The 24 Types of Libertarian

[medicineman]

a corporation should have no more right to despoil the environment or abuse its workers than an individual, but it should have no less rights either. the legal mumbo jumbo that imparts the rights of an individual to a corporation as a protection to its shareholders also demands of it the same responsibilities.

Unfortunately, those that own corporations, either outright or by proxy, have no interest in taking care of the environment or their workers. It is strictly the bottom line and fuck everything else. If most corporations were to take a good citizen test, they would fail miserably. The very act of granting them the same rights as a person is ludacris.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

How do you determine that once these programs stopped all the benefits stopped?

Do you not see that by allowing the cash for clunkers stimulus, those people that worked for those auto dealerships had a good couple months or so of relief. That even though all those sales stopped, you have allowed them to build up a little savings and pay off some past debt in order to scale down their spending longer term.

Do you not think about what happens when ever over the next year or so that they spend the money they earned by selling those cars? That is money that goes into a company so that they can use it to not only buy new goods to sell, but also into wages, rents, bills, ect. That is money that is circulating the economy in a very real way. And just because the auto dealerships are not selling as many cars afterwards, does not mean that the benefits of the original stimulus stops.

People who planned on a future vehicle purchase bought them before the end of the program. Once that ended so did the bump in sales.

And used cars became a lot more expensive because Cash for Clunkers sucked up and eliminated a lot of inventory. Who's more likely to buy a used car?

The housing market experienced a temporary bump until the incentive ended. Now the market is back in the shitter.

You can deny these things all day long, but it does not change anything.

We are only at the cusp of another dip because of people like yourself spouting we do exactly what they did to deepen the great depression, cut spending, and if they allow the bush tax cuts to expire, surprise there is your raising of taxes, both are out of Obamas hands. Allowing you and the rest of the base you make up to point that it is Obamas fault, when in reality this has nothing to do with his policies.

Wrong. We are entering the second phase of the recession because the Porkulus did not deliver and businesses are scared shitless. They are not hiring. Uncertainty directly related to laws and initiatives of the Obama Administration is the root cause. Obama is bad for business.

The whole blaming this on Fanny and Freddie is played out. You should read some real information on this and not buy into the political garbage so much.

Not played out so much as you simply refuse to acknowledge it, and are just tired of hearing it.

Thomas Sowell writes:

Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/07/political_fables_107026.html

I love that Obama gets blamed by you guys for something that was increasing very fast before he was in office. The guy took office at the end of January so basically Feb, which was when jobless claims hit their peak, and after one month you see the new claims trend turn around. But yeah this is all on Obama.

I know, I know: Bush's fault.

How's that unemployment rate that the Porkulus was designed to prevent working out for you? Of course, the unemployment rate is not 8% like we were warned against had the Porkulus stalled. Is it?

Love absolutes. Because they are complete horseshit. Funny isn't it that the 80billion in small business loans was never really mentioned, or the tax writeoffs for all businesses investment that he just announced, on and on. He has done a ton for businesses, but whatever if you made it this far believing this what can I say that will change your mind.

Why not just reduce taxes across the board. Nobody is fooled by targeted incentives requiring interaction (and the resulting paperwork) with indifferent and inefficient government bureaucrats.

I'm sure you believed Obama when he said he wanted to cut capital gains taxes for small business. What he did not say is that businesses don't pay capital gains taxes.

The tax revenues going up is not true, there have been many studies on this, the amount gained from business growth is not enough to offset the losses. And I am not saying tax cuts are bad things, they are very needed at the right times, and a good balance of them should be struck, but the notion that cutting taxes will bring in more revenue is proven to be wrong.

I am referring to revenues in relation to GDP. And in the case of capital gains tax cuts it is absolutely true.

 

[hanimmal]

People who planned on a future vehicle purchase bought them before the end of the program. Once that ended so did the bump in sales.

And used cars became a lot more expensive because Cash for Clunkers sucked up and eliminated a lot of inventory. Who's more likely to buy a used car?

The housing market experienced a temporary bump until the incentive ended. Now the market is back in the shitter.

You can deny these things all day long, but it does not change anything

Who's denying these things? What you should think of too is when you look at the cash for clunkers is that those people would have waited yes and demand may have been a little higher if it was in the next few months to get a new car. But if those people could have afforded to get it then why were they waiting? For lower prices maybe? Due to car dealership and car companies suffering trying to increase demand and lowering prices to the point they would be barely paying bills and not much left over to produce new models forcing them either to borrow more money or possibly worse.

So instead you have the stimulus program that essentially gets people the cars for the prices they wanted, increased a lot of sales to people selling their cars that no one was buying putting money in there hands, putting money into the struggling sales staff. And then you have all that money made from the workers filtering around the economy that would have not had for months at which time may have been too late, he'll it may still not be enough, but at least it is out there working, where it otherwise would not have been.

Same thing with houses and the tax breaks for them.

Wrong. We are entering the second phase of the recession because the Porkulus did not deliver and businesses are scared shitless. They are not hiring. Uncertainty directly related to laws and initiatives of the Obama Administration is the root cause. Obama is bad for business.

