This is a video about the fair tax. It's 23 minutes long, very informative and a bit hokey.

Watch it and post your thoughts.

Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4331078168568152843&q=fair+tax&time=530000)

This should probably be in PD.

I support fairtax :nice:

If it didn't eliminate estate taxes and gift taxes, but augmented them while replacing income taxes, I might be more interested in it.

**edit**

If it didn't eliminate estate taxes and gift taxes, but augmented them while replacing income taxes, I might be more interested in it.
well then it wouldn't be "fair" would it?

gift taxes are bullshit.

Gift and estate taxes are double (or in the case of dividends, triple) taxation of income. Once someone pays the taxes on his legally earned income, what he does with it (and to who he give it) is his own private business.

Gift and estate taxes are double (or in the case of dividends, triple) taxation of income. Once someone pays the taxes on his legally earned income, what he does with it (and to who he give it) is his own private business.That's exactly right. The estate tax isn't just for the rich anymore. Think about it, if you have a home and some retirement savings, it's pretty easy to have an estate close to $1M in value by the time you're 60 or 70. If you croak, why shouldn't your heirs have the benefit of having those assets? I can't think of a single reason why not...other than liberal jealocy or a crusade against the so-called "rich".

If it didn't eliminate estate taxes and gift taxes, but augmented them while replacing income taxes, I might be more interested in it.
Of course, you don't care that the sales tax is the most regressive tax in the world.

There is always someone better off then one, and worse off. It is important to remember that advocating for rapacious taxes of the former provides a rationale for the latter to advocate the same for one.

Of course, you don't care that the sales tax is the most regressive tax in the world.

Then why are you advocating a federal sales tax?

Of course, you don't care that the sales tax is the most regressive tax in the world.

regressive? are you suggesting that the rich consume less than the poor?? :eek7:

regressive? are you suggesting that the rich consume less than the poor?? :eek7:

No, that less of their income is ever spent. If you make 20k per year, you're going to spend 20k per year. If you make 500 million per year, you aren't going to spend it all. You'll spend a small fraction of it, then add it to the stack that was handed down to you, and hand the whole thing down to the next generation. So the vast majority of wealthy people's incomes would NEVER be taxed.

With the prebate, the guy making 20K won't pay much, if any sales tax. The guy making 500M will pay plenty in sales tax in a years time. Is this a class envy thing for you Boo?

This poses an interesting conundrum: Is it necessary to first have a modicum of class in order to have Class Envy - or may those completely without class also have this unenviable attribute?

Is this a class envy thing for you Boo?

No. Is it for you?

With the prebate, the guy making 20K won't pay much, if any sales tax. The guy making 500M will pay plenty in sales tax in a years time.


The lower class will pay a very small fraction of their income, and the upper class will pay a very small fraction of their income. The middle class will pay the rest.

Do you hate the middle class, and envy the days before social mobility, where there was a strick line dividing pesants from nobles?

No. Is it for you? No.

The lower class will pay a very small fraction of their income, and the upper class will pay a very small fraction of their income. The middle class will pay the rest.Everyone will receive a prebate check equal to the sales tax based on the poverty level and family size. Above the poverty level, everyone is taxed at the same percentage. Are you suggesting that a middle class family would buy more and thus pay more than a wealthy family under the fairtax? That would be true only if the wealthy family didn't buy any more than the middle class family, but that's not likely.

Do you hate the middle class, and envy the days before social mobility, where there was a strick line dividing pesants from nobles?No. I think we should all be treated fairly and a consumption tax is more fair than an income tax. I'm in the middle class.

Are you suggesting that a middle class family would buy more and thus pay more than a wealthy family under the fairtax?


A larger percentage of their income. The wealthiest families inherit millions, go to ivy league schools, take jobs that pay millions, and spend a very small percentage of it. Middle class families spend the majority of their income.

