Real Tax Reform
Individual income taxes could painlessly be eliminated if federal spending was simply reduced to about the level it was at the beginning of the previous administration. Unfortunately, however, no recent tax reform proposal even addresses the issue of giving the federal government less money to spend. All of these plans are doomed from the beginning as a solution to the wealth-destroying, redistributionist, success-punishing, social engineering, welfare state-funding tax code because they ignore the real problem. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (51)
Matt Nellans
I agree 100%. It's so simple.
Published: April 16, 2007 9:19 AM
David White
Perhaps the bursting of the Mother of All Credit Bubbles will bring about a return to the gold standard. If so, then we can kiss the welfare-warfare state good-bye, doing away with the income tax when we do away with the Federal Reserve.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Published: April 16, 2007 9:20 AM
Bradford Young
With all due respect to proponents of change of the tax tables, I submit the real reform would be to change the tax rolls.
If we limited voters to those who pay taxes, we would find the government's tax take settle to the level that society wants it to be. The current system encourages what amounts to theft: voters who pay no taxes vote for politicians who promise spending programs paid for by other voters or future voters.
While it will never pass, we should argue for elections to be held the first Tuesday after April 15th, with a voter's admission form being a completed 1040 showing the voter is a net contributer to the tax structure, supported by the appropriate picture ID, fingerprints, retinal scans and other means of tracking us. Then, regardless of the means of extraction, the right level of taxation will be found.
Published: April 16, 2007 10:03 AM
Brainpolice
It seems to me that your plan goes after the wrong thing. It considers the tax-payer to be the thief, when the tax consumer is the thief. Someone isn't a "thief" for not paying taxes. Just the opposite. They are refusing to be subjected to thievery.
Published: April 16, 2007 10:37 AM
billwald
Taxes are amoral, neither good nor evil. They are "fair" if they efficiently deliver a wanted service. "Fairness" is inversly proportional to the size taxing organization. For a fairer tax, dissolve the USofA and reorganize the 50 states into a confederation of sovereign nations.
Published: April 16, 2007 10:53 AM
DC
billwald writes:
Prices are amoral, neither good nor evil. They are "fair" if agreed upon voluntarily by all parties concerned. Taxes -- by definition -- are always collected with the threat of violence for those that don't comply. They are always moral.
Published: April 16, 2007 11:02 AM
billwald
Then condo dues are immoral because one can lose one's condo by force for failing to pay them?
Published: April 16, 2007 11:08 AM
Simon
billwald, but it is the person who rents the condo and refuses to pay who broke the contract. The original owner is just removing a trespasser from what is rightfully his or hers.
If someone doesn't pay then they are trespassing, they are the violent party because they are forcing themselves upon that residence. Defending ones property does not violate the non-aggression principle because it does not initiate the violence.
If there is no right to defend your property then you don't fully own it. I guess what is arbitrary is how much force is allowed, perhaps this is what you were getting at?
Published: April 16, 2007 11:27 AM
DC
billwald, I don't see how that's a counter example.
Published: April 16, 2007 11:43 AM
Axel Riemer
Quick question; does anyone know what happens taxwise if you renounce your citizenship (say if you own property, or even if you don't)?
I'm sure it's not good, but I'm curious nonetheless. just not quite curious enough to dig it out myself.. :)
Published: April 16, 2007 11:46 AM
Axel Riemer
Ok, so I dug anyway. Google is the opiate of the masses.
Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship:
1. Appear in person before an official of the USA
2. Do so in a foreign country
3. sign an oath of renunciation
"Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect."
"A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of citizenship. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances."
Well whatever, right?
"Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government. "
Sounds horrible....
"Also, persons who wish to renounce U.S. citizenship should also be aware that the fact that a person has renounced U.S. citizenship may have no effect whatsoever on his or her U.S. tax or military service obligations."
Now that is not cool.