Only in the entertainment stations you like to think is news. Businesses are actually hiring, new jobs for private industries have been climbing.

Not played out so much as you simply refuse to acknowledge it, and are just tired of hearing it.

Thomas Sowell writes:
Another political fable is that the current economic downturn is due to not enough government regulation of the housing and financial markets. But it was precisely the government regulators, under pressure from politicians, who forced banks and other lending institutions to lower their standards for making mortgage loans.

These risky loans, and the defaults that followed, were what set off a chain reaction of massive financial losses that brought down the whole economy.

Was this due to George W. Bush and the Republicans? Only partly. Most of those who pushed the lowering of mortgage lending standards were Democrats-- notably Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd, though too many Republicans went along.

At the heart of these policies were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who bought huge amounts of risky mortgages, passing the risk on from the banks that lent the money (and made the profits) to the taxpayers who were not even aware that they would end up paying in the end.

When President Bush said in 2004 that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be reined in, 76 members of the House of Representatives issued a statement to the contrary. These included Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel.

This is just political garbage. Why did the macs have to buy these risky mortgages? Who was the ones that lent them in the first place? What was the terms of those mortgages, and who set those terms?

Loopholes in the system being exploited in the Laws that were changed to the Mac banks is not the same as it being their fault. I know you are a pretty well read dude. And I'm sure you may not be as married to the viewpoint of the places you get your info from, maybe you should think about questioning this too, at least until you see the actual researchers side of the story.

How's that unemployment rate that the Porkulus was designed to prevent working out for you? Of course, the unemployment rate is not 8% like we were warned against had the Porkulus stalled. Is it?

You never read the CBO reports disclaimer I'm guessing. Check out politifact on this too so you can see for yourself where this is garbage.

Why not just reduce taxes across the board. Nobody is fooled by targeted incentives requiring interaction (and the resulting paperwork) with indifferent and inefficient government bureaucrats.

I'm sure you believed Obama when he said he wanted to cut capital gains taxes for small business. What he did not say is that businesses don't pay capital gains taxes.

I don't mind them cutting the taxes across the board, but I think the problem there is these taxes will have to be in place for five or ten years I am fuzzy on this part. And what that means is either we cut the taxes for the next decade which makes it harder to get out of the deficit when we get back to full capacity as a country, or we go back to the level of taxes in the nineties for the top two tiers (who benefitted the most of the credit expansion this last decade leading up to the recession) or they expire which is a substantial tax increase on everyone.

I am referring to revenues in relation to GDP. And in the case of capital gains tax cuts it is absolutely true.

I would recommend checking into this too. I'll try to find you some good links shortly.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

This article entitled, ‘Clunkers,’ a classic government folly was found in the Boston Globe.

The Boston Globe!

IN THE market for a used car? Good luck finding a bargain: The price of “pre-owned’’ vehicles has climbed considerably over the past year. According to Edmunds.com, a website for car buyers, a three-year-old automobile today will set you back, on average, close to $20,000 — a spike of more than 10 percent since last summer. For some popular models, the increase has been much steeper. In July, a used Cadillac Escalade was going for around $35,000, or nearly 36 percent over last July’s price.

Why are used-car prices rocketing? Part of the answer is that demand is up: With unemployment high and the economy uncertain, some car buyers who might otherwise be looking for a new truck or SUV are instead shopping for a used vehicle as a way to save money.

But an even bigger part of the answer is that the supply of used cars is artificially low, because your Uncle Sam decided last year to destroy hundreds of thousands of perfectly good automobiles as part of its hare-brained Car Allowance Rebate System — or, as most of us called it, Cash for Clunkers. That was the program under which the government paid consumers up to $4,500 when they traded in an old car and bought a new one with better gas mileage. The traded-in cars — which had to be in drivable condition to qualify for the rebate — were then demolished: Dealers were required to chemically wreck each car’s engine, and send the car to be crushed or shredded.

Congress and the Obama administration trumpeted Cash for Clunkers as a triumph — the president pronounced it “successful beyond anybody’s imagination.’’ Which it was, if you define success as getting people to take “free’’ money to make a purchase most of them are going to make anyway, while simultaneously wiping out productive assets that could provide value to many other consumers for years to come. By any rational standard, however, this program was sheer folly.

No great insight was needed to realize that Cash for Clunkers would work a hardship on people unable to afford a new car. “All this program did for them,’’ I wrote last August, “was guarantee that used cars will become more expensive. Poorer drivers will be penalized to subsidize new cars for wealthier drivers.’’ Alec Gutierrez, a senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book, predicted that used-car prices would surge by up to 10 percent. “It’s going to drive prices up on some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road,’’ he told USA Today. In short, Washington spent nearly $3 billion to raise the price of mobility for drivers on a budget.

To be sure, Cash for Clunkers gave a powerful jolt to car sales in July and August of 2009. But it did so mostly by delaying sales that would otherwise have occurred in April, May, and June, or by accelerating those that would have taken place in September, October, or later. “Influencing the timing of consumers’ durable purchases is easy,’’ Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl wrote a few days ago in a blog post looking back at the program. “Creating new purchases is not.’’ Of the 700,000 cars purchased during the clunkers frenzy, the estimated net increase in sales was only 125,000. Each incremental sale thus ended up costing the taxpayers a profligate $24,000.

