Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 10th, 2005, 01:20 PM        Preechr's omnibus discussion thread!
This way, we can cover whatever.

EDIT: EXCEPT bunnies, damn you, Emu!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 10th, 2005, 03:10 PM       
Yes, yes... unfortunately, I'm off for a bit.

It may be a couple of days before I can check back in

I may have to call in sick. I believe this is the first thread on this board dedicated to ME, and I don't want to screw it up by missing it altogether...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 13th, 2005, 09:39 AM       
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 10:56 AM       
I'll get it started.

Electoral "reform." A lot of people like to point out that the president's poll numbers are down to record lows. A lesser known stat. that they don't like to share is that poll numbers are down across the board. People are down on the parties, and they're simply down on politicians.

This was reflective in the 2002 races, you just didn't hear a lot about it, because President Bush sort of shielded the party from it due to his popularity at the time. But voters instead took it out on their states, with several governorships (sp?) changing over, as well as some state houses.

2006 may be the boiling point for this frustration, particularly in light of Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, etc.

So, i guess Mr. Preechr my question to you is do we take the Governator's lead? Do we look at non-partisan re-districting, and take the process out of the hands of the state-house parties that have essntially made an unspoken (and often spoken) agreement to solidify their turf and entrench themselves? Do we "throw the bums out," so to speak? Will it change a damn thing? Would alternative electoral policies, electoral reform (always a sticky subject), allow for innovative and new ideas/parties to emerge and take power, i.e. the LIBERTARIN PARTY!?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 01:06 PM       
Personally, I've heard of a few electoral reform concepts that show some promise, and for the reason you stated there at the end, sometimes I'd love to see something, anything, happen that could pry us out of the duopoly politics we enjoy at the moment... However... Electoral reform just not been a big subject of interest for me.

The founders argued much over political parties, the number of them and how they might or should not function within a future American electoral process. Eventually, the two party system was casually adopted in practice because it seemed to attenuate the political shitstorms caused by potentially drastic variations in ideology.

Repeat: The two party process WEAKENS the power of politicians and government.

This is only one of many ideas, but it's served us fairly well over the years. While we've had splinter parties at times, the prevailing system has been that of two groups with marginally different methods. Maybe I'd prefer a system that encouraged radical, new ideas... But considering how disappointed I find myself now at the ability, or it's lack, of modern Americans to take their political futures fully in hand, maybe it's for the best that we're sheltered from the election of those that wish to drastically alter things. Look at who would be electing them...

Maybe not. Had our nation been founded with a more tumultuous electoral system, would it even exist today?

Am I excluding my own "radical" ideas from our government of the future? I accept that the changes that I'd like to see made will be difficult to accomplish. I accept that these changes will be fought by both parties. I am less interested in fighting the fight required by electoral reform, which may or may not (probably not,) create a better environment for new ideas than I am in getting those changes made from outside the two party system.

That's what it means to me to be a third party person.

The framework may not currently exist for a third party to compete on an equal plane with the Republicans and the Democrats, but this country was founded on revolutionary ideas, so the framework for revolution is fundamental to our political way of life here.

Now, for you: Tax reform. Are you a Flat Tax, Fair Tax or Fixed Tax guy?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 03:07 PM       
Whatever gets us to Socialism the fastest!

Sorry for the flippant answer, but I guess tax code laws and all that jazz sort of do for me what electoral reform does for you.

I'm not a flat taxer, and i believe that the concept of "fair taxes" has been politicized to the point that people ranging from progressive taxation to no income tax at all could say they advocate for "fair" taxes.

I believe the burden of taxation belongs on those who can truly afford it. I believe the estate tax rules, and I think income taxes are awesome.

I'm not so keen on the idea of subsidizing all of our public expenses through a sales tax. That rubs me the wrong way.

I don't mind tax cuts, but i prefer seeing them happen for the middle class types who purchase a lot, pay for college, live their lives in fear of interest rates and debt, etc.

Permanent tax cuts suck, but so do surpluses I guess.

Pepsi.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 03:13 PM       
By "fair" tax I'm referring to the national retail sales tax promoted by www.fairtax.org

Essentially, the repeal of the current multi-tax system (not just income tax but also the entire range of punish/encourage tax scams from gasolin taxes to luxury taxes) and the abolition of the IRS altogether, to be replaced with one 23% sales tax on all retail purchases. Many economic departments (including Harvard, but look at the site for a list) have said it would work revenue neutral and retail prices at the counter would not rise.