I guess I know who has the guns in this town.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
Published: April 16, 2007 12:03 PM
Allan Thompson
Seems to me that you have it backwards. The really hard work it wrestling spending to the ground. Reduce taxes? Who could possibly disagree! But taxes and deficit financing are really equivalent. They still spend your money. By focusing on taxing less you open the door to being fooled by tricksters who tax less but do not spend less.
Published: April 16, 2007 12:08 PM
Dave Garthoff
With all due respects, one thing I think you missed on why the current system won't be changed is that it is a bonanza for both the legal profession and the commercial, paid, tax preparers. Think how many of them would be out of a job if taxes were actually simplified.
Dave Garthoff - Adjunct Faculty
The University of Akron
garthoff@uakron.edu
Published: April 16, 2007 12:16 PM
Matt
There should be a third house of Congress, the taxpayer's house. Only people who pay taxes, once Social Security, Medicare, subsidies, welfare, etc. are accounted for, can vote for representatives. Elections are once every five years, and the representatives can only set one policy: the tax system and the tax rate. They shall not be in session for longer than 1 year during the 5-year term of office. Representatives can serve only two terms.
Congress reatins the power to spend whatever the system generates.
No representation without taxation.
Published: April 16, 2007 12:36 PM
Brainpolice
Billwald said:
"Taxes are amoral, neither good nor evil. They are "fair" if they efficiently deliver a wanted service."
I cannot more strongly disagree. Taxation is not "neutral" or morally ambiguous. If we are to take your definition of "fair taxation" seriously, than anything can be justified by simply pointing to the "public services" that the taxation pays for. Unfortunately, these public services do not represent legitimate private property titles and were funded coercively without respect to demand.
Not everyone wants the same services; I.E. there are always tax payers who either do not use or do not desire the "service". Thus, the diversity of individual preferances makes your claim seem absurd. To point to the tax-consumer's "benefit" to justify any taxation ignores the tax-payer who is not using this "service". This person is for all intents and purposes at a net loss. You are overlooking the invisible man who being parasitically exploited by the taxation to deliver person X their "services".
Published: April 16, 2007 12:41 PM
D. Saul Weiner
"Taxes are amoral, neither good nor evil. They are "fair" if they efficiently deliver a wanted service."
Also, if they were to deliver a wanted service efficiently, there would be no need to use taxation (coercion). They could be voluntarily supported.
Published: April 16, 2007 12:57 PM
David White
Axel Riemer,
"Native capital flight" is already well underway -- http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/tickfast.shtml -- and as it explodes with the boomers' retirement (which begins in less than nine monthe), you can be sure that those who renounce their US citizenship for what are presumably tax reasons will be targeted by the IRS. After all, Congress is already sabre rattling over "tax exiles":
"The source of the current controversy over expatriation was a sensational article in the Nov. 24, 1994 issue of Forbes magazine, entitled 'The New Refugees.' Filled with juicy details (famous names, luxury addresses, big dollar tax savings), the story described how clever ex-Americans who became citizens of certain foreign nations, paid little or no U.S. federal and state income, estate and capital gains taxes.
"Ever since, expatriation has been a favorite “hot button” issue kicked around by the American news media and 'soak-the-rich' politicians.8 While current anti-expat provisions in the U.S. Tax Code are relatively toothless, this status may soon change. On July 25, 2003 legislation (HR 2896) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. William M. Thomas (R-Cal.), powerful chairman of the tax-writing Committee on Ways and Means. This bill includes an ominous Sec. 2005, entitled 'Revision of Tax Rules on Expatriation of Individuals.' This section, in effect, would impose an immediate tax on unrealized capital gains on anyone who ends their U.S. citizenship. It uses an arbitrary test of net worth and/or income tax paid over a period of years to assume an ex-citizen is trying to escape income taxes.”
http://www.escapeartist.com/Sovereign_Society/Avoidance.html
Published: April 16, 2007 12:57 PM
Kevin B.
