Liberals With Guns ???

[PaulD]

Income redistribution.

It's not income redistribution if they vastly simplify the tax code. Buffet's point is that a hugely complex tax code is necessarily regressive.

As for a flat tax, I'd be all for it except that every flat tax plan out there talks about getting rid of deductions. That would work for a typical W2 worker but how would it work for the self employed or corporations? Do they get to deduct expenses?

 

[Negotiator]

That is they way I see it. There is a lot to be said about someone who doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment or that someone has the right to protect themselves.

+100 Derek!

As a proud American by choice, I find it almost unthinkable that anyone would be anti 2nd amendment and question the most basic right of any human being - that of the right to self defence. The 2nd amendment is there to allow the people the right to bear arms for defense of life and liberty. Governments around the world would much rather have an unarmed populace to govern, as it makes it less likely there would ever be any rebellion. To argue against the RKBA is to argue away a basic human right.

Look how screwed they are in England, the country of my birth and one I was proud to serve. I joined a pro gun site in the UK to see what they are facing and asked the question, so what's the deal with firearms ownership? The answers were very , very scary. Nothing in the way of hand guns. Period. The bad guys are increasingly using firearms , and the police carry a lot more than the tourist info would have you believe. So where does that leave the average citizen? Screwed.

Liberals , conservatives, dems or rebs...end of the day we are all Americans. It's our country to lose...

 

[pdm]

You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[drgrant]

I'd probably change any misconceptions he has had about 2A and gun control. You're not going to convince everyone, but if you get enough liberal voters to change their mind on gun control then it might no longer be a major item on the Democrat's agenda.

The thing is though, at least on the national level, is unless these same "liberal" voters make a huge stink about the issue, nothing is going to actually change. Even in the case of "liberal gun owners" many of them won't put the 2nd amendment before their little pet social issues, either. [sad2] If they were willing to do so, the bradyites would simply not be allowed to ride as a parasite on the democratic party... that's all they are really, anyways. Since they don't really have a genuine groundswell of support, the antis would be put out of business overnight- and get relegated to one of the pure 120% moonbat parties that doesn't even get on the ballot in at least 30 states.

-Mike

 

[Negotiator]

Hence why labels and party identification is so dishonest and inadequate. If one identifies as liberal, and people here bash liberals, then there is little incentive to go into what that term means to anyone. In other words, everyone assumes their meaning of liberal is the one being used by the other guy. I bet it is not. So instead of bashing liberals, neo-cons, etc, bash a stated policy, not some abstract label designed to manipulate us and divide us.

ETA:



Apparently I can't give you rep points right now but I would for this statement. So true.

+1 and well put.

 

[Bassturd]

I would be happy with a flat tax. You can't argue that a flat tax isn't fair.

I would be happy with a flat tax as well. I would also be happy with a flat tax that exempted every dollar that every person earned up until a particular dollar amount. That way every person gets the same amount of tax free dough every year.

 

[terraformer]

I would be happy with a flat tax. You can't argue that a flat tax isn't fair.

Yes it is easy to argue that is unfair, unless all taxes are considered and removed. That is why any combination of property, sales and a flat income tax yields "non-flat" results. So the only way that someone can lay out a completely fair tax system is to only allow income to be taxed and allow zero deductions. There is about zero chance of that happening.

 

[seanc]

I don't want sympathy, but civility would be nice.

If you truely have the courage of your convictions then put them out there and argue them based on the merits based on facts.

If you are going to put out some sort of liberal philosophy and argue the merits based on your feeeelings and then cry foul as soon as somebody disagrees with you then don't bother.

Post whatever it is you like. Then be prepared to argue it based on facts. This is a site that values the 1st ammendment as much as the 2nd. A free, open and uncensored dialog is a great thing.

 

[Admin]

I am just talking about the horribly flawed fed income tax schedule.

A 17% or 18% flat tax on income isn't fair?

 

[drgrant]

Hence why labels and party identification is so dishonest and inadequate.