It's a MUCH MORE progressive tax than the current system. That's why I figure you'd like it.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 03:19 PM       
I'm familiar with the organization.

How would it not raise prices at the retail counter for starters, and two, what precisely makes it more "progressive"?

I've had this conversation with a buddy of mine who is supportive of a national sales tax. If the progressive arguemnt is that rich folks buy more stuff, I think I'd have to disagree with that assumption. But perhaps I haven't heard the whole story behind the proposal....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 05:40 PM       
Real quickly (I'm late,) it's estimated that the average "imbedded" taxes in retail products currently is at around 22%. I'm sure it's arguable whether Capitalism actually works, and many wierdos would say that GREEDY CORPORATIONS would just keep the money, but I'll make fun of those folks later. Prices stay at least level, but with more capital on the market, they'll drop.

Additionally, on top of everyone getting to take home their entire paycheck, everyone with a functional SS# (because it's considered morally wrong to tax food, shelter and clothing) will get a check each month for the estimated amount of tax they will pay the coming month on those types of items. This has nothing to do with the actual amount spent on food, shelter and clothing, so poor people get more tax money "back" than they'll spend and the evil rich, who really do buy more retail products, get back just a fraction of the taxes they pay even for necessities.

I prefer the consumption tax over the flat tax because, when it comes to times of economic tragedy, it allows the taxpayer to stop paying taxes and save up the money for grandma's surgery.

I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, but that's why God made websites.

I'll try to check back in over the weekend.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 05:48 PM       
Figure it this way: If Johnny Brokeass makes $20k per year, pays about $13k for food, shelter and clothing, but receives ~$370 per month (2 kids and his wife doesn't work) back from the government, assuming he bought retail items with every penny of his salary he was taxed $4,600 and was rebated $4,400. TOTAL.

Now, you tell me what Johnny currently pays under the multi-tax system. I'm sure he smokes and buys a six-pack every now and again... Somebody has to put gas in that Nova...

$200 vs. "X"

I think I'll take the $200... Speaking for Johnny, of course.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 14th, 2005, 05:52 PM       
Oops... http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#3

I was going off memeory for that explanation. I used the single family of four rate. Married Johnny would actually get $492 per month. His refunds would outweigh his taxes paid by about $1,300 per year.

Hmm... Progressive? Yep.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 15th, 2005, 12:52 PM       
I'll get to this at some point over the weekend.....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 19th, 2005, 09:01 AM       
See, now I can say I would have posted here over the weekend, but I didn't because you never replied.

Then I can say that I'm deeply disappointed.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 19th, 2005, 05:55 PM       
Sorry, I'd like to give the thread some fair time, rather than rushed answers, but anyway.....

I see a pervasive trend in your comments regarding economics. Is it only poor people who smoke cigarettes, buy lotto, tickets, drink a 6-pack every night, and get addictions?

You seem to hold little pity for po' folk, because well, they're dumber than you are....clearly. I mean, anybody who makes a lot of money, has a successful job, owns instead of rents, why this person merely made all of the right decisions in life, right? Never got addicted to drugs, never got themselves into debt, never was stupid enough to choose to go to a bad public school when he/she was 4......I digress.

If sales tax goes up on consumer goods, the people who will be most hurt by that are those people who make lots and lots of purchases all of the time. These are the Wal-Mart shoppers, these are the mcDonalds eaters, and these are the middle class. There's more of them, and they buy the shit. They buy the pools for their backyards, they buy the expensive lawnmowers that they don't need, they shop at outlet malls on the day after Thanksgiving (p.s. don't every put a sales tax higher than 3.5% between a mother and her on-sale khakis for Christmas).

I have seen economic data that says it both ways, so I'm left to reason out my own opinion on it. I, contrary to what you may believe, think most wealthy people got there by being smart with their money, i.e. NOT SPENDING IT. I think a massive sales tax would hurt the middle class, and the lower classes, because it would hit those why rely on what's in their wallet and what amount their weekly check will be than it does the salaried, frugal, fiscally sound, non-smoking, non-sixer drinking smart rich person.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 20th, 2005, 08:57 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Sorry, I'd like to give the thread some fair time, rather than rushed answers, but anyway.....
Maybe that would have been better... sorry for rushing you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I see a pervasive trend in your comments regarding economics. Is it only poor people who smoke cigarettes, buy lotto, tickets, drink a 6-pack every night, and get addictions?

