Republican Presidential Debate

[John]

NYM WANTS YOU TO THINK HE IS GOING TO RAISE TAXES
BUT IF I AM ELECTED I WILL SEND THE TAXES TO SEANAT & THEY CAN VOTE ON IT

[Platypus]

He sure does want us to think that, but after the election BAM! He'll keep them the same.

Shocking, i know, that he isn't going tio raise imaginary taxes

[John]

THE NRA IS IN BAD SHAPE RIGHT NOW OF WHAT NYM IS DOING. THE NRA WILL BACK TO NORMA WHEN I AM ELECTED

[KEmperor]

THE NRA IS IN BAD SHAPE RIGHT NOW OF WHAT NYM IS DOING. THE NRA WILL BACK TO NORMA WHEN I AM ELECTED

I always wanted to see him and Norma get back together.

[The Duke]

3;threadid=3126;start=0#msg88668 date=1083715821]
You're right about not having tax deductions in a sales tax only system.  I think our tax code is too complex.  The time for endless deductions and penalties and overpayments and paperwork should be over.  We could move to a tax system completely free of paperwork.  We could virtually disband the IRS.

As far as your charge that a national sales tax would unfairly penalize the poor, I have a suggestion to keep the sales tax from doing that.  Just like we do in my state, we could make food tax free.  The poor typically spend the majority of their incomes on food.  Making food tax free would avoid an unnecessary burden on the poor.  But here's something to consider about our current tax system--the top 50% of wage earners pay something close to 95% of the entire tax burden.  Is it entirely fair to make the top 50% pay nearly all the taxes while the "poor" can vote for candidates who support an increase in government subsidies for the "poor" at the expensive of higher taxes on the "rich"?  A sales tax would make the price higher for people who want more government programs.  Under a sales tax only system, everyone would be acutely aware of the cost of expanding government while the essentials--food--would still be tax free.

And imagine never having to do your taxes ever again.

As attractive as that last point is, the fact remains that it is bad policy.

Exempting food would not solve the problem for the poor.  If you put together a hypothetical budget for a person making $20,000 and one making $1,000,000, and saw how they were affected by the flat tax, you would see that a food exemption does almost nothing.  A person only spends so much on food, and the rich person would get the smae break as the poor person, so you really haven't made the code more progressive, just raised taxes on poor poeple.

As for how much the wealthy pay in taxes, if the poor paid anymore they would starve to death.  They are already being slammed with gas taxes and payroll taxes and a slew of other taxes that disproportionally hit the working poor.  Why make it harder still for them to get by?

[John]

I ARGEE
NYM HAS GIVING BAD POLICE TO PEOPLE
NOW LET GIVE YOU MY LIST OF WHAT I GOING TO IN OFFICE
1. BAN GAYS & LESBINS
2. RAISE TAXES
3. BRING FOOD TO THE POOR
4. SUPOORT OUT TROOPS
5. BRING GOD BACK TO AMERICA
6. GO TO EVER STARE & MAKE SPEECHS
7. GIVE A GOOD & FAIR POLICE TO PEOPLE

[The Dowager Mod]

I ARGEE
NYM HAS GIVING BAD POLICE TO PEOPLE
NOW LET GIVE YOU MY LIST OF WHAT I GOING TO IN OFFICE
1. BAN GAYS & LESBINS
2. RAISE TAXES
3. BRING FOOD TO THE POOR
4. SUPOORT OUT TROOPS
5. BRING GOD BACK TO AMERICA
6. GO TO EVER STARE & MAKE SPEECHS
7. GIVE A GOOD & FAIR POLICE TO PEOPLE

Damn i just may have to vote for this dood

[StevenNick]

As attractive as that last point is, the fact remains that it is bad policy.

Exempting food would not solve the problem for the poor.  If you put together a hypothetical budget for a person making $20,000 and one making $1,000,000, and saw how they were affected by the flat tax, you would see that a food exemption does almost nothing.  A person only spends so much on food, and the rich person would get the smae break as the poor person, so you really haven't made the code more progressive, just raised taxes on poor poeple.

