Socialized healthcare

[wabrams]

I’m a slow learner at this computer stuff. Now was he not advocating the very stuff I said he was?

I could care less about what he said; if you are going to call someone a liar, fine. Just be able to back it up right then instead of making excuses why you can’t.

 

[goofyjim]

I could care less about what he said; if you are going to call someone a liar, fine. Just be able to back it up right then instead of making excuses why you can’t.

I don’t like to use the word liar. Yet he continues to misrepresent what he said. And I was rushed for time until this morning but the facts show I knew the evidence was there and my memory is pretty darn good. So now who was falsely accused?

 

[wabrams]

I don’t like to use the word liar. Yet he continues to misrepresent what he said.

It doesn’t matter if you like that word or not, that is what you were calling him.

And I was rushed for time until this morning but the facts show I knew the evidence was there and my memory is pretty darn good. So now who was falsely accused?

Well, next time just wait to post.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And the evidence is there that the argument was being made for a flat amount regardless of income level. I kept trying to defend the notion of a flat percent.

And I was pointing out the error of your ways/

Noone can determine the other guy’s potential as pathia has so well noted. Therefore you can only tax actual monetary income and you do that in a percentage rate. That is the definition of a flat tax. Anything else is either progressive or regressive, depending on which direction you go in.

How can you determine what percentage is fair? You can’t. It’s merely a fiat, imposed by law based on how much money the government wants.

On the other hand, I can construct tables of income, age, health, and education and say, “A person this old, with good health and this level of education should be able to make this much.” And then you can apply your arbitrary percentage to it.

I am surprised at how people are willing to damn and blackguard those who work hard and pay the most taxes, but stridently object to any suggestion that they should work just as hard, so they can pay their share.

 

[goofyjim]

It doesn’t matter if you like that word or not, that is what you were calling him.

Well, next time just wait to post.

Well if that is what I called him did he not lie based on the evidence presented? Yet I was accused of lying and had my proof that I didn’t. I think an apology is in order.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well if that is what I called him did he not lie based on the evidence presented? Yet I was accused of lying and had my proof that I didn’t. I think an apology is in order.

No, he did not lie.

And no, you did not submit proof.

And yes, you did falsely present his position as the virtual opposite of what it is.

And yes, you did it knowingly.

Shame on you!

 

[goofyjim]

No, he did not lie.

And no, you did not submit proof.

And yes, you did falsely present his position as the virtual opposite of what it is.

And yes, you did it knowingly.

Shame on you!

You advocated a flat amount tax on everyone. The proof is there yet you still deny it. In fact you are going to great lengths to say you supported just the opposite. I grant you a second chance. What is your definition of a flat tax?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You advocated a flat amount tax on everyone. The proof is there yet you still deny it. In fact you are going to great lengths to say you supported just the opposite. I grant you a second chance. What is your definition of a flat tax?

A flat tax – which I do not support – is, as I pointed out to you, a tax where everyone pays the same.

I do not support the flat tax. I do not support the “Fair Tax.” As I have said again and again, “We cannot discuss taxes intellignelty until we discuss spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

 

[goofyjim]

A flat tax – which I do not support – is, as I pointed out to you, a tax where everyone pays the same.

I do not support the flat tax. I do not support the “Fair Tax.” As I have said again and again, “We cannot discuss taxes intellignelty until we discuss spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

Well I support a flat percent tax. It shouldn’t be on income because that is taxing my labor. It should be on what I probably would waste money on such as an ipod or a dvd player or a higher priced car than I really need. That is the fair tax proposal. Those who are frugal with their money are rewarded. The income tax punishes everyone. But the government needs some revenue to exist so the fair tax should do it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well I support a flat percent tax. It shouldn’t be on income because that is taxing my labor. It should be on what I probably would waste money on such as an ipod or a dvd player or a higher priced car than I really need. That is the fair tax proposal. Those who are frugal with their money are rewarded. The income tax punishes everyone. But the government needs some revenue to exist so the fair tax should do it.

And again, I make two points:

1. We cannot talk intelligently about taxes until we talk about spending. As long as the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.
2. No nation which had an income tax has ever later adopted a consumption tax that replaced the income tax. The consumption tax is always **in addition **to the income tax.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Only two things in life are certain. death and taxes."a

And some guy in the audience said, “The only difference between them is that death doesn’t get worse with every session of Congress.”

 

[anthony022071]

Vern,on another thread you said : “…which is why I support a real flat tax – everyone pay the same amount.”

What is the difference between the flat tax that you do support and the flat tax that you don’t support?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,on another thread you said : “…which is why I support a real flat tax – everyone pay the same amount.”

What is the difference between the flat tax that you do support and the flat tax that you don’t support?