You seem to hold little pity for po' folk, because well, they're dumber than you are....clearly. I mean, anybody who makes a lot of money, has a successful job, owns instead of rents, why this person merely made all of the right decisions in life, right? Never got addicted to drugs, never got themselves into debt, never was stupid enough to choose to go to a bad public school when he/she was 4......I digress.
Maybe that trend is there in part because of some of my own personal experiences. I hold very little pity for my own past decisions when they've served me badly. Intelligence offers no protection whatsoever against self-indulgent or self-destructive decision making, of which I've made my fair share. I have been guilty of resenting unfairly those that are currently commiting the sins I've conditioned myself to avoid, similar to the reformed alcoholic that hates a drinker in a way only one that's "been there" can. That's just one more thing I've had to learn not to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
If sales tax goes up on consumer goods, the people who will be most hurt by that are those people who make lots and lots of purchases all of the time. These are the Wal-Mart shoppers, these are the mcDonalds eaters, and these are the middle class. There's more of them, and they buy the shit. They buy the pools for their backyards, they buy the expensive lawnmowers that they don't need, they shop at outlet malls on the day after Thanksgiving (p.s. don't every put a sales tax higher than 3.5% between a mother and her on-sale khakis for Christmas).

I have seen economic data that says it both ways, so I'm left to reason out my own opinion on it.
Apparently you've not seen the economic data, i.e. studies of the bill itself, that says prices at the counter will not increase AND people rich and otherwise will take home their entire paycheck AND poor people will "get back" a disproportionate percentage of their taxed income BEFORE it's spent AND no matter how much money poor people waste on ill-considered purchases they'll never be taxed for more money than they have spent which is always gonna be less than what the Bill Gateses of the country spend even when everybody spends on a subsistence level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I, contrary to what you may believe, think most wealthy people got there by being smart with their money, i.e. NOT SPENDING IT.
No, I was pretty sure you were a smart cookie already. No need to brag. Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because of their financial and economic habits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I think a massive sales tax would hurt the middle class, and the lower classes, because it would hit those why rely on what's in their wallet and what amount their weekly check will be than it does the salaried, frugal, fiscally sound, non-smoking, non-sixer drinking smart rich person.
There are now over a million $million and up homes in this country. Poor people live in exactly none of those homes. I've already explained how a poor or middle class person can expect to, if not profit, then at least pay much less in taxes than those with more money to spend assuming those with money spend more to live than rich folks. To posit that rich folks spend quantatively less to live than poor folks is just silly, Kevin. There's just no way that's true.

I wasn't really prepared to change your opinion on the subject. I simply figured you'd see the advantages to the Fair Tax from the liberal side of the coin. I do. We can change the subject if you want...
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Rosenstern Rosenstern is offline
Senior Member
Rosenstern's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dead in a box
Old Oct 21st, 2005, 12:03 AM       
Awww... ain't that cute? Kevin finally found a friend to play with him outside!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 21st, 2005, 09:01 AM       
You are a massive tool.

Preech, I'll hit you back in a few.....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
Old Oct 21st, 2005, 09:56 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because of their financial and economic habits.
I don't believe it. A person BECOMES poor or rich because of those habits, but most people start out either poor or rich (or somewhere in between) and stay there their whole lives.

Economic mobility is the American dream, but for every Sam Walton or Bill Gates there are 1000 Joe Schmoes whose business ideas didn't make them a fortune.
__________________
BOYCOTT SIGNATURES!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 21st, 2005, 11:06 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
I have been guilty of resenting unfairly those that are currently commiting the sins I've conditioned myself to avoid, similar to the reformed alcoholic that hates a drinker in a way only one that's "been there" can. That's just one more thing I've had to learn not to do.
OK. I think we see differently on this, but I didn't mean to come across as attacking your ethics or anything like that. I'll let you have that discussion with Ziggy. :P