So much for the oft repeated "if you don't like it then you can get out."
Published: April 16, 2007 1:17 PM
David White
Ah yes, the updated bumper sticker:
"America: Love it or leave it. But still pay it tribute."
Published: April 16, 2007 1:31 PM
Person
Oh, goodie! We get to see Laurence_Vance's devastating critique of the FairTax again! To summarize, here are his reasons why the FairTax is not an improvement over the present system:
1) Taxes are bad.
2) The FairTax won't eliminate all inujustices of the present system.
3) Something other than the FairTax will be implemented.
(Some of you may note that none of those is an actual argument against the FairTax.)
Published: April 16, 2007 1:37 PM
DC
I also note, Person, that your "summary" looks nothing like Vance's criticism. It's awfully easy to make a straw man look bad . . .
Published: April 16, 2007 1:54 PM
dirk zylstra
tom bethell has an interesting idea in the noblest triumph (p. 159): "the budgetary equivalent of individual [utililty] meters would be to change to tax code so that the income tax rate would be adjusted up or down in each congressional district, depending on how much the congressman from each district voted to spend the previous year. big spenders would then impose high tax burdens on their own constituents."
Published: April 16, 2007 2:17 PM
adi
I am foreigner so some parts of this discussion are not mine concerns.
But if I am working as an economist and there happens to be situation where someone asks what is my learned opinion about particular issues concerning taxation. Can I just then say that all taxes are bad and government should be abolished?
No one would pay my wage if I did that.
So is it true that no partial improvement in situation is allowed if it would not correct all the wrongs in the world?
So Person has some valid objections to Mr Vances opinions.
Published: April 16, 2007 2:19 PM
Nat
Dirk:
Ron Paul's district will be awfully crowded!
Published: April 16, 2007 2:28 PM
DTO
As Vance freely (and finally) admits, the tax-free anarcho-capitalist paradise is not coming anytime soon (and will never come, IMO). Finally he acknowledges that it is easy to shoot down every tax reform proposal without offering an alternative.
Unfortunately, his "alternative" is the same lame "cut wasteful spending" mantra that EVERY politician spouts as gospel; it is not an alternative until Mr. Vance specifically identitifies WHAT spending will be cut to reach his desired level. Once he does, his "proposal" will of course have zero chance of occurring.
Indeed, it is particularly amusing that Vance's proposal is to eliminate INDIVIDUAL income taxes, which according to his figures represent about half of the government's revenue. Where is the remaining money coming from? I hope not from corporate income taxes; since such taxes are simply factored into the cost of products, they are really sales taxes (there is no meaningful difference between "corporate income" and sales). It would seem therefore that Vance's proposal, far from being an alternative to the NRST, in fact relies on one.
I support the NRST (I hate the name "Fairtax", as I admit no tax is actually fair) as the best means of BEGINNING to shrink government. Mr. Vance and others repeatedly attack tax reformers as not caring about the size of government or the amount of taxes. This is nonsense.
I simply have no idea what Vance is talking about when he says that an NRST would make it easier for the government to raise taxes. The secret to raising taxes is to delay and obscure it so people don't even know it's being known (how many Americans, even today on 4/16, know whether their tax burden went up or down last year?) With an NRST, the effect of a tax increase would be widely and immediately apparent. Look at the outrage that occurs when the price of gas goes up. The NRST makes the tax burden more visible and immediate, which is the first step to generating the political will to shrink it.
Second, the NRST imposes a further limit on government activity precisely because consumer spending is more volatile; the government cannot count on money as it can under the current regime of income witholding.