I may now and then illustrate the fallacy of an idea – as I did on that thread – through reductio ad absurdum. But as I have said over and over, “We cannot intelligently talk taxes until we talk spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

 

[goofyjim]

Vern,on another thread you said : “…which is why I support a real flat tax – everyone pay the same amount.”

What is the difference between the flat tax that you do support and the flat tax that you don’t support?

I agree with you but proceed with caution. You have to back up your claims around here.

 

[rlg94086]

And again, I make two points:

1. We cannot talk intelligently about taxes until we talk about spending. As long as the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.

Sure we can. And, for my next trick, I will pat my head and rub my belly at the same time. We should reform our tax system and cut/control spending at the same time.
vern humphrey:

1. No nation which had an income tax has ever later adopted a consumption tax that replaced the income tax. The consumption tax is always **in addition **to the income tax.

Why is it that you think something can’t be done because others haven’t done it? Are you also against your True Choice program for education? No nation or state has ever done such a thing.
vern humphrey:

Benjamin Franklin said, "Only two things in life are certain. death and taxes."a

And some guy in the audience said, “The only difference between them is that death doesn’t get worse with every session of Congress.”

The only thing I am certain of is that tax reform probably won’t happen before I die.

 

[anthony022071]

I may now and then illustrate the fallacy of an idea – as I did on that thread – through reductio ad absurdum. But as I have said over and over, “We cannot intelligently talk taxes until we talk spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

I just was wondering what the difference was between the flat tax you support and the one you don’t – unless you mis-spoke on the other thread. Do they both involve everyone paying the same dollar amount?

Anyway,this thread is off topic. I’ll re-post my comments from post 650:

I think that the only things that a government needs to do is to protect the country from invasion,preserve law and order,and protect the basic rights of citizens. It isn’t good when people look to their government to always provide for them. Then the government becomes like an idol-god,and it consolidates power and influence over the citizenry because they are so dependent upon it (as in the case of Cuba). A government that provides universal health care for its citizens will have a bad effect on the spiritual health of its citizens.

Besides,government institutions whose job it is to serve the public tend to be populated by cynical,shabby,low-life government workers who treat the public like cattle. They are not afraid of losing their jobs for being rude or unhelpful toward the people they are supposed to be serving,or of making people wait long hours for bad service. Government institutions tend to be unscrupulous and inefficient in serving the public. They’re not too concerned to provide good customer service the way that a private business would be. If you complain too loudly they can just have you thrown out of the building. They tend to have a “take it or leave it” attitude.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sure we can. And, for my next trick, I will pat my head and rub my belly at the same time. We should reform our tax system and cut/control spending at the same time.[a/quote]
I didn’t say we shouldn’t do that – I said, “We cannot intelligently discuss taxation until we **discuss **spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax system is fair.”

We discuss first and make a plan. Then we enact it. In the discussion phase, we must address** both** taxation and spending. To discuss taxation alone, without considering spending will be profitless.
rlg94086;3582827:

Why is it that you think something can’t be done because others haven’t done it? Are you also against your True Choice program for education? No nation or state has ever done such a thing.

If every time you do A you get results B, you would be well advised to expect B when you recommend A. Since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution permits an income tax, adding another form of tax is not likely to keep Congress from re-imposing the income tax, even if they temporarily drop it – as a ruse to get people to buy the “Fair Tax.”

Abolist the 16th Amendment, and you’ll have a stronger case.

The only thing I am certain of is that tax reform probably won’t happen before I die.

Congess is a devotee of P.T. Barnum – “Never give a sucker an even break.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I just was wondering what the difference was between the flat tax you support and the one you don’t – unless you mis-spoke on the other thread. Do they both involve everyone paying the same dollar amount?

I don’t support any flat tax – although I reserve the right to use reducio ad absurdum (showing that an argument is false by showing how absurd it is when pushed.)

“We cannot intelligently discuss taxes until we discuss spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no system of taxation is fair.”

I think that the only things that a government needs to do is to protect the country from invasion,preserve law and order,and protect the basic rights of citizens. It isn’t good when people look to their government to always provide for them. Then the government becomes like an idol-god,and it consolidates power and influence over the citizenry because they are so dependent upon it (as in the case of Cuba). A government that provides universal health care for its citizens will have a bad effect on the spiritual health of its citizens.

Besides,government institutions whose job it is to serve the public tend to be populated by cynical,shabby,low-life government workers who treat the public like cattle. They are not afraid of losing their jobs for being rude or unhelpful toward the people they are supposed to be serving,or of making people wait long hours for bad service. Government institutions tend to be unscrupulous and inefficient in serving the public. They’re not too concerned to provide good customer service the way that a private business would be. If you complain too loudly they can just have you thrown out of the building. They tend to have a “take it or leave it” attitude.