Even on environmental grounds, Cash for Clunkers was an exorbitant dud. Researchers at the University of California-Davis calculated that the reduction of carbon dioxide attributable to the program cost no less than $237 per ton. In contrast, carbon emissions credits cost about $20 per ton in international markets.

Using Department of Transportation figures, the Associated Press calculated that replacing inefficient clunkers with new cars getting higher mileage would reduce CO2 emissions by around 700,000 tons a year — less than Americans emit in a single hour. Likewise, the projected reduction in gasoline use amounted to about as much as Americans go through in 4 hours. (And that’s only if you assume — contrary to historical experience — that fuel consumption decreases when fuel efficiency rises.)

When all is said and done, Cash for Clunkers was a deplorable exercise in budgetary wastefulness, asset destruction, environmental irrelevance, and economic idiocy. Other than that, it was a screaming success.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/09/01/clunkers_a_classic_government_folly/

 

[doc111]

Typical.

Nothing substantive to add. Just some vague, random comment which has no bearing on the topic.

Apparently you have no idea what I am referencing in my sig.

I suppose I was expecting too much.

The teabaggers have spent the primary season purifying the Republican party. And though they are not done, not by a long shot, the primaries are almost over.

Capitol hill, governorships, and countless down ballot-seats are next in line.

And the Proggies know it, too. I see it every day in the emails I receive from MoveOn, OFA, the DSCC, and the Democratic Party. Each successive message is more indignant and desperate than the last.

You should stock up on Vagisil now.

Hahahahahaha!!!!! He ripped my signature as well! lmfao!!!!

 

[hanimmal]

Ok so reading this, we should at least agree that this guy is very anti cash for clunkers.

Past that let's examine it:

IN THE market for a used car? Good luck finding a bargain: The price of “pre-owned’’ vehicles has climbed considerably over the past year. According to Edmunds.com, a website for car buyers, a three-year-old automobile today will set you back, on average, close to $20,000 — a spike of more than 10 percent since last summer. For some popular models, the increase has been much steeper. In July, a used Cadillac Escalade was going for around $35,000, or nearly 36 percent over last July’s price.

So somehow they are trying to use this as an example of how a program that capped the rebate at 4500 made a suv at 35000 increase 36% in a year? That doesn't hit you as ridiculous? It has nothing to do with the economy at a verge of collapse and credit markets halted meaning someone would need to come up with the full amount from their savings, driving down the price in 09, while credit loosening and people being a bit better off/ trading down from a new escalade would increase the demand of higher end used autos.

IN THE market for a used car? Good luck finding a bargain: The price of “pre-owned’’ vehicles has climbed considerably over the past year. According to Edmunds.com, a website for car buyers, a three-year-old automobile today will set you back, on average, close to $20,000 — a spike of more than 10 percent since last summer. For some popular models, the increase has been much steeper. In July, a used Cadillac Escalade was going for around $35,000, or nearly 36 percent over last July’s price.

. Most cars that are priced under three grand (not much use buying a 4k car and trading it in for 4.5k right) are have about what three four years left of good use? I love how they seem to just not concern themselves with maybe dealerships being better off and not slashing and burning prices to keep their doors open.

To be sure, Cash for Clunkers gave a powerful jolt to car sales in July and August of 2009. But it did so mostly by delaying sales that would otherwise have occurred in April, May, and June, or by accelerating those that would have taken place in September, October, or later. “Influencing the timing of consumers’ durable purchases is easy,’’ Edmunds CEO Jeremy Anwyl wrote a few days ago in a blog post looking back at the program. “Creating new purchases is not.’’ Of the 700,000 cars purchased during the clunkers frenzy, the estimated net increase in sales was only 125,000. Each incremental sale thus ended up costing the taxpayers a profligate $24,000.

And by doing so you get those people spending and increasing consumer demand, which allows that money to circulate the economy several months before it would have, allowing the people that get paid as a result more able to use their newly received income for purchases of their own.

And the 125,000 estimated net increase in car sales is somehow looked at as a bad thing, playing number games with all the stimulus being packed onto the last cars sold over the amount they estimate would have been bought.


He'll even another way that this can all be viewed is that by doing this you got money sooner into the hands of all those people selling their cars at the low end that may have had serious need for it. You don't see how this is good? And this increase is helping all those people selling their used cars now right, isn't that what they are saying? Is there something bad about those people receiving a larger amount of money for their used car? There are several ways to look at this. The problem is you are choosing to look at only one side of this, and failing to see all the ways it was beneficial.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Ok so reading this, we should at least agree that this guy is very anti cash for clunkers.

Past that let's examine it:


So somehow they are trying to use this as an example of how a program that capped the rebate at 4500 made a suv at 35000 increase 36% in a year? That doesn't hit you as ridiculous? It has nothing to do with the economy at a verge of collapse and credit markets halted meaning someone would need to come up with the full amount from their savings, driving down the price in 09, while credit loosening and people being a bit better off/ trading down from a new escalade would increase the demand of higher end used autos.