Vance further confuses things by simultaneously saying that an NRST is "even more progressive" than the current code, but also "creates more taxpayers," presumably because people who do not qualify for paying income taxes nonetheless will pay sales taxes on amounts over and above the "prebate." This would seem to be contradictory. (I assume Vance's "more taxpayers" are not business owners, since under the current regime they are already paying either corporate income taxes or state sales taxes.) If the tax burden is spread out more under an NRST, that is all to the good. In a democracy, the best way to rob Peter to pay Paul is to maximize the number of Pauls and minimize the number of Peters. The more people who demand government benefits are forced to pay it, the better.
Published: April 16, 2007 2:36 PM
Brainpolice
To DTO:
The "alternative" is to actually elimate both taxes and spending. But with the fairtax proposal you're just meddling around with the tax code and shifting to different types of taxation without actually eliminating the government "services" in the first place. Your arguement rests on a carte blanch approval of the "benefits".
You say "the more people who demand government benefits pay for it, the better". I say, this fails to understand that the solution is to eliminate the benefits, not make more people pay for them. Then you don't have to worry about people getting something at the expense of others. Taxing people to pay for "benefits" that are illegitimate in the first place just exaserbates the problem.
Mr. Vance is absolutely correct that the idea of "tax reform" while ignoring government spending is counterproductive. So long as spending continues, I.E. so long as these "benefits" are continued, this spending will represent a future tax increase. You can meddle with the tax code all day, but that won't do anything to stop the constant governmental spending that necessitates anything you may consider "unfair".
It does not necessarily require that one be an anarcho-capitalist to see that income tax abolition is favorable to the fair tax and flat tax proposals. Ron Paul favors it. This income tax abolition would only require us to cut federal spending by about 1/3, which is chump change in the grand scheme of things.
Published: April 16, 2007 2:59 PM
Person
DC, please list which Vance criticism does not fall into one of the three categories I listed. Thanks.
Published: April 16, 2007 3:02 PM
DC
Person, I'll sum up a couple of examples, but it seems to me that Vance has many points that are far too nuanced for your "summary"
(1) FT both introduces a new tax and does not eliminate the gov.'s ability to levy an income tax. Think about it.
(2) FT will tax at a 30% rate by the most 'common sense' definition (i.e. sales taxes are not inclusive, income tax is not inclusive, etc.), contrary to what supporters seem to claim.
(2a) FT would not do many of the things its supporters claim (removing the existence of the IRS is a particular example).
Published: April 16, 2007 3:21 PM
Allen Weingarten
Laurence M. Vance writes "the income tax is the tax that infuriates Americans the most." This overlooks a primary reality, covered by Ari Fleischer in an article in 4/16/07 in the Wall Street Journal. He points out that 40% of the nation's households pay no tax, 20% pay .9%, and the top 40% pay 99.1%.
If anything, rather than the tax continuing to be paid by the top 40%, in time the tax will be paid by say the top 30%. In other words, the vast majoriy are beneficiaries of the income redistribution system. The public does not share Mr. Vance's anger at "funding the interventionist-welfare state." Rather, they wish to increase that funding. So while I appreciate his intent to drastically cut the tax, I submit there remains the problem as to how to motivate the public to do so.
Published: April 16, 2007 3:49 PM
RogerM
Adi:"No one would pay my wage if I did that.
So is it true that no partial improvement in situation is allowed if it would not correct all the wrongs in the world?"
Excellent point. The anarcho position that all government is evil and all taxes are theft has kept them in the lunatic fringe of political debate. They don't do any harm, but they don't do any good either.
Published: April 16, 2007 3:55 PM
Francisco Torres
Taxes are amoral, neither good nor evil. They are "fair" if they efficiently deliver a wanted service.
And if they do not deliver a wanted service, then are they still fair?
The inmorality of taxation resides in the fact that an armed bully - the government - takes your property at the point of a bayonet. In other words, theft.
Published: April 16, 2007 4:45 PM
Person
LOL! DC, you proved my point:
(1) FT both introduces a new tax and does not eliminate the gov.'s ability to levy an income tax. Think about it.
That would fall under my #2: "2) The FairTax won't eliminate all injustices of the present system."