As for how much the wealthy pay in taxes, if the poor paid anymore they would starve to death.  They are already being slammed with gas taxes and payroll taxes and a slew of other taxes that disproportionally hit the working poor.  Why make it harder still for them to get by?

You seem to be fairly enamored of the "progressive" income tax.  You say a food exemption isn't good enough in a sales tax system, because the rich get just as much of a benefit as the poor.  So what?  Why is it such a travesty that the rich might receive the same benefits as the poor.  I've always thought that the entire idea of the "progressive" tax was unconstitutional.  The constitution says that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.  Something tells me that making one person pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than another isn't exactly what the amendment writers had in mind when they said equal protection.

[Platypus]

I ARGEE
NYM HAS GIVING BAD POLICE TO PEOPLE
NOW LET GIVE YOU MY LIST OF WHAT I GOING TO IN OFFICE
1. BAN GAYS & LESBINS
2. RAISE TAXES
3. BRING FOOD TO THE POOR
4. SUPOORT OUT TROOPS
5. BRING GOD BACK TO AMERICA
6. GO TO EVER STARE & MAKE SPEECHS
7. GIVE A GOOD & FAIR POLICE TO PEOPLE

Oh no! I'm going to be banned! I'm f a  d   i    n     g      .       .        .         .            .

[John]

WELL I THINK IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE IN THE wORLD

[The Duke]

You seem to be fairly enamored of the "progressive" income tax.  You say a food exemption isn't good enough in a sales tax system, because the rich get just as much of a benefit as the poor.  So what?  Why is it such a travesty that the rich might receive the same benefits as the poor.  I've always thought that the entire idea of the "progressive" tax was unconstitutional.  The constitution says that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.  Something tells me that making one person pay a higher percent of their income in taxes than another isn't exactly what the amendment writers had in mind when they said equal protection.

Yes, I am a supporter of the progressive tax.  It keeps the poor from having their livelihood sucked out of their pocket so the rich can spend more time on the golf course.

Why exactly is it that you are so enamored of raising taxes on our most vulnerable citizens?

As for the equal protection clause banning the income tax, thats rich (pardon the pun ).  This line of thinking would mean that a murderer doesn't belong in prison because I am not in prison.  Well, obviously, I am not a murderer so my treatment should be different.

I am not comparing rich people to murderers, just making a point that the law is based on behavior.  If you have gained the most from our free society, you should give something back, in this case, higher taxes.  If you want to take America back to the unregulated capitalism of the 1890s, then you can take that message to the voters.  But you will not get many votes, and you would probably not get mine.

Aemrica, Steven Nichols wants to raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich.  He has said as much right here.  He has not disputed this, in fact he has held it up as a virtue of his plan.  Let me say this, I will not raise your taxes, no matter who you are or what you make, and as soon as I get this deficit under control I want to cut taxes.

[StevenNick]

Here's another more general point about the income tax versus the sales tax.  We live in a capitalist society.  The backbone of our economy is investment.  Why do we tax capital in a capitalist economy.  Why do we have a tax system that discourages savings and investment?

Just for the record, I'm not just one lone wacko who wants to do away with the income tax.  Jesse Ventura and the CATO institute as well as many prominent conservative economists share this position.

[The Duke]

Here's another more general point about the income tax versus the sales tax.  We live in a capitalist society.  The backbone of our economy is investment.  Why do we tax capital in a capitalist economy.  Why do we have a tax system that discourages savings and investment?

Cutting the Cap Gains tax is one thing, and it would solve the problem you are talking about.  Eliminating the income tax would not address this problem directly.

[John]

LET ME GIVE YOU SOME THINGS THAT NYM WON'T DO & THAT I WILL
LIKE I SAID EARLY
NYM IS TROUBLE
I THINK THE PEOPLE DON'T TRUST HIM I DON'T
HE ONE OF THE WORST LEADER THAT WE HAVE EVER HAD
HE WON'T RAISE TAXES, WON'T FEED THE POOR & MANY OTHERS THINGS BUT I WILL

[Dave from Michigan]

Your going to raise taxes, John?