. Most cars that are priced under three grand (not much use buying a 4k car and trading it in for 4.5k right) are have about what three four years left of good use? I love how they seem to just not concern themselves with maybe dealerships being better off and not slashing and burning prices to keep their doors open.



And by doing so you get those people spending and increasing consumer demand, which allows that money to circulate the economy several months before it would have, allowing the people that get paid as a result more able to use their newly received income for purchases of their own.

And the 125,000 estimated net increase in car sales is somehow looked at as a bad thing, playing number games with all the stimulus being packed onto the last cars sold over the amount they estimate would have been bought.


He'll even another way that this can all be viewed is that by doing this you got money sooner into the hands of all those people selling their cars at the low end that may have had serious need for it. You don't see how this is good? And this increase is helping all those people selling their used cars now right, isn't that what they are saying? Is there something bad about those people receiving a larger amount of money for their used car? There are several ways to look at this. The problem is you are choosing to look at only one side of this, and failing to see all the ways it was beneficial.

I have had this C4C discussion on another thread right after the program ended. Hell, I might have had it with you, Han.

Back then we talked about how expensive the program was at the time and how it largely benefited foreign automakers. This is from memory, but were not 6 out of the top 10 makes sold foreign?

So a year later, here we are. After the enormous cost of the program; the fact that it largely benefited Japan, South Korea, and Germany; the fact that it created an artificial upheaval in the Auto industry swiftly followed by a abnormally deep lull; and the fact that the supply of used cars shrank, driving up the prices.

Was it worth it?

Business had to staff up to keep up with the artificial demand and then let people go after the program ended. Government interference did nothing but create a brief and very expensive burst of activity in the automobile industry which was in the end counter-productive because it disrupted the market for the rest of the year.

Just like TARP, just like the Porkulus, and just like the Home Buyers Tax Incentive; Cash for Clunkers was bad policy.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

If Democrats were serious about reviving the economy, they would stop the deficit spending, slash the corporate tax rate, eliminate capital gains taxes, and make the bush tax cuts permanent.

And if Republicans were serious they would support the Fair Tax.

 

[hanimmal]

Back then we talked about how expensive the program was at the time and how it largely benefited foreign automakers. This is from memory, but were not 6 out of the top 10 makes sold foreign?

Yeah, but unlike many people that don't understand economics and the benefits of trade that doesn't bother me. Those foreign automakers support plenty of American jobs, from sales, service, shipping yard jobs, rail workers, the financiers, building rentals, the fact that they get paid in American dollars means that they will need to use them for American goods and services as well. There is nothing wrong with free trade.

Business had to staff up to keep up with the artificial demand and then let people go after the program ended. Government interference did nothing but create a brief and very expensive burst of activity in the automobile industry which was in the end counter-productive because it disrupted the market for the rest of the year.

. So not that I am saying you didn't just make up the thing about them hiring for a short time and then dropping those employees, because I don't see anything backing those claims up.

Let's say that is right, you don't think those few months of work meant a lot to those laid off workers? And how exactly do you come to the conclusion it distributed the market? I mean seriously think that through, it's a disruption to get sales earlier than you would have before? Bullshit. The program meant a lot to dealerships across America, which look into the percent of American jobs by region is wrapped up in auto dealerships and support jobs, and it was very beneficial for getting us on a right direction out of this mess.

If Democrats were serious about reviving the economy, they would stop the deficit spending, slash the corporate tax rate, eliminate capital gains taxes, and make the bush tax cuts permanent.

And if Republicans were serious they would support the Fair Tax.

Yeesh, for a smart guy the non sense you bought into about what I'm guessing has to be Austrian economics is about as much garbage as that aznsouljah guy listened to. Fair tax is the biggest scam of them all. Complelety lopsided when you look at all the factors that goes into how much someone is paying out for not only taxes, which does change, but the ability to grow larger portions of your money and get out of paying taxes, to being able to afford better accountants to help you not pay as much in the first place.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Yeah, but unlike many people that don't understand economics and the benefits of trade that doesn't bother me. Those foreign automakers support plenty of American jobs, from sales, service, shipping yard jobs, rail workers, the financiers, building rentals, the fact that they get paid in American dollars means that they will need to use them for American goods and services as well. There is nothing wrong with free trade.

. So not that I am saying you didn't just make up the thing about them hiring for a short time and then dropping those employees, because I don't see anything backing those claims up.

Let's say that is right, you don't think those few months of work meant a lot to those laid off workers? And how exactly do you come to the conclusion it distributed the market? I mean seriously think that through, it's a disruption to get sales earlier than you would have before? Bullshit. The program meant a lot to dealerships across America, which look into the percent of American jobs by region is wrapped up in auto dealerships and support jobs, and it was very beneficial for getting us on a right direction out of this mess.

Yeesh, for a smart guy the non sense you bought into about what I'm guessing has to be Austrian economics is about as much garbage as that aznsouljah guy listened to. Fair tax is the biggest scam of them all. Complelety lopsided when you look at all the factors that goes into how much someone is paying out for not only taxes, which does change, but the ability to grow larger portions of your money and get out of paying taxes, to being able to afford better accountants to help you not pay as much in the first place.

