Thoughts on the "Fair Tax"

[BigNBushy]

The constitutional amendment that enabled the federal government to collect those taxes was passed by the congress, which was elected by the people of the United States. It was then ratified by more than 3/4s of the state legislatures, which again were elected by the people of the respective states. How can you possibly call it theft at all?

If we don't like the income tax, all we need to do is change the constitution again. The people retain absolute control over that, since they elect the congress and the state legislatures.

If one goes back and looks at the debate at that time concerning the income tax, it was pitched as giving a very small percentage on only the very top earners. In fact it was said that under no conditions would the average person ever be taxed on their income. So when the tax first came out, it was about 10-15% only on the very top incomes. After WW1 suddenly everyone was taxed, and taxed at significantly higher rates than its supporters ever said we would be taxed at. There is a term for that; Fraud in the inducement.

 

[BigNBushy]

Exactly JC. We can make a consumption tax as progressive as we want. You can have different rates for different levels of items price. Groceries under 10 bucks, no tax. Clothing under 20 bucks, no tax, etc.. It doesn't have to be regressive.

Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing production unless your economy is based on debt. Then it doesn't work. Presently, we need people to borrow as much as possible to keep our house of cards propped up.

What a lot of people fail to appreciate is the impact this legislation would have. Look at bread. Currently, in the price of a loaf, the bakery is taxed. The farmer who produces the grain is also taxed, and the companies who make the machinery the farmer uses are taxed. All those taxes are taken away, so the cost of production for that loaf of bread is greatly reduced. Competitive forces of the marketplace would drive the price of that loaf downward. The price of everything would fall, because so much of the equation that determines price is affected on how much tax the producers have to pay. If that is taken out of the equation, price falls. Not instantly, and probably not evenly across all sectors of the market, but eventually competition would drive cost for all products and services down. So while the poor are taxed, they would hardly notice.

 

[tokeprep]

If one goes back and looks at the debate at that time concerning the income tax, it was pitched as giving a very small percentage on only the very top earners. In fact it was said that under no conditions would the average person ever be taxed on their income. So when the tax first came out, it was about 10-15% only on the very top incomes. After WW1 suddenly everyone was taxed, and taxed at significantly higher rates than its supporters ever said we would be taxed at. There is a term for that; Fraud in the inducement.

I'm not disagreeing that the income tax was initially sold as a small and limited tax, but I don't see why that's relevant. Subsequent congresses--elected by the people, with every seat in the house coming up every 2 years--expanded the tax with changes signed into law by the president, also elected by the people. The people accepted this. Further, the text of the amendment didn't place any limitations on who would be taxed or how much. If we didn't want the tax to expand, we could have limited it, through our representatives, through our president, through our state legislatures.

My second point still stands: if we don't like it we retain absolute control over ending it. Our failure to exercise our power is our own failure, and that's why the income tax cannot possibly be called theft.

 

[BigNBushy]

I'm not disagreeing that the income tax was initially sold as a small and limited tax, but I don't see why that's relevant. Subsequent congresses--elected by the people, with every seat in the house coming up every 2 years--expanded the tax with changes signed into law by the president, also elected by the people. The people accepted this. Further, the text of the amendment didn't place any limitations on who would be taxed or how much. If we didn't want the tax to expand, we could have limited it, through our representatives, through our president, through our state legislatures.

My second point still stands: if we don't like it we retain absolute control over ending it. Our failure to exercise our power is our own failure, and that's why the income tax cannot possibly be called theft.

I agree with you that it is not theft, we have legally defined theft, and we have passed laws that make this income tax legal, but it does, as I suppose any tax does, share certain characteristics with theft. My pointing out how the tax started goes to imply more about how government isn't to be trusted. With anything. I think though, that it is an example of how democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper. It may be legal, but it might not be ethical ; the tyranny of the majority and all that. I think it is very telling that the courts over nearly a century kept finding an income tax so abhorrently against the constitution. Simply passing an amendment might make it legal, but it is still forcefully depriving every citizen of huge chunks of their life.

 

[Harrekin]

If we can so easily control our elected representatives then why do over 50% of US citizens support legal cannabis yet it's still illegal?

Why in Washington (where cannabis was voted legal, directly by the people) are MMJ facilities being raided?

Tokenretard strikes back, again!

 

[tokeprep]

If we can so easily control our elected representatives then why do over 50% of US citizens support legal cannabis yet it's still illegal?

Why in Washington (where cannabis was voted legal, directly by the people) are MMJ facilities being raided?

Tokenretard strikes back, again!

1) Those people don't show up to vote.
2) Under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, federal law triumphs over state law. The fact that something is legal under state law is irrelevant if it is illegal under federal law.

If you don't vote, you don't elect your representatives and you have no power over them. Unfortunately, most Americans don't vote. They can only blame themselves.

 

[NoDrama]

If we can so easily control our elected representatives then why do over 50% of US citizens support legal cannabis yet it's still illegal?