Under this scheme, inherited wealth would not be taxed at all, and most of the interest income from it would not be taxed at all, and little of the actual earned income would be taxed, because all of the money that's going to end up going into the next generation's inheritance would never be taxed.

It's just a scheme to make it easier for upper class families to keep the money in the family without having to work. It's basically an attempt to strengthen American royalty.

A larger percentage of their income. The wealthiest families inherit millions, go to ivy league schools, take jobs that pay millions, and spend a very small percentage of it. Middle class families spend the majority of their income.They still wouldn't pay as much tax as a wealthy family. Wealthy people spend more money and buy more expensive things, so they would pay more tax.

Under this scheme, inherited wealth would not be taxed at all, and most of the interest income from it would not be taxed at all, and little of the actual earned income would be taxed, because all of the money that's going to end up going into the next generation's inheritance would never be taxed.Why don't you like that? Because the rich are still getting richer? The current system doesn't tax existing wealth, but the fairtax will when it's spent.

It's just a scheme to make it easier for upper class families to keep the money in the family without having to work. It's basically an attempt to strengthen American royalty.It's a plan to replace the income tax with a sales tax, get rid of the IRS and let us keep our entire paycheck. The current tax system penalizes people for working hard and becoming successful by taxing them more. The millions of people in this country who are paid under the table currently evade income and payroll taxes, but they will pay tax under the fairtax. The poor will pay nothing, not even the regressive payroll taxes they pay now. The people with highest incomes pay the largest percentage under the current system and the wealthy will also pay the largest percentage under the fairtax. No one will pay more than the estimated 23% rate under the fairtax. The prebate is used to make the system progressive and spending above the poverty level is voluntary. You claim you don't envy the rich, but you seem intent on keeping them from benefitting from lower taxation. Why?

You claim you don't envy the rich, but you seem intent on keeping them from benefitting from lower taxation. Why?

Because if you're going to take money from people, it should be from people who don't earn it. Protecting the handouts to the wealthiest people at the expense of the working class isn't much different from the old feudal system, and it discourages individual effort and innovation. This kind of scheme to fortify the wealth of the elite upper class lines at the expense of the people who actually work for a living is anything except "fair".

If you want to cut taxes, cut them out of the middle class, not out of the lower and upper class, leaving the middleclass in a pinch where they can't ever move up. The bullshit argument that the middle class may save thousands in a lifetime without pointing out that the real change is that the upper class establishment families retain billions a year so that none of them ever have to work again, not just in their lifetimes, but in dozens of generations, is not honest.

Cut taxes for earned income, offset it with an increase in taxes for inherited income, and you encourage people to work to get ahead. That's not what this plan does.

It's nothing more than a scheme to consolidate more and more wealth in the hands of a few very, very wealthy families who won't ever have to pay taxes on any of the handouts they get from past generations, and will barely have to pay any taxes at all. You'll have a smaller and smaller percentage of the population taking a larger and larger chunk of the wealth, without an increasing tax responsibility. The logical outcome of that is a return to the socio-economic standards of the 19th century, which I think is really the goal behind the whole scam.

Screw the middle class. They get a bigger chunk of Federal subsidies than working class Americans do.

Who's paying for this wonderful little welfare program for the well heeled and soccer moms who can shop til they drop at Big Town?

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.


Republicans: Putting The 'Free' In 'Free Trade' (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497)

Free for their partners, not you, of course ...

Any economic geniuses care to show how this pays for itself? ROFL

I somehow doubt laying off a few Longshoremen and modestly paid truck drivers pay for it ... but then again, when I read The Fountainhead, it was clear to me Ayn Rand was just a neurotic moron ...

Republicans: Putting The 'Free' In 'Free Trade' (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1325589)


Hahaha. Oh, god. That's just great. Export all the jobs that pay halfway decent, import mexicans to take the rest, replace American made goods with foreign goods, making sure the wealthiest capital owners score unprecidented profits, then slash their taxes to almost nothing.