Actually I was going on my own experience as a former business owner. And to be honest, my first job out of college was at a car dealership. I was a decent salesman, I just didn't like being yelled at and called a crook - almost every motherfucking day.

A business staffs up according to its need at any given time. Before C4C, it was slow. Meaning dealerships had to staff up to meet the demand. Hiring is a time-consuming pain in the ass. So much so that when you do it, you don't hire someone just to have to let them go after a short time - another pain in the ass.

Not surprisingly, demand fell off suddenly after the program ended because C4C was borrowing sales from the future. One can extrapolate that dynamic through the entire auto industry. After C4C, business was slow again, slower than before because people who planned on buying in October took advantage of C4C in July. The dealership can't afford to keep people on the payroll to just sit around. What then? Lay-offs. Throw in the added administrative headaches that go along with staffing up and letting go. The disruption was not worth it.

And you can try to demean me over my support of the Fair Tax if you like. It's easy to demagogue, which is why it probably won't ever pass.

Detractors focus too much on the 23% sales tax and ignore the fact that all embedded taxes disappear; as do income taxes and all payroll taxes. Your tax return would be the size of a post card.

Horrible!

 

[hanimmal]

Actually I was going on my own experience as a former business owner. And to be honest, my first job out of college was at a car dealership. I was a decent salesman, I just didn't like being yelled at and called a crook - almost every motherfucking day.

A business staffs up according to its need at any given time. Before C4C, it was slow. Meaning dealerships had to staff up to meet the demand. Hiring is a time-consuming pain in the ass. So much so that when you do it, you don't hire someone just to have to let them go after a short time - another pain in the ass.

Not surprisingly, demand fell off suddenly after the program ended because C4C was borrowing sales from the future. One can extrapolate that dynamic through the entire auto industry. After C4C, business was slow again, slower than before because people who planned on buying in October took advantage of C4C in July. The dealership can't afford to keep people on the payroll to just sit around. What then? Lay-offs. Throw in the added administrative headaches that go along with staffing up and letting go. The disruption was not worth it.

In normal years I would say you are most likely right and they would have had to hire and fire a few months later. But I think in the recession it is different as they would have been less reason to hire because demand was so low before they would have had enough people on staff to have sales that would basically be a normal year.

But that is just off my experience talking to a grand total of one dealership, so I can be wrong, but doesnt matter much.

Anyway here is the month over month auto sales:


So here is the month by month breakdown you can see that before cash for clunkers all the months of 09 were a little over half of the sales of the previous years. Until the program started, you can see that there was almost as many cars sold in july than the previous year, and in august there is actually more sold. So you are saying that it had to have disrupted the market afterwards to the point even fewer cars were sold.

So if you look at the trend of 09, without cash for clunkers, you would expect to see the sales just over half the previous years totals right? And with the program you are saying there would be a decrease, so we should expect it to be less than half the amount or at least some kind of noticeable decrease right?



You can see that the trend of being a little over half the sales from the previous years stayed about the same. And you can also see around october '09 sales finally passed up 08 trends and continued to increase ever since.

So I think that saying cash for clunkers was a failure is dead wrong. It caused a huge spike in sales in July and august, but at the same time did not really seem to do much to drop demand in later months.

And for anyone that was able to work and earn an income during those two months I am sure would disagree that it was not worth it.

And you can try to demean me over my support of the Fair Tax if you like. It's easy to demagogue, which is why it probably won't ever pass.

Detractors focus too much on the 23% sales tax and ignore the fact that all embedded taxes disappear; as do income taxes and all payroll taxes. Your tax return would be the size of a post card.

I'm sorry I did not mean to demean you. I just get sick of the fair tax scam. It is such a ploy and directly screws people the less money that they make.

If someone is making 50k a year, almost everything minus about what 10% is somehow paying for something right? That means that almost all of their income is taxed because they need to use their money.

Now someone that makes 500k a year is not going to need to spend such a high proportion of their income, so instead they are only taxed on around 40% of their income, meaning that they can now turn around and reinvest about 60% of it and get far more money gained from it.

There is a lot that builds off of this understanding too, like when you start to think about not only the way we can grow our money, but also when you start to think about who benefits the most from things like a healthy workforce, and new and better roads, better educated workforce, strong military that helps our businesses operate oversees, on and on. The wealthier you are the more you benefit from the things we pay for as a society. Hell even unemployment gives businesses a elevated floor with consumer spending in times of economic turmoil. Not saying that people do not get a huge benefit from these programs at all levels of society, but without all the things our taxes pay for our businesses would not be nearly as large and that means they would make far less money.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Am I reading you right, han? Are you saying the program had no significant overall effect on the market?

If so, they why waste a billion dollars implementing it?

A regular week in a car dealership is feast and famine. During the week it is pretty dead, but salespeople are on hand. When I was a salesman, I was expected to be there five days a week open to close plus one half-day a week. The half day was a Tuesday or Wednesday. All of the salesmen on the floor took their half-day on different days Monday through Thursday. The dealership was closed Sundays. Toward the end of the week, the show room and the lot were very busy. The phone always ringing and customers everywhere.