Quote:
Apparently you've not seen the economic data, i.e. studies of the bill itself, that says prices at the counter will not increase AND people rich and otherwise will take home their entire paycheck AND poor people will "get back" a disproportionate percentage of their taxed income BEFORE it's spent AND no matter how much money poor people waste on ill-considered purchases they'll never be taxed for more money than they have spent which is always gonna be less than what the Bill Gateses of the country spend even when everybody spends on a subsistence level.
What bill again are we referencing here? Perhaps I still simply don't follw. If people are being taxed at the sales counter, but then simply receiving rebates, what did you suggest, once a month, than why have the taxes at all? I've seen some call the sales tax revenue-neutral, but that proposition seems to be revenue-negative to me. Now, I know as a Libertarian you might dig that, but is that actually solvent?

I'm actually a little surprised that as a Libertarian you even support this. One argument I've seen in favor of the sales tax is that it'll encourage people to save by making them consider the weight of their day-to-day purchases. Is it the job of the government to be deciding that behavior?

Secondly, I know you as being a pretty strict constructionalist. If a federal income tax doesn't pass constitutional muster in your book, how does a tax on consumption for the purpose of raising revenue? Curbing the consumption habits of Americans through heavy, up-front taxation is one thing, curbing government spending? That's a whole other animal.


Quote:
I've already explained how a poor or middle class person can expect to, if not profit, then at least pay much less in taxes than those with more money to spend assuming those with money spend more to live than rich folks. To posit that rich folks spend quantatively less to live than poor folks is just silly, Kevin. There's just no way that's true.
My point wasn't that rich people spend less per capita than middle and lower class folks (although to argue that home ownership only exists in the upper-class is rather silly, isn't it?). My point was that a national retail sales tax brings taxation to the front lines. It taxes people on their consumption, and I believe it's the paycheck-to-paycheck people who would suffer the most under this, because it goes right after the cash, credit, etc. that they immediately have on hand. And again, if you're saying it's no big deal because they get it all back, then uh, what's the point?

I also think you underestimate the power of a 30% sales tax, the outrage, protest, and flat out anger it would create. I only say this from working most of my teenage years in a miserable retail outlet, where people would berate me for charging them a 3.25% rate on a fucking tie.

Also, there seems to me like this would just create more collection headaches. So rather than taking from an individual's income, the federal government will then be responsible for collecting from business and retail industries? That doesn't sound sketchy to you?

And back to my point above, I personally believe that the tax system is built (be it intentionally or not) to serve big-spender consumers. You might say that you can't dodge taxes at the retail counter, but i will counter that we simply don't know, because we haven't quite seen it on a grand scale yet, with a high % rate. What would prevent retail companies from creating their own "priority customer" loopholes to allow large consumers to dodge heavy taxation, sort of like folks with buckets of cash can dump it into foundations and charities to avoid the Estate tax???


Quote:
I wasn't really prepared to change your opinion on the subject. I simply figured you'd see the advantages to the Fair Tax from the liberal side of the coin. I do. We can change the subject if you want...
I'm actually warming up to the topic, so whatever.....
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Emu Emu is offline
Level 29 ♂
Emu's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Peoria, IL
Old Oct 21st, 2005, 12:09 PM        Re: Preechr's omnibus discussion thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
EDIT: EXCEPT bunnies, damn you, Emu!!
FINE But I'm tellin' you, this thread could be better.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 24th, 2005, 12:24 PM       
Ahem....
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 24th, 2005, 05:51 PM       
Honestly, the best thing to do here would be to post a link to the Fair Tax FAQ...

I hate to do you that way, Kevin, but I'm pressed for time today, and it says more and more clearly than is probably possible for me...

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 24th, 2005, 06:08 PM       
I see how it is. You have time to discuss esoteric arguments over existence with CaptainBubba, but no time to talk taxes with me. Fine.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Old Oct 24th, 2005, 08:45 PM       
Well, I'm pretty sure that convo's run it's course...

Did you read through that FAQ? It would take me pages and pages of typing to equal that pithy bit of info. For the sake of all that is mocky, PLEASE don't make me do that.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Old Oct 25th, 2005, 09:17 AM       
okay, here's the deal. I'm going to read the FAQ's on the wehategovernment.org website, and you will respond more to the questions that were addressed to you, rather than to Grover Norquist. Deal?

Next topic?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.