The question is stupid, but not loaded nor false. Your next talking point is, "the poorest would still need a consumption subsidy to enable a savings function greater than zero." Ok Ginwilly, let's pretend that's UB's answer.
it contains loaded language that makes a false presupposition designed to concede one of ginwilly's points before it can even be established or contended.
Thanks for the attempt Canna, I think this debate might even be threadworthy but I'm not up for it tonight.
Do you really have a problem with me saying our tax code shows attempts at social engineering? Why do single people pay taxes at a higher rate? Why do businesses get subsidies for offering insurance? Why is a 401K plan pre-tax? We can do this all night too naming tax policy designed to manipulate behavior. Why does the term social engineering bother you?
let's haver an abortion debate, i'll start us off: are you for or against murdering innocent, defenseless little babies?
it's loaded language. it compares the progressive tax system we have in place to nazi germany through connotation.
I'm torn on the abortion issue, part of me says it's her body, she should have the right to make her own decision, part of me just don't trust women making decisions.
Did you fail economics before dropping out? I was helping you out. This has nothing to do with the fair tax. Our current system uses a savings subsidy in the form of social security. What Ginwilly proposes would not solve a zero savings function. It would require a consumption subsidy and force people to buy savings for a reduction in their consumption. Like what the rich get for buying a Tesla Model S and get a environmental subsidy of $10,000. I'm much better at being liberal than the pinko commie. Look up Marinal Propensity to Consume and Marginal Propensity to Save so you know what I'm talking about.
the current tax code was put into place pretty carefully and there will almost assuredly never be the political will to change it, nor will it ever be possible to fight the monied interests who put it there in the first place.I'm torn on the abortion issue, part of me says it's her body, she should have the right to make her own decision, part of me just don't trust women making decisions.
J/K but you are not pulling me into THAT one.
I do get your analogy but I don't think you understand what you have been doing in these debates to have used it correctly. You have said a consumption tax is retarded and have said the same thing about a flat tax. I have yet to see you bash the present system or offer an alternative, so the conclusion to be drawn is you are for killing babies.
you can call it whatever you want, but don't try to make subtle, loaded references to goebbels in what you are claiming to be an "honest debate" and then get all pissy when i call you out on it.
I would take Reagan's recovery over Obama's any day.
reagan spent like a drunken sailor, ran up the deficit, and massively grew the size of government.
yeah, he changed it down. it only really ratchets one way that drastically.
the only thing the tax code is littered heavily with is special giveaways and tax breaks to the monied interests who can lobby them into law.
Reagan had a hard on for star wars, it was his mission to the moon. Like our highway system it was a huge up front cost.
stimulus to spur economic activity would take more off the deficit than austerity does.
You're a monkey who flings poo and won't humble yourself to help the zookeeper clean up. Here's some advice: Ahh ho ho ug. Rah! Woh.