From start to finish a sale takes a long time. The transaction requires a lot of paperwork. And automobile sales is a skill. Not everyone has the temperament the job requires. The best salesmen could also make a living as con men if they chose because the techniques are very similar. It is a hard job that requires long hours and a great deal of frustration.

And a sales manager can't just pluck skilled salespeople off the street. He can't shit a salesperson when a customer appears on the lot. The salesperson has to be there before the customer arrives. Meaning sales managers had to scramble to fill the show room with salespeople to meet the artificial surge.

You did not demean me over the Fair Tax, you simply tried. Big difference.

The fair tax is revenue neutral. It does not screw the poor because everybody receives a monthly rebate to reimburse them for tax made on essential purchases.

And if you want to talk about scams, let's talk about the progressive income tax. A thoroughly corrupt and counter-productive system that encourages cheating and punishes achievement. Plus, 47% of filers don't pay income taxes at all. What is fair about that?

 

[hanimmal]

Am I reading you right, han? Are you saying the program had no significant overall effect on the market?

. No I'm saying that there was not some significant drop off from the way sales were trending after cash for clunkers. And there was a huge increase in July and august, so all the extra benefits from those two months really look like pure wins.

And you may know this better than me, but all those taxes on sold cars is a couple thousand per car sold right? Those are taxes that wouldn't have been there without those sales right? So you put those to each clunker turned in and it lightens the load a ton.

And when you think about the taxes gained, and how much it costs to us Americans over the next 30 years the treasuries they sold will be your looking at about five dollars a year for us. Which inflation basically turns to zero.

I don't get why people freak out over then stimulating the economy in recessions. It is really the only way to not just wait until the floor drops and wipes away a huge portion of the middle class like we used to before the great depression every couple years.

A regular week in a car dealership is feast and famine. During the week it is pretty dead, but salespeople are on hand. When I was a salesman, I was expected to be there five days a week open to close plus one half-day a week. The half day was a Tuesday or Wednesday. All of the salesmen on the floor took their half-day on different days Monday through Thursday. The dealership was closed Sundays. Toward the end of the week, the show room and the lot were very busy. The phone always ringing and customers everywhere.

From start to finish a sale takes a long time. The transaction requires a lot of paperwork. And automobile sales is a skill. Not everyone has the temperament the job requires. The best salesmen could also make a living as con men if they chose because the techniques are very similar. It is a hard job that requires long hours and a great deal of frustration.

And a sales manager can't just pluck skilled salespeople off the street. He can't shit a salesperson when a customer appears on the lot. The salesperson has to be there before the customer arrives. Meaning sales managers had to scramble to fill the show room with salespeople to meet the artificial surge.

it's funny but I think sales is the last great trade that doesn't take some kind of certification. I was a sales manager working on commission for a decade before going back to school for my Econ degree. I'll see if I can find numbers on hiring for the clunkers bill, but even still, it's not a bad thing if they had to hire more people for a couple months. Because I can tell you running a showroom when the economy is dead getting too many sales for a few months is never a bad thing.

The fair tax is revenue neutral. It does not screw the poor because everybody receives a monthly rebate to reimburse them for tax made on essential purchases.

. So monthly rebate reimbursement check doesn't sound like a pain in the ass system to you? More than today's by far.

But that doesn't matter. Think about what is not considered a essential purchase, would couches be in that list? Because a thousand dollars for some cheap furniture from a store, that's a far larger purchase than a wealthy person buying more expensive furniture percentage wise. And think about the amount people have to set aside, look at the typical families electric bill, it's a little more for a wealthy family, but the percentages are so skewed.

Think about what a middle income person spends as a percentage on groceries vs a wealthy family.

It sounds great to call something a catchy name like 'fair tax' but the reality is when you have low income families paying out 25% of their income in taxes, while middle income earners pay 20% and the wealthy getting away with only paying 5% of their income it really is the farthest thing from being fair.

And if you want to talk about scams, let's talk about the progressive income tax. A thoroughly corrupt and counter-productive system that encourages cheating and punishes achievement. Plus, 47% of filers don't pay income taxes at all. What is fair about that?

. What about state taxes? How about FICA, S.S everyone has those taken out. If people are earning under 25k a year they are still paying a lot in taxes, And things like state taxes hit them harder than the middle and upper income earners, just like above.
This is not to say there is not things wrong with the system we have, because there are many different ways that the system could be improved, but until we get people that know what they are doing in office, it's better than the crazy shit that gets tossed around and lobbied like 'fair tax'.

 

[NoDrama]

. No I'm saying that there was not some significant drop off from the way sales were trending after cash for clunkers. And there was a huge increase in July and august, so all the extra benefits from those two months really look like pure wins.

And you may know this better than me, but all those taxes on sold cars is a couple thousand per car sold right? Those are taxes that wouldn't have been there without those sales right? So you put those to each clunker turned in and it lightens the load a ton.

And when you think about the taxes gained, and how much it costs to us Americans over the next 30 years the treasuries they sold will be your looking at about five dollars a year for us. Which inflation basically turns to zero.