I generally agree that terms have gotten abused... in the case of "liberal" the socialist authoritarians have stolen it from the few classical liberals and used it to make a silk purse out of sow's ear. They did this because they realized what they were really trying to sell was the political equivalent of rat poison, so they had to gussy it up somehow. On the other side of the fence, socialist authoritarians masking as "conservatives" or "republicans" have hijacked the meanings of those terms, as well, although the dynamics are a little different, the basic problem is the same.

If one identifies as liberal, and people here bash liberals, then there is little incentive to go into what that term means to anyone. In other words, everyone assumes their meaning of liberal is the one being used by the other guy. I bet it is not.

The thing is, in the case of liberal, 90%+ of the time when I trace this down after "hearing" it, it usually leads me back to a socialist authoritarian... especially in this part of the country. Still, I often have to ask that question, because every once in awhile, there is a real liberal behind the "liberal". Some will call me a glutton for punishment, maybe it's just because I still have a smidgen of optimism left.

So instead of bashing liberals, neo-cons, etc, bash a stated policy, not some abstract label designed to manipulate us and divide us.

Is it the labels or is it the system that divides? Or is it, ultimately, the issue that divides? At some point or another, everyone is not on the same side.... the real challenge is to try to get the majority on the same side, AT LEAST on issues that should be of core importance... and that's not an easy thing to do, especially considering that so many have been brainwashed for so long.

-Mike

 

[PaulD]

I am just talking about the horribly flawed fed income tax schedule.

A 17% or 18% flat tax on income isn't fair?

As I asked previously, how do you apply that to a sole propietorship or a corporation? Are those entities not allowed to deduct expenses? Given that removing these deductions would kill business, a flat tax can only be applied to W2 wage earners.

A "flat tax" as typically defined is just an obfuscation of the real problem which is the giant CF of a tax code we have. In other words, figuring out a person's actual tax is easy. Figuring out the taxable income is the hard part. So, flat vs. graduated income tax is a philosophic issue, not a practical one. The practical problem is the tax code.

IMO, the most fair system is scrapping income taxes altogether and going with a federal consumption tax.

 

[pdm]

I am just talking about the horribly flawed fed income tax schedule.

A 17% or 18% flat tax on income isn't fair?

Eh. Maybe 3%, if that.

 

[terraformer]

I am just talking about the horribly flawed fed income tax schedule.

A 17% or 18% flat tax on income isn't fair?

OK, just talking fed income tax, the fairness of any system, including a flat tax, is predicated on how it is setup. If you allow deductions (for homes, kids, investment losses/gains, manipulations, etc) then they will be abused. Any way given to turn real income into AGI (adjusted gross income) can be leveraged so that those with the resources can hide/defer income. For example, if joe the plumber pays 15% of his actual income of $30K ($4500) and Richie Rich pays 15% of some fraction of his income that is not fair. Richie Rich accomplishes this by saying that his yacht is a tax exempt business expense, or that his flights across country to nail his mistress are business related. So his $1mil yearly income, which he should pay $150K in taxes on, becomes $600K and he pays $90K instead. So in comparison, Joe the plumber paid 15% of his income in taxes, but Richie Rich paid 9%.

 

[Bassturd]

If you truely have the courage of your convictions then put them out there and argue them based on the merits based on facts.

If you are going to put out some sort of liberal philosophy and argue the merits based on your feeeelings and then cry foul as soon as somebody disagrees with you then don't bother.

Post whatever it is you like. Then be prepared to argue it based on facts. This is a site that values the 1st ammendment as much as the 2nd. A free, open and uncensored dialog is a great thing.

Really, it's impossible to do so in a forum like this. On caillean's side of the discussion there is just her. On the other side there is the rest of the forum each quoting her and getting into the act. It's virtually impossible to have a discussion such as you suggest. The avalanche that returns is overwhelming.

If someone wants to take her on in a discussion I suggest getting a debate thread going and exclude other posters from the conversation. It would make having the discussion possible.

 

[Admin]

PaulD and terraformer, I hear you on the deductions. There are a ton of them. The current code is such a mess.

