How can anyone that uses a colloquialism such as that retain any credibility whatsoever? Marry that to your bitterness and, by gosh, we've got the complete package.

Let me tell you what education is. It's having been in the corporate world for over a quarter century, having started no less than three successful businesses during that time, all without an economics degree, and no longer having to listen to angry snot-nosed economics students regurgitate their professors "can't do" ramblings in the effort to dispel theories that frighten them. Your assertion that some book is 'stupid' and not worth your time merely strengthens my point and fortunately eliminates you from the argument.

Furthermore, I am under no obligation to point out anything to you, whether it be the fallacy, or truth in your argument for the status quo nor the location of other threads that are relatively simple to locate. You want to promote taxation on economic rent as it relates to income? Start a thread. You want to give me concrete reasons why you believe the FairTax will not work? I'm all ears. Just remember, there is a time and place fo everything and, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[thintheherd]

NobleOne wrote: The Ferryman wrote: My CPA is my Robin Hood.

What is a CPA?
Certified Public Accountant :-D

[Roy L]

thintheherd wrote: Roy L wrote: thintheherd wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Roy L wrote: While income tax is an abomination, a national sales tax that could recover equivalent revenue would be even worse.
Yes, consumption taxes are an all around bad idea.
I don't believe either one of you have done the research necessary to come to that conclusion.
Wrong. You are talking to people who understand taxation economics WAY better than you do. You can use this as an opportunity to learn, or you can just beat your "Fair"Tax drum. Your choice.
As for you... "WAY better"? Did you say "WAY better? How can anyone that uses a colloquialism such as that retain any credibility whatsoever? By demolishing your arguments, perhaps?
Quote: Marry that to your bitterness and, by gosh, we've got the complete package. Would you also scorn slaves for their bitterness?
Oh, right: your nom de plume makes your views on your fellow men clear enough...
Quote:
Let me tell you what education is. It's having been in the corporate world for over a quarter century, having started no less than three successful businesses during that time, all without an economics degree, That's not education. It's just salesmanship. Quote: and no longer having to listen to angry snot-nosed economics students regurgitate their professors "can't do" ramblings in the effort to dispel theories that frighten them. You will find very few economics (or any other) professors who say the sorts of things I say. Quote: Your assertion that some book is 'stupid' and not worth your time merely strengthens my point and fortunately eliminates you from the argument. I've read the "Fair"Tax garbage on the Net. I doubt the book is much different, and I decline to waste either my time or my money on disinformation. If you don't want to respond to my arguments (which you so far have not), fine. Have a nice day. But don't imagine that others reading this are deceived by your sneers and bluster.

Quote: Furthermore, I am under no obligation to point out anything to you, whether it be the fallacy, or truth in your argument for the status quo Status quo?? See the first quote at the top of this post. Quote: You want to promote taxation on economic rent as it relates to income? No, I want to promote taxation of rent-collection privileges whether they yield any cash income or not. Quote: Start a thread. What's wrong with this one? Quote: You want to give me concrete reasons why you believe the FairTax will not work? I'm all ears. And thus no brain? I've already given you concrete reasons. You ignored them. Quote: Just remember, there is a time and place fo everything and, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Well, honey, I've just never been able to figure out a way to prove that people's most cherished beliefs are false and evil, and make the experience an agreeable one for them. I've tried humor, but it seems to come across as bitterness and/or hostility. Maybe I should consult someone with better salesmanship.

[thintheherd]

Salesmanship- that's rich :lol: Most of the above says it all for you- bravo!

I would agree, consult someone- anyone as to the presentation of a real argument. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that calling another man "honey" in a debate doesn't help your position, especially when he's most likely old enough to be your father.

Quote: I decline to waste either my time or my money on disinformation.

Then please, don't waste mine and likewise, have a nice day.