And when you think about how most people finance a car and the total financing usually includes the tax , well those people get to pay interest on that tax and who gets the interest? Great way to make money isn't it? No work involved in that profit.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

I hope I don't come off as an ass, han, but your classifying the Fair Tax as a scam doesn't square with your ignorance on the subject. And your objections seem as far fetched and incorrect as aznsouljah's mad ravings.

The rebate check would be based on the size of the family, an amount commensurate to the taxes they would pay on essentials. Same amount each month. Not complicated at all, especially compared compared to the current system.

Payroll taxes would disappear under the Fair Tax. Didn't I mention that previously?

And you seem to forget the purpose of taxes: to fund the legitimate functions of government. Taxes should not be means of plunder for parasites.

Bonus for the class-warfare crowd: Rich people buy more stuff; more expensive stuff. They will pay much more in taxes than us lowly groundlings.

The best thing about the Fair Tax is that politicians do not determine how much tax is paid, consumers do. The politicians will no longer get to target their constituencies with tax breaks and loopholes. And the Federal government would be forced to do what all of us do, live within its means.

Did you notice that I only suggested the Republicans do it? It would be a radical departure for them. Just as cutting conventional taxes would be a radical departure for spend-happy Democrats.

But again, it will never pass. To many people are willing to believe the misinformation.

 

[BuddhaDawg]

Every time after I read the libertarian viewpoints, this cartoon give me a good chuckle. It was worth reposting at this point in the thread.

 

[BuddhaDawg]

 

[hanimmal]

I hope I don't come off as an ass, han, but your classifying the Fair Tax as a scam doesn't square with your ignorance on the subject. And your objections seem as far fetched and incorrect as aznsouljah's mad ravings.

Ok so everything aside, wouldn't a 20% tax on goods be a huge disincentive to buy goods and push up the black market for pretty much everything? And not to mention the wealthier you are the better your opportunities would be to purchase large items outside the country to avoid these types of taxes. How could it not?

Imagine what happens in a recession or say a time like ww2, when there is very little spending the government would be crippled unless they could get investment meaning that they would have to increase taxes right and that would decrease spending even more. I know you think that I am saying things out of ignorance, but really these are things that I do know some good stuff about.

The rebate check would be based on the size of the family, an amount commensurate to the taxes they would pay on essentials. Same amount each month. Not complicated at all, especially compared compared to the current system.

Payroll taxes would disappear under the Fair Tax. Didn't I mention that previously?

I am sure there would be some great things about this tax scheme. And I am sure that the people that started this have done some great work to sell this to the people that have followed it, but instead of looking for just the positives also look at the negatives and do the same for our current system and see which one begrudingly comes out ahead. And there are a ton of crap wrong with the current tax codes, but at the same time the loopholes are a lot more tight than a strait consumption tax would be.

And you seem to forget the purpose of taxes: to fund the legitimate functions of government. Taxes should not be means of plunder for parasites.

Bonus for the class-warfare crowd: Rich people buy more stuff; more expensive stuff. They will pay much more in taxes than us lowly groundlings.

I dont see people as parasites usually. I look more at the people that benefit us more as a society because they used the systems well to get out of poverty and stop leeching the system.

The best thing about the Fair Tax is that politicians do not determine how much tax is paid, consumers do. The politicians will no longer get to target their constituencies with tax breaks and loopholes. And the Federal government would be forced to do what all of us do, live within its means.

Did you notice that I only suggested the Republicans do it? It would be a radical departure for them. Just as cutting conventional taxes would be a radical departure for spend-happy Democrats.

Well when the last time we had a dem raise taxes (remember Obama has only cut them, to this point right) how did it turn out for the economy? We killed it in the 90's. Yes raise taxes and lower spending in a good economy (to build up a surplus, so you have it to spend in a recession to stimulate the economy) and lower taxes and increase government spending in the bad times (use that surplus for spending programs to inject orders to businesses and letting them keep more of their money to pay their debts and save up until they are ready to spend bringing the economy back around).

Only problem is nobody knows how to keep a surplus in our government.

But again, it will never pass. To many people are willing to believe the misinformation.

It is not the misinformation I would be worried about. I am sure there is a ton of it out there, but I would focus more on the legit questions about this tax plan.

And when you think about how most people finance a car and the total financing usually includes the tax , well those people get to pay interest on that tax and who gets the interest? Great way to make money isn't it? No work involved in that profit.

Good call NoD, I really didn't think about this, that would go to the finance companies. Which usually are the ones buying the treasuries giving up their upfront money for a long time investment. So they gain on that interest from the loan on the front, and on the backend through the t-bills.

We get their money up front to pay for what half of the program (half from direct taxes right) to kick start our economy, which we pay back over decades.

But I may not be thinking the same thing that you are.


ps. hilarious cartoons!

 

[Johnnyorganic]

The Fair Tax is really yesterdays news. It will never pass. Huckabee was the only presidential hopeful who endorsed it.

A federal consumption tax would be far more equitable than the current federal taxes we endure. But again, it ain't gonna happen.