(2) FT will tax at a 30% rate by the most 'common sense' definition (i.e. sales taxes are not inclusive, income tax is not inclusive, etc.), contrary to what supporters seem to claim.
Okay, you got me. That doesn't. easily fall into any of the three non-argument categories I listed, except maybe #1: "Taxes are bad." Still, it's only an argument about the advocates, not the policy. I'll add a #4: "FairTax proponents suck."
(2a) FT would not do many of the things its supporters claim (removing the existence of the IRS is a particular example).
Again, that goes into "2) The FairTax won't eliminate all injustices of the present system."
Try again?
Published: April 16, 2007 5:13 PM
Francisco Torres
Then condo dues are immoral because one can lose one's condo by force for failing to pay them?
Arguing from a bad analogy.
Condo dues stem from a previous agreement between the leaser and the client. In the case of government, it acts more like a mob boss "offering" protection services.
Published: April 16, 2007 5:16 PM
Francisco Torres
(Some of you may note that none of those is an actual argument against the FairTax.
You mean you cannot argue that tax is theft, when it comes to the so called "fair tax"? Ok, I give up - WHAT would then represent an argument?
I can tell you one right now: the Fair Tax is more expensive to implement. Instead of having employers withholding it every paycheck, now you have SELLERS withholding it, for each transaction. That creates an increase in the transaction costs, which will affect the final price of the item or the revenue for the seller. Hence, it will be MORE expensive.
Published: April 16, 2007 5:27 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM said:
Published: April 16, 2007 6:02 PM
Kevin B.
*Edit*
RogerM said:
Wrong. This "reform" simply does not appear to even be a partial improvement worth the effort.
BTW, forgive the lunatics for thinking that your claim of ownership to their labor is illegitimate.
Published: April 16, 2007 6:04 PM
Juan
RogerM : The anarcho position that all government is evil and all taxes are theft has kept them in the lunatic fringe of political debate.
RogerM,
We classical liberals are the only ones that keep political debate alive - We're the only ones who stand for justice. People who fail to recognize that taxation is worse than robbery have a blind spot in their moral sense. Perhaps is your case ?
'Political debate' can only mean 'to resist tyranny' - What you and your statist buddies engage in is not debate - you're simply discussing how to loot your neighbour and kill him if he resist.
Also, claiming that disenters are 'lunatic' is typical of government's thugs. I suggest you get a copy of "1984". You'll get a clear description of how to 'cure' 'lunatics'.
They don't do any harm, but they don't do any good either.
On the other hand, you morally endorse violence against peaceful individuals.
Published: April 16, 2007 8:06 PM
Brent
How is the "FairTax" less costly to implement, administer, and comply with than a "FlatTax"?
Doesn't the "FlatTax" promise a single postcard-sized tax form?
Anyway, less taxation is always going to be the real route to higher compliance rates and less costly administration.
Published: April 17, 2007 12:16 AM
DC
Person, my first example is a case of The FT both adds injustice to the present system and won't eliminate any of the injustices of the present system (if I can sum it up crudely), which is different than how you are wording it. I view congress' power to tax as the injustice, not the current tax rate. 2 powers to tax are worse than 1.
I'll add a #4: "FairTax proponents suck."
Whatever floats your boat, but that's still inaccurate. I'm not making any claims about the character of FT advocates; dishonest claims are what they are.
For the final point, I suggest you reconsider whether your summary point (2) is or is not an argument against the FairTax. Judging by how easily you place arguments into that category, it's such a wide umbrella that you are undoubtedly pigeon-holing ideas before really considering them. It would be better to drop stereotypes altogether and deal with claims and objections as they are raised.
It's hard to be as dismissive, of course, when you take the time to be thoughtful, and it doesn't permit you to claim an easy victory. So I can understand why you're hesitant to get beyond gross generalizations.