 

[Bassturd]

OK, just talking fed income tax, the fairness of any system, including a flat tax, is predicated on how it is setup. If you allow deductions (for homes, kids, investment losses/gains, manipulations, etc) then they will be abused. Any way given to turn real income into AGI (adjusted gross income) can be leveraged so that those with the resources can hide/defer income. For example, if joe the plumber pays 15% of his actual income of $30K ($4500) and Richie Rich pays 15% of some fraction of his income that is not fair. Richie Rich accomplishes this by saying that his yacht is a tax exempt business expense, or that his flights across country to nail his mistress are business related. So his $1mil yearly income, which he should pay $150K in taxes on, becomes $600K and he pays $90K instead. So in comparison, Joe the plumber paid 15% of his income in taxes, but Richie Rich paid 9%.

This is why I say flat tax, but every person gets the first X number of dollars earned tax free. Those are your deductions. Married couples get 2X when filing jointly.

 

[Pilgrim]

Seems it would be easy enough to have your employer take x% of your income.

Investments? Every year, bank, broker, whatever takes x%.
There, that's it, all done.

Or, everything you buy has an x% tax on it.....everything.

There, that's it, all done.


probably way too simple for a govt. Might also do away with the IRS, which we know would never happen.

 

[seanc]

Nothing would give this country the shot in the arm it needs to get things going like a serious tax break.
And there is nothing more fair than a flat tax.

Everybody pays X. No deductions. from the 1st $1 up to whatever you can make (income only, no taxes on savings/ interest at all).

Oh yeah, and Un-exempt all of the .gov employees. They should have to live with the same taxes they inflict on everybody else.

 

[JoeyB]

Is it the labels or is it the system that divides? Or is it, ultimately, the issue that divides? At some point or another, everyone is not on the same side.... the real challenge is to try to get the majority on the same side, AT LEAST on issues that should be of core importance... and that's not an easy thing to do, especially considering that so many have been brainwashed for so long.

All three. But the system (i.e. government) is more dangerous. The system must divide us otherwise it does not work. Politicians gain their power by pandering to certain groups of people for votes. It's the justifiable use of force to make things "right" that is at the core of these arguments.

If you take a completely voluntary society, with the proper mechanisms in place to ensure protection against aggression (protection agencies, private police/security forces, insurance, owning a gun, etc), disagreements should not be that large of an issue. You are free to find someone or something else that will provide you with what you seek and you are free to associate with those same individuals. The key is to not impede in any way on someone else's life, liberty and property. Everybody wins.

Once your enter the sphere of government and politics, everything changes. Issues "of core importance" is a subjective term that differs with everyone you ask. Everyone has their "pet project" they'd like to see pushed through government and they vote accordingly. For one side to "win" in politics, the other side loses. Politics is mob rule and a zero-sum game. Somebody has to lose.

Morally speaking, government is force. Anti-gun folks will FORCE the government to take your guns. Get to the core of the argument with anti-self defense people and expose their hypocrisy:

1) They support the use of force to take guns from peaceful, "law-abiding" individuals
2) They claim that guns cause violence, yet they are completely willing to use that same violence or threat of violence to take your guns

Sh*t is whack!

 

[terraformer]

This is why I say flat tax, but every person gets the first X number of dollars earned tax free. Those are your deductions. Married couples get 2X when filing jointly.

But someone else mentioned the real need to allow businesses deduct legitimate expenses.

 

[Bassturd]

But someone else mentioned the real need to allow businesses deduct legitimate expenses.

Certainly there needs to be some consideration for how to handle "business". I was under the impression we were discussing personal income tax.

 

[PaulD]

Certainly there needs to be some consideration for how to handle "business". I was under the impression we were discussing personal income tax.

See Terraformer's posts on what happens if personal and business are handled differently.

 

[Mikey]

I hear what you are all saying but what we really need to do is end the federal income tax all together. Or keep the damn thing and void every other tax (sale, property....).

 

[PaulD]

I hear what you are all saying but what we really need to do is end the federal income tax all together. Or keep the damn thing and void every other tax (sale, property....).

Sales and property taxes are all, currently, at the state or local level.