Pros and Cons from a Libertarian website. Cons first.

Cons:

1. The retail price of new goods and services would increase. Although the actual cost of these items would arguably remain the same due to the elimination of embedded income taxes mentioned in Pro #7 above, the initial “sticker shock” of apparently higher prices could have a dampening effect on the economy.

2. If the income tax is not fully repealed as promised OR a future president and/or Congress decides to re-instate some portion of the income tax code under the guise of a “national emergency” or something similar, we could end up with a national sales tax AND an income tax, which would be disastrous for our economic freedom.

3. The actual rate of the national sales tax would be 30%, not 23% as the Fair Tax proponents claim. This difference is due to the deceptive language that the proponents use to describe the tax rate calculation. Not only is this deception insulting, but it also makes it easier for the government to raise the tax rate in the future because people will think that the current rate is lower than it actually is.

4. Unlike the income tax brackets, this national sales tax proposal is not indexed for inflation, meaning that as inflation increases the base price of goods and services, the amount of sales tax that you pay will also increase.

5. People who have paid into the Social Security system and/or private savings accounts for retirement will be effectively double taxed when they begin withdrawing their money and spending it. This is because most of the money that people have managed to save up to this point already has been taxed under the current system.

6. Because tax rates would be simplified under the national sales tax system, this could ironically make it easier for the government to raise the tax rate on certain items that it deems “unhealthy” or “dangerous”. If this occurs, things such as fatty foods, cigarettes, firearms, and an indeterminate number of other politically unpopular items could wind up being taxed at exorbitant rates, which would certainly go against the spirit of a “fair” tax system.

7. If the Fair Tax is sufficiently high (like 30% or more), this could encourage more people to enter the black market in order to avoid the tax. This could cause crime that is often associated with black markets to escalate and effectively criminalize otherwise ordinary people.

8. The “prebate” that is built into the Fair Tax system could actually do more harm than good in the long run because it would effectively put all Americans (except those without Social Security numbers) on the government dole, and this could create problems with dependency and the “free lunch” mentality as experienced by recipients of current government welfare programs.

9. The Fair Tax does nothing to solve the underlying cause of high taxation, which is excessive government spending. As long as the federal government keeps spending taxpayer dollars on things that it has no business being involved with in the first place, it will continue to require high taxes in order to finance its expenditures, including the increasing cost of the national debt. Simply changing the method of taxation is not going to change the root causes of unfair taxes.

http://www.karlonia.com/2007/04/16/fair-tax-pros-and-cons/

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Now the Pros:

Pros:
1. Federal income taxes would be completely abolished. According to Fairtax.org, this would include all ancillary taxes on personal income such as estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, self-employment, Social Security, Medicare, and payroll taxes.

2. With the repeal of federal income taxes, the IRS (Internal Revenue Service or Income Robbery Service, depending on one’s perspective) would have much less power to snoop into the personal and private financial lives of American individuals. Ideally, the IRS would simply cease to exist.

3. The Fair Tax would be “progressive” in the sense that it would avoid taxing financially challenged (i.e., poor) people for basic necessities. This is accomplished by means of a “prebate”, which according to Fairtax.org would be $2,348 per year for a single person or $6,297 per year for a family of four.

4. The Fair Tax is calculated to be “revenue neutral”, meaning that all current government services would continue to be fully funded because the money that is raised from this national sales tax would be equal to the amount of revenue that is lost due to the repeal of federal income taxes. Programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be unaffected.

5. Because this tax system is consumption-based rather than income-based, people could exercise a certain amount of control over how much tax they pay. Since the tax is only applied to new (not used, secondhand, etc.) items at the point of sale, a relatively frugal person could avoid paying taxes on most things, and might even make money because of the “prebate”. Meanwhile, wealthy people who choose to live “high on the hog” without paying attention to their spending choices would probably pay more tax.

6. Since the Fair Tax only taxes consumption, it would not punish businesses for expanding and creating more jobs, investing in research and development, or donating to charity. Also, the individuals who create and maintain those businesses would have more disposable income to expand and compete in international markets (assuming that they make relatively wise choices, see the point above).

7. The base price of goods and services (that is, their cost of production before adding any taxes, profits, etc.) would be lower because the embedded costs of the current income tax system would no longer be a factor. This would partially offset the increase in the total price of new products and services that would result from the Fair Tax.

8. From the standpoint of government revenue collection, the “problem” of tax evasion would be reduced because people who currently resist paying income taxes and/or derive their income from black market sources would be taxed automatically at the point of sale whenever they purchase new goods and services. Moreover, the government would no longer need to spend taxpayer money in order to chase down income tax evaders.

9. A national sales tax such as this would be much more transparent than the current tax system. There would be no more loopholes, special exemptions, payroll taxes, embedded costs, or other factors that allow people under the current system to avoid realizing how much tax they are actually paying. With the amount of taxation clearly visible to the general public, people (hopefully) would be less likely to tolerate wasteful spending, corruption, and inefficiency in government, resulting in lower levels of taxation and a stronger economy overall.

http://www.karlonia.com/2007/04/16/fair-tax-pros-and-cons/