Published: April 17, 2007 8:03 AM
Person
DC:Person, my first example is a case of The FT both adds injustice to the present system and won't eliminate any of the injustices of the present system (if I can sum it up crudely), which is different than how you are wording it.
But that's false: it *replaces* one injustice with a different one (that its proponents claim is lesser). It certainly does eliminate one injustice: the income tax. You're just saying, well, it doesn't also remove the 16th amendment. But it does remove the tax. You claim reduces to, "well, it leaves that injustice of the present system intact."
Whatever floats your boat, but that's still inaccurate. I'm not making any claims about the character of FT advocates; dishonest claims are what they are.
Yes, but how does a dishonest claim mean that the tax is bad? If I said, "My plan, to eliminate the Department of Education, would reduce spending by $100 million.", would it be an argument against my plan to say, "Hey, Person's plan would actually only reduce spending by $80 million."? Because that's exactly what you're doing: claiming FairTaxers overrepresent the net benefit of their plan.
For the final point, I suggest you reconsider whether your summary point (2) is or is not an argument against the FairTax. Judging by how easily you place arguments into that category, it's such a wide umbrella that you are undoubtedly pigeon-holing ideas before really considering them. It would be better to drop stereotypes altogether and deal with claims and objections as they are raised.
I don't know what to say: simply claiming the a program leaves some injustice of the present system intact would be an argument against any improvement. To show why the FairTax is bad, you'd have to show why it's altogether worse than the present system, not just "bad".
It's hard to be as dismissive, of course, when you take the time to be thoughtful, and it doesn't permit you to claim an easy victory. So I can understand why you're hesitant to get beyond gross generalizations.
To be honest, dismissive is the opposite of what I'm trying to be. I'd like to oppose the FairTax, just as soon as someone goes beyond griping that taxes are bad and the FairTax isn't perfect.
Francisco: get a clue. Of course taxes are bad. The critical question is whether the FairTax is worse than the present system.
Published: April 17, 2007 8:51 AM
DC
Person, you write:
It certainly does eliminate one injustice: the income tax. You're just saying, well, it doesn't also remove the 16th amendment. But it does remove the tax.
But as I noted, I consider the government's power to tax as the injustice, and their taxing the result. Therefore, what I said does not reduce to "well, it leaves that injustice of the present system intact."
If my second point is addressing the debate itself and not the FairTax, at the very least it could be acknowledged by the FT proponents as we debate. I've heard the 23% tax line too often. The FT should state that it is a 30% consumption tax. This problem, as well as the name FairTax, are some of the semantic issues that I have with the FT and its proponents. If you think semantics don't matter then I suppose you won't find any of that to be persuasive; I do find semantics important, however.
I don't know what to say: simply claiming the a program leaves some injustice of the present system intact would be an argument against any improvement.
That's just it: the FT leaves the essence of the injustice of our present system intact. It can't be reduced further.
I'd like to oppose the FairTax, just as soon as someone goes beyond griping that taxes are bad and the FairTax isn't perfect.
I think Mr. Vance in particular, and many others, go far beyond this. Apparently we disagree on that.
Published: April 17, 2007 9:27 AM
Person
DC: But as I noted, I consider the government's power to tax as the injustice, and their taxing the result. Therefore, what I said does not reduce to "well, it leaves that injustice of the present system intact."
Non-sequitur. You just admitted that your "argument" against the FairTax is that it leaves one (of a trillion) injustices unchanged.
If my second point is addressing the debate itself and not the FairTax,
Yes, my point exactly. You are NOT arguing against the FairTax. Hence my point: you have given me no reason to oppose it, just whining about how some of them make false claims. Who cares if the rate should be expressed as 23% or 30%? Is it better or worse than the present system?
That's just it: the FT leaves the essence of the injustice of our present system intact. It can't be reduced further.