Why in Washington (where cannabis was voted legal, directly by the people) are MMJ facilities being raided?

Tokenretard strikes back, again!

1) Because the elected representatives don't really represent you, they just take your vote and then go and do what they are told/bribed/or just WANT to do. Its a rare politician that votes only in the interest of ALL the people. You can vote for the most MJ liberal person TIME and TIME again, but the laws never change because the Fed controls SO much of what a state can do by clutching the almighty purse strings and withdrawing its tax payer based bounty.

2) Because states are no longer sovereign, Hey if they needed a fucking CONSTITUTIONAL amendment to make alcohol illegal, why don't they need one to make other recreational drugs illegal? The fact that MJ is illegal isn't the concern, it isn't illegal. Its illegal in that it is classified as a controlled substance and only "Authorized" people can be in possession of it. Kind of a catch 22 for most.

Taxes aren't fair, to anyone, but they are necessary.

A income tax is what made this HUGE military we have the most well equipped in the world, without the income tax we NEVER could have war mongered as much as we have. The current war monger in chief is most likely devising a plan to invade yet another country as we speak.

War, Has to be the biggest racket ever.

 

[Rob Roy]

he views taxation as "theft". if i want to avoid theft, i take measures to do avoid theft. if he wants to avoid "theft", he should take measures as well.

he sounds like he's entitled to have life work out easy and in the fashion he expects. but i bet he rails against the "entitlement attitude" and the like.

Theft is when a person that owns "property" (real property including the product(s) of their labor) has all or a portion of their property taken by another or a group of others absent the owners specific consent to the "agreement".

I view theft consistently and do not make exceptions for people that call themselves my leaders to steal. You on the other hand make exceptions and become a government apologist when that gang steals. A majority vote cannot change this. It only means the size of the gang stealing has increased.

 

[Rob Roy]

1) Those people don't show up to vote.
2) Under the supremacy clause of the United States constitution, federal law triumphs over state law. The fact that something is legal under state law is irrelevant if it is illegal under federal law.

If you don't vote, you don't elect your representatives and you have no power over them. Unfortunately, most Americans don't vote. They can only blame themselves.

Lysander Spooner called and challenged you to a logic contest....

Consent, learn what it means.

 

[UncleBuck]

Theft is when a person that owns "property" (real property including the product(s) of their labor) has all or a portion of their property taken by another or a group of others absent the owners specific consent to the "agreement".

I view theft consistently and do not make exceptions for people that call themselves my leaders to steal. You on the other hand make exceptions and become a government apologist when that gang steals. A majority vote cannot change this. It only means the size of the gang stealing has increased.

so basically your problem is that the government doesn't stop and ask every coming of age teen if the constitution they passed centuries ago is OK with you and draft a new one if it doesn't meet with your approval.

if you have a problem with taxation, the answer is simple: don't fucking consent to it. don't sign the W2, abscond to the woods, and forsake all benefit of those things that taxation makes possible, including the public infrastructure and public education that has made the internet possible.

i think we'd all like that, especially since we'd never have to hear the hollow thump of that dead horse you keep beating.

 

[Harrekin]

Dude, you're seriously gonna lecture someone on taxes?

Your treadmill industry is untaxed, and unless you're laundering your money then you're not contributing.

Maybe you should abscond to the woods?

 

[UncleBuck]

Dude, you're seriously gonna lecture someone on taxes?

Your treadmill industry is untaxed, and unless you're laundering your money then you're not contributing.

Maybe you should abscond to the woods?

hell yes i will lecture him on taxes, as i pay mine every year. it's not my fault that no taxation provision was written in to oregon's medical cannabis laws, and every chance i get i vote for taxation, regulation, and re-legalization of cannabis, medical or otherwise.

hell, even if i was running an elaborate scheme to defraud the government of social security or any number of other easily abused systems, i would still lecture his ass on this, as his views are completely unreasonable.*

"but no one ever asked ME if i was ok with the 16th amendment! it's not fair! BOO HOO! i will hold my breath and stomp my feet now! WAAAAHHHHHHH!" - is basically what his argument boils down to.

it would be bad enough if we didn't have to listen to the same exact senseless argument over and over and over again. but we do.

 

[Harrekin]

hell yes i will lecture him on taxes, as i pay mine every year. it's not my fault that no taxation provision was written in to oregon's medical cannabis laws, and every chance i get i vote for taxation, regulation, and re-legalization of cannabis, medical or otherwise.

hell, even if i was running an elaborate scheme to defraud the government of social security or any number of other easily abused systems, i would still lecture his ass on this, as his views are completely unreasonable.*

"but no one ever asked ME if i was ok with the 16th amendment! it's not fair! BOO HOO! i will hold my breath and stomp my feet now! WAAAAHHHHHHH!" - is basically what his argument boils down to.

it would be bad enough if we didn't have to listen to the same exact senseless argument over and over and over again. but we do.

Could you not just simply launder your money and thus pay taxes?

If its for the good of society, which you claim to be all about, then why not go out of your way to contribute?