As I said previously, a federal sales tax is probably the most fair. Just don't tax need to live type stuff (food, clothing within reason, meds)

 

[jobowker]

As I asked previously, how do you apply that to a sole propietorship or a corporation? Are those entities not allowed to deduct expenses? Given that removing these deductions would kill business, a flat tax can only be applied to W2 wage earners.

A "flat tax" as typically defined is just an obfuscation of the real problem which is the giant CF of a tax code we have. In other words, figuring out a person's actual tax is easy. Figuring out the taxable income is the hard part. So, flat vs. graduated income tax is a philosophic issue, not a practical one. The practical problem is the tax code.

IMO, the most fair system is scrapping income taxes altogether and going with a federal consumption tax.

Bingo! A 20% consumption tax would be about right. While that sounds like a lot, consider that you would get rid of income tax, no filing taxes every year, no more complex deductions, and no IRS! We already have a state sales tax in most states, so the plumbing is already there. Granted, I would be paying a 20% consumption tax on goods, but if i make 100k/year, I would actually see 100k in my bank account. My costs would go up 20%, and only on consumables, but my income would go up about 40%.

Also, illegals would be paying their share of taxes as well, since consumption tax would be paid when purchasing an item, just like sales tax. Since it would be federal, people wouldn't be hopping the border to buy things in NH for example.

 

[Bassturd]

See Terraformer's posts on what happens if personal and business are handled differently.

I understand all about it. I have pretty good knowledge of how different types of corporate structures allow the business proprietors to employ different methods of tax shielding and income relation.

Personal and business need to be handled differently. When talking about personal, I favor a flat tax with the first X number of dollars being tax free.

Business law and tax implications needs it's own system to be dealt with. In general (something I have espoused in the past here), businesses don't pay tax. Businesses pass tax on to their customers in the form of higher product costs. Business owners find ways to melt their expenses into their business with company cars, dinners, etc.. Those things are no reason to have a complex personal income tax code. They need to be dealt with separately.

How to deal with these business expense issues isn't something that can be summed up in a few lines on an internet forum. I think the best summary that can be applied is that the complexity of the system is what allows those who would take advantage of it to do so. Make it simple and take the hiding spots away and you will see fairness.

 

[Bassturd]

Sales and property taxes are all, currently, at the state or local level.

As I said previously, a federal sales tax is probably the most fair. Just don't tax need to live type stuff (food, clothing within reason, meds)

The obvious caveat there being the proliferation of black market goods under that plan.

 

[Mikey]

Sales and property taxes are all, currently, at the state or local level.

As I said previously, a federal sales tax is probably the most fair. Just don't tax need to live type stuff (food, clothing within reason, meds)

I don't care if it is local, state or federal. Look what happens to the money the feds takes from us. It is redistributed to the local and state level (other then military and essentials). The fed becomes a middle man who then puts restriction and obligations on the money they redistribute, there in gaining power and control over the state and local .govs.

This is not fair nor conducive to a properly run union. The feds do not need and should not have all of this tax money, I just wish our founding fathers would have built in better restrictions on the federal governments ability to tax and redistribute the way it does now.

Have we lived so long with a federal income tax it is considered essential for us to function?

 

[PaulD]

Bingo! A 20% consumption tax would be about right. While that sounds like a lot, consider that you would get rid of income tax, no filing taxes every year, no more complex deductions, and no IRS! We already have a state sales tax in most states, so the plumbing is already there. Granted, I would be paying a 20% consumption tax on goods, but if i make 100k/year, I would actually see 100k in my bank account. My costs would go up 20%, and only on consumables, but my income would go up about 40%.

Also, illegals would be paying their share of taxes as well, since consumption tax would be paid when purchasing an item, just like sales tax. Since it would be federal, people wouldn't be hopping the border to buy things in NH for example.

Plus, it would probably save retail businesses money. Collecting and accounting for a sales tax is easy with any computerized point of sale system. The accounting needed for keeping track of payroll taxes is more complex.

 

[JoeyB]

I hear what you are all saying but what we really need to do is end the federal income tax all together. Or keep the damn thing and void every other tax (sale, property....).

End all taxes!! Taxes are legalized theft.