It leaves *some* injustices intact. Like, you know, every proposal that would eliminate some objectionable government program. Do you not understand why "leaving some injustices intact" is not a reason to oppose something, or are you that impervious to logic? Do you not understand the benefits that would flow from the FairTax, at least as believed by its proponents, or do you perhaps ignore them entirely, falsely believing them to be irrelevant, because "hey, it's also a tax."
I think Mr. Vance in particular, and many others, go far beyond this. Apparently we disagree on that.
Actually, liar, I gave you several chances to show me precisely how it goes "far" beyond that. Even if I conceded every point you made, you still haven't shown me this elusive part where Vance goes "far" beyond "taxes are bad, the FairTax isn't perfect, and its proponents are dumb".
I'll give you one more chance though before classifying you.
Published: April 17, 2007 9:47 AM
DC
Person, you write:
My argument is that it introduces a new injustice to the system and leaves the most significant injustice, with respect to taxes, unchanged. The FT proposes to give the government an additional power of taxation without removing its ability to levy an income tax. Your "summary" simply doesn't capture that.
(Or, I suppose you really think that the temporary removal of income taxes mandated by the law is a relief or some kind of counter argument in support of the FT? I find this hole in the FT to be its most dangerous aspect, and this alone also seems like worthy grounds for opposing it.)
Actually, liar, I gave you several chances to show me precisely how it goes "far" beyond that. Even if I conceded every point you made, you still haven't shown me this elusive part where Vance goes "far" beyond "taxes are bad, the FairTax isn't perfect, and its proponents are dumb".
Again, this entire game that you're playing is semantics. "Far" is in the eye of the beholder. You say the arguments I've presented don't go "far" away from your summaries. I say your summaries don't go nearly far enough to sum up the arguments.
The semantics let you deny whatever you want. On the one hand, you could sum up Mr. Vance crudely in the way that you have, since your language is so broad as to be rather inclusive. But you use these generalizations as leverage to categorically deny arguments that are, in reality, more nuanced than you are giving credit for. Good for you, you contracted an idea into an easily-deniable form.
Or, taken another way: I could say that you are being rather unpersuasive in your arguments, Person. Everything that you say fits into one of these groups:
(1) This argument fits into my roughly stated category in some conceivable way, so that's a bad argument and I can reject it
(2) This argument can be re-worded crudely in such a way that it will fit (1)
(3) The person offering the argument is lying
I don't see any "argument" of yours that doesn't fit my categories. Neither (1), (2), or (3) seem like they necessarily deny anything in a meaningful sense. Care to share any examples that break my mold?
(Of course, we are at the point this is likely my "last chance" -- whatever this may mean -- as you have stated. Whatever works for you. Regards.)
Published: April 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Person
DC:My argument is that it introduces a new injustice to the system and leaves the most significant injustice, with respect to taxes, unchanged.
On its face, that's insufficient. That says nothing about whether the elimination, however temporary, of the income tax, outweighs that new injustice. It is not an argument. You could just as easily say, "Person's proposal to reduce the DoEd's budget 80% this year and increase it by 5% the following year introduces a new injustice without removing the old." No one would be impressed.
(Or, I suppose you really think that the temporary removal of income taxes mandated by the law is a relief or some kind of counter argument in support of the FT? I find this hole in the FT to be its most dangerous aspect, and this alone also seems like worthy grounds for opposing it.)
No, it just makes policy debate a perpetual moving target. Once you allow for possible future changes based on new, then-debated policies, debate on anything is pointless. "Cut taxes? But future generations will raise them to an even higher level later!" That's why hyoptheticals about future policies are irrelevant. At the most, they justify future vigilance.
Again, this entire game that you're playing is semantics. "Far" is in the eye of the beholder.
Not if the beholders are honest.
The semantics let you deny whatever you want. On the one hand, you could sum up Mr. Vance crudely in the way that you have, since your language is so broad as to be rather inclusive.
No, you don't like that all of your arguments are equivalent to an obvious fallacy. Neither of you can give one single reason why a replacement of the income tax with a sales tax would be bad -- i.e., the very heart of the matter.