Set up a service company with low inventory, like a car wash or whatever and layer your treadmill money into that then pay taxes on all the income you make.

For the good of society, right?

 

[Rob Roy]

so basically your problem is that the government doesn't stop and ask every coming of age teen if the constitution they passed centuries ago is OK with you and draft a new one if it doesn't meet with your approval.

if you have a problem with taxation, the answer is simple: don't fucking consent to it. don't sign the W2, abscond to the woods, and forsake all benefit of those things that taxation makes possible, including the public infrastructure and public education that has made the internet possible.

i think we'd all like that, especially since we'd never have to hear the hollow thump of that dead horse you keep beating.

Nice side step. People hundreds of years ago can no more give your consent than people born 60 years ago. The age of a document doesn't mean it is any more or any less valid, only the content of the document should be considered. Also how many people actually consented to the constitution hundreds of years ago? Not many.

That thumping sound you hear is your heart beating faster when you can't answer my questions logically and have to resort to your side step.

How many people can give your consent? Answer - One, only you. Rape much?

 

[UncleBuck]

Could you not just simply launder your money and thus pay taxes?

If its for the good of society, which you claim to be all about, then why not go out of your way to contribute?

Set up a service company with low inventory, like a car wash or whatever and layer your treadmill money into that then pay taxes on all the income you make.

For the good of society, right?

as i said, i pay my taxes every year and am happy to do so.

one thing i will refuse to do out of principle is to incentivize the government to continue classifying me as a criminal because i grow plants in my backyard, garage, and spare room.

for some reason, the same group that yells about being Taxed Enough Already! (during this time of historically low tax rates, no less) and who hate government intrusion into private affairs are the first ones to tell me that i need to 1) fork over more taxes to the government, despite the fact that they made no provision to tax me on my medical cannabis growing and 2) invite the government to intrude into my life by violating my own 5th amendment rights.

these people are morons. don't be like these people, potato head.

 

[UncleBuck]

Nice side step. People hundreds of years ago can no more give your consent than people born 60 years ago. The age of a document doesn't mean it is any more or any less valid, only the content of the document should be considered. Also how many people actually consented to the constitution hundreds of years ago? Not many.

That thumping sound you hear is your heart beating faster when you can't answer my questions logically and have to resort to your side step.

How many people can give your consent? Answer - One, only you. Rape much?

so basically you're pissed that they didn't ask you if you were OK with this whole constitution thing that has been working so well for centuries.

sorry, not how it works. we're not gonna change it for every angst ridden teen coming of age.

 

[Rob Roy]

hell yes i will lecture him on taxes, as i pay mine every year. it's not my fault that no taxation provision was written in to oregon's medical cannabis laws, and every chance i get i vote for taxation, regulation, and re-legalization of cannabis, medical or otherwise.

hell, even if i was running an elaborate scheme to defraud the government of social security or any number of other easily abused systems, i would still lecture his ass on this, as his views are completely unreasonable.*

"but no one ever asked ME if i was ok with the 16th amendment! it's not fair! BOO HOO! i will hold my breath and stomp my feet now! WAAAAHHHHHHH!" - is basically what his argument boils down to.

it would be bad enough if we didn't have to listen to the same exact senseless argument over and over and over again. but we do.

Nope. What my argument boils down to is there are some people that believe it is acceptable to initiate aggression and some that don't. Your core philosophy is a moving and flexible thing...which of course is oxymoronic. People that move their core philosophy around are prone to rationalize....over and over again.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

so basically you're pissed that they didn't ask you if you were OK with this whole constitution thing that has been working so well for centuries.

sorry, not how it works. we're not gonna change it for every angst ridden teen coming of age.

Except for that whole slave thing and women are men's whores. I think we should go back, since I can't bitch about perfection. Where's my slaves and virgins?

 

[Rob Roy]

so basically you're pissed that they didn't ask you if you were OK with this whole constitution thing that has been working so well for centuries.

sorry, not how it works. we're not gonna change it for every angst ridden teen coming of age.

"They" didn't ask anybody, but that's not surprising. Seriously you should consider reading Constitution of no authority by Lysander Spooner. Nah never mind...too many big words for you.

You seem to think there is a "we"...if that is so and you part of it, then YOU are at least in part responsible for the acts of violence perpetrated by this "we" you belong to.

 

[Harrekin]

as i said, i pay my taxes every year and am happy to do so.

one thing i will refuse to do out of principle is to incentivize the government to continue classifying me as a criminal because i grow plants in my backyard, garage, and spare room.

for some reason, the same group that yells about being Taxed Enough Already! (during this time of historically low tax rates, no less) and who hate government intrusion into private affairs are the first ones to tell me that i need to 1) fork over more taxes to the government, despite the fact that they made no provision to tax me on my medical cannabis growing and 2) invite the government to intrude into my life by violating my own 5th amendment rights.

these people are morons. don't be like these people, potato head.

So do as you say, not as you do?

Typical words of the authoritarian.