[Lunar]

Sorry for posting on the Republican thread, but aren't raising taxes bad?  Especially for the GOP audience?

Edit: Iron beat me to it.  John has repeatedly advocated this.

[The Duke]

So Nichols and Engle will raise taxes.  Ford will not.  The difference coul not be clearer.

[StevenNick]

Yes, I am a supporter of the progressive tax.  It keeps the poor from having their livelihood sucked out of their pocket so the rich can spend more time on the golf course.

Why exactly is it that you are so enamored of raising taxes on our most vulnerable citizens?

As for the equal protection clause banning the income tax, thats rich (pardon the pun ).  This line of thinking would mean that a murderer doesn't belong in prison because I am not in prison.  Well, obviously, I am not a murderer so my treatment should be different.

I am not comparing rich people to murderers, just making a point that the law is based on behavior.  If you have gained the most from our free society, you should give something back, in this case, higher taxes.  If you want to take America back to the unregulated capitalism of the 1890s, then you can take that message to the voters.  But you will not get many votes, and you would probably not get mine.

Aemrica, Steven Nichols wants to raise taxes on the poor and cut them for the rich.  He has said as much right here.  He has not disputed this, in fact he has held it up as a virtue of his plan.  Let me say this, I will not raise your taxes, no matter who you are or what you make, and as soon as I get this deficit under control I want to cut taxes.

Your points regarding the equal protection clause are completely off the mark.  Murderers are in prison because they murdered somebody.  You are not in prison because you have not murdered anybody.  If you murder somebody, you can expect the same punishment as a convicted murderer.  That's equal protection of the law.  You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say if you would make such obsurd statements about my line of thinking.

I don't want to raise taxes on the poor.  I want to create a fair, constitutional tax system.  That's what I want.  Why don't you quit with the whole Marxist, Proletarian revolution, down with the Bourgeoise rhetoric and actually talk about the economics behind U.S. tax policy.

[John]

THE TAXES OF NYM ARE GOING DOWN
& FORD YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE TAXES
I WILL

[The Duke]

Your points regarding the equal protection clause are completely off the mark.  Murderers are in prison because they murdered somebody.  You are not in prison because you have not murdered anybody.  If you murder somebody, you can expect the same punishment as a convicted murderer.  That's equal protection of the law.  You obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say if you would make such obsurd statements about my line of thinking.

I don't want to raise taxes on the poor.  I want to create a fair, constitutional tax system.  That's what I want.  Why don't you quit with the whole Marxist, Proletarian revolution, down with the Bourgeoise rhetoric and actually talk about the economics behind U.S. tax policy.

Are you red baiting?

Wait, did I get sent to the 50s by accident?

And my remrks about the equal protection clause were not off the mark, I meant to show that the law treats different behavior differently.

[StevenNick]

So Nichols and Engle will raise taxes.  Ford will not.  The difference coul not be clearer.

Actually Ford, I want to cut taxes, institute either a flat income tax or a national sales tax.  I would repeal the payroll tax (which is a tax that really does hurt the poor).

You, on the other hand, want to perpetuate a failed tax code that is unconstitutional.  You want to perpetuate a system that unfairly penalizes work and workers, that undermines the due process clause of the 5th amendment through its sheer complexity, that interferes with economic growth, and unfairly penalizes the small business that make the U.S. economy great.  You're right about one thing--the difference is very clear.  You want to perpetuate the failed tax policies of yesterday.  I want to replace failed policies with successful ones.

[The Duke]

"Why don't you quit with the whole Marxist, Proletarian revolution, down with the Bourgeoise rhetoric and actually talk about the economics behind U.S. tax policy."
-StevenNick

Okay, what do you think would be the economic impact of rasing taxes on the poor.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

*points John D. Ford to the friendly folks at the UAC if he wants out of the 50's*

[John]

YEP

[The Duke]

This is insanity.  I will not sit here and pretend that "The tax code is unconstitutional!" is a rational or legitimate argument.  The Courts have heard these arguments and rejected them again and again.

I will not sit here and pretend that a flat tax cuts taxes.  It raises taxes on the poor.  End of story, and everyone watching this debate knows that.