Or, taken another way: I could say that you are being rather unpersuasive in your arguments, Person. Everything that you say fits into one of these groups: ...
No. One of my arguments could only be classified as "This argument is logically equivalent to a fallacy", which you didn't list.
(Of course, we are at the point this is likely my "last chance" -- whatever this may mean -- as you have stated.
What does it mean? You're even slower than I thought. I was giving you one last chance *before classifying you*. Now that you've failed it, I have classified you -- as unprepared for reasoned discussion of policy.
Published: April 17, 2007 10:55 AM
DC
Person, you write:
The argument put in different terms, then, is "The FT introduces a significant injustice without removing the current, most significant injustice of the tax system. The net result is that we will be worse off." I apologize, I figured that the "we are worse off" bit was obvious given the consequences of the FT.
No. One of my arguments could only be classified as "This argument is logically equivalent to a fallacy", which you didn't list.
And your summaries likewise weren't sufficient. To say "The FairTax won't eliminate all inujustices of the present system" doesn't account for the argument above.
Thanks for the classification as being slow and unprepared. You are aware of how just how meaningful that is on an internet discussion board, non?
Published: April 17, 2007 11:09 AM
Person
DC:The argument put in different terms, then, is "The FT introduces a significant injustice without removing the current, most significant injustice of the tax system. The net result is that we will be worse off." I apologize, I figured that the "we are worse off" bit was obvious given the consequences of the FT.
Er, it's actually not obvious. That's why people write articles arguing for or against it. Way to beg the question, Einstein!
What the FT does is:
1)Eliminate the income tax.
2)Impose a retail sales tax.
3)Not remove the amendement allow Congress to pass an income tax.
You claim that 3) is a worse injustice than the income tax. That is your unsupported opinion. When you argue against the FT on grounds of 3), and then provide no reason for weighing 1) and 2) as you prefer, you are arguing against it because it doesn't remove an injustice. This is a fallacy.
And you still can't tell me why a sales tax is worse than an income tax.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:26 AM
DC
Person, I said "obvious" in the sense that it was "obvious" that the argument concluded that we would be worse off, not that it was "obvious" that the argument against FT was itself correct. I guess that wasn't obvious, though, eh "Einstein"? (Is this where I say that I'll slow down for you?) No need to get belligerent.
I see a constitutionally-legitimized power to levy an income tax as a grave injustice because the federal government exercises every power granted to it and more, and so income taxes would inevitably return -- and why wouldn't they?
A one-time removal of the income tax is not the cure for that injustice, even though considered in itself this is a fine thing. Only removing the power and authority to levy an income tax in the future will keep congress from doing so.
By the way: How is it that I "still" can't tell you why a sales tax is worse than an income tax, even though we've never approached that topic? Will you prove to me why an income tax is worse than a sales tax?
Published: April 17, 2007 11:47 AM
DC
I suppose a shorter way to argue it runs like this:
You write:
What the FT does is:
1)Eliminate the income tax.
2)Impose a retail sales tax.
3)Not remove the amendement allow Congress to pass an income tax.
The objections are: (1) is a cosmetic change that congress could easily rectify. (2) is unjust. (3) shows that (2) won't be a true replacement, but only an addition.
Published: April 17, 2007 11:58 AM
Oops
"he maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. "
--Ludwig Von Mises
Published: May 30, 2008 4:03 AM
Haha
[blockquote]he maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments.
--Ludwig Von Mises
[/blockquote]
Published: May 30, 2008 4:17 AM
Tough decision
@DTO
Well said. Mr. Vances "plan" has NO specifics
To the rest, I agree Gov't must be shrunk, but a safety net for those not as fortunate should exist. What do we do with the unfortunate? Say F it and just let them die? Survival of the fittest?
Published: February 3, 2009 8:20 PM