Basically, I agree – a government that has the power to do everything **for **you has the power to do everything to you.

If you look at the Federal Constitution, the Federal Government’s powers are sharply restricted by the 10th Amendment. There are other things government should to – but look for them in your state Constitution.

 

[rlg94086]

I didn’t say we shouldn’t do that – I said, “We cannot intelligently discuss taxation until we **discuss **spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax system is fair.”

We discuss first and make a plan. Then we enact it. In the discussion phase, we must address** both** taxation and spending. To discuss taxation alone, without considering spending will be profitless.

Well, we agree then. Your use of the word “until” threw me.
vern humphrey:

If every time you do A you get results B, you would be well advised to expect B when you recommend A.

Name one nation that instituted a consumption tax to wholly replace the income tax. I’m not familiar with that. I know of countries that have both, but I’m not aware of one that instituted one to replace the other, only to add the replaced tax at a later date.
vern humphrey:

Since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution permits an income tax, adding another form of tax is not likely to keep Congress from re-imposing the income tax, even if they temporarily drop it – as a ruse to get people to buy the “Fair Tax.”

Abolist the 16th Amendment, and you’ll have a stronger case.

Okay…from the FAQs at www.fairtax.org :

**Is there any provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?

**The short answer is that there is no provision in the FairTax bill (HR 25) that would prevent having a national sales tax and the income tax. However, the FairTax legislation does three things that effectively dismantle the income tax: (1) it abolishes the IRS, (2) it repeals all statutory language having to do with taxing income and payroll (i.e., the Internal Revenue Code), and (3) it eliminates the filing of annual income tax returns to the federal government for over 140 million Americans. The 16th Amendment does not “require” an income tax, it only “allows” one, and the FairTax will have broken that egg in a million pieces. It would be extremely difficult to put that egg “back together again.” Once the FairTax is enacted it would be an extremely daunting task for Congress to make people start filing income tax returns again. There would be a public uproar. Once the American public has experienced the freedom from filing income tax returns it’s hard to imagine them tolerating going back.

Furthermore, the sponsors of the FairTax are totally dedicated to the permanent repeal of the income tax. No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. There is a separate bill, HJR 16, which repeals the 16th Amendment to the Constitution but it must go through a different adoption process than HR 25. HJR 16 has to be passed by a two-thirds vote of members of both the House and the Senate and be approved (or ratified) by three-fourths of state legislatures (38). We are currently laying the organizational groundwork for this push and have already started the educational process at the state level.

Finally, the reality is that we already have both an income and a type of sales tax today. All of our U.S. produced goods and services are burdened with an “embedded” tax due to the cascading of income and payroll taxes paid by U.S. employers to the U.S. Treasury at every step of production. Of course, these costs are passed on to the ultimate payer, the customer. It’s fair to call these embedded taxes a “sales tax” because we pay it every time we buy any goods or services – we just don’t see it. The FairTax eliminates these embedded taxes, resulting in a single-rate national sales tax visible to all.

So, do we have you on-board now?
vern humphrey:

Congess is a devotee of P.T. Barnum – “Never give a sucker an even break.”

Indeed.

 

[goofyjim]

I may now and then illustrate the fallacy of an idea – as I did on that thread – through reductio ad absurdum. But as I have said over and over, “We cannot intelligently talk taxes until we talk spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no tax is fair.”

I think I’ll just apply that idea of reductio ad absurdum to everything I have ever said on these forums. That way I’m starting with a clean slate and nobody knows or will ever know where I stand on these issues.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Name one nation that instituted a consumption tax to wholly replace the income tax. I’m not familiar with that. I know of countries that have both, but I’m not aware of one that instituted one to replace the other, only to add the replaced tax at a later date.

Well, I would ask what kind of an amadan would support a sales tax in addition to the imcome tax, but you are talking about Europe, aren’t you?

The point is, no nation has adopted a sales tax in lieu of the income tax. All national sales taxes are in addition to the income tax.

What guarentee do we have the United States will be any different?

Okay…from the FAQs at www.fairtax.org

There is a separate bill, HJR 16, which repeals the 16th Amendment to the Constitution but it must go through a different adoption process than HR 25. HJR 16 has to be passed by a two-thirds vote of members of both the House and the Senate and be approved (or ratified) by three-fourths of state legislatures (38). We are currently laying the organizational groundwork for this push and have already started the educational process at the state level.

Okay – repeal the income tax** first**, then pass the “Fair tax.” Don’t expect me to believe that once the “Fair Tax” is passed, the 16th Amendment definitely will be repealed

The smart way to do it would be to roll them up in the same amendment: “The 16th Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed, and no tax on income shall be levied after this amendment is ratified. A national sales tax, levied at point of retail sale, may be enacted, but no such tax shall exceed X%, federal, state and local taxes combined.”