"Fair". My goodness. We have a new meaning for the word. "Screw everyone, make bank, and bill the poor for it".

I swear, the soft ware on this boards sucks. I click on the link and it takes me to a 'reply' box for this board. Are mods editing people's links, or what?

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497

I'll try this one.

Just how is it people think dividends are 'double or triple taxed'? This is nonsense.

The Corporation pays corporate income taxes on earnings. Then the receipient of the residual after-tax dividends is taxed as an individual. Then the heir of such recipient is taxed for a third time via estate taxes.

That is how.

Social security taxes are also double taxed, btw.

Because if you're going to take money from people, it should be from people who don't earn it. Protecting the handouts to the wealthiest people at the expense of the working class isn't much different from the old feudal system, and it discourages individual effort and innovation. This kind of scheme to fortify the wealth of the elite upper class lines at the expense of the people who actually work for a living is anything except "fair".This sounds like what we currently have. Feudalism had more to do with land value, not income, sales or even cash.

If you want to cut taxes, cut them out of the middle class, not out of the lower and upper class, leaving the middleclass in a pinch where they can't ever move up. The bullshit argument that the middle class may save thousands in a lifetime without pointing out that the real change is that the upper class establishment families retain billions a year so that none of them ever have to work again, not just in their lifetimes, but in dozens of generations, is not honest.And this sounds like class envy.

Cut taxes for earned income, offset it with an increase in taxes for inherited income, and you encourage people to work to get ahead. That's not what this plan does.This plan taxes consumption, not income. It encourages saving, which will get you ahead.

It's nothing more than a scheme to consolidate more and more wealth in the hands of a few very, very wealthy families who won't ever have to pay taxes on any of the handouts they get from past generations, and will barely have to pay any taxes at all. You'll have a smaller and smaller percentage of the population taking a larger and larger chunk of the wealth, without an increasing tax responsibility. The logical outcome of that is a return to the socio-economic standards of the 19th century, which I think is really the goal behind the whole scam.The goal behind the fairtax is to replace the current income tax system with a consumption tax. It's not tax reform. All the current bullshit social programs will still be sending checks to people who didn't earn them and the millions who evade taxation while earning billions without taxation will finally be forced to pay their share. The feds didn't have income taxation until 1913 in the 20th century and it required the 16th amendment. I like the fairtax because it removes power from the federal government and puts it back into the hands of the people where it belongs. I think your fears are based on envy and a refusal to accept that there will always be people who have more than you or I do.

Screw the middle class. They get a bigger chunk of Federal subsidies than working class Americans do.

Who's paying for this wonderful little welfare program for the well heeled and soccer moms who can shop til they drop at Big Town?



Republicans: Putting The 'Free' In 'Free Trade' (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15497)

Free for their partners, not you, of course ...

Any economic geniuses care to show how this pays for itself? ROFL

I somehow doubt laying off a few Longshoremen and modestly paid truck drivers pay for it ... but then again, when I read The Fountainhead, it was clear to me Ayn Rand was just a neurotic moron ...What does any of this have to do with the fairtax? Stay on topic.

Because if you're going to take money from people, it should be from people who don't earn it. Protecting the handouts to the wealthiest people at the expense of the working class

This is the fatal flaw in reasoning behind all of your political arguments; you think it's impossible for a person to earn their way to being wealthy. That's simply not true. The vast majority of wealthy people spend all their time working. And you think you're morally justified in taking it all away, based on your assumption that they didn't earn it.

This is the fatal flaw in reasoning behind all of your political arguments; you think it's impossible for a person to earn their way to being wealthy. That's simply not true. The vast majority of wealthy people spend all their time working.


Got any stats on that?


And you think you're morally justified in taking it all away, based on your assumption that they didn't earn it.

No on earns inherited money. And the moral justification is just that it's more justifiable to take money from someone that he didn't earn than to take money from someone that he did earn.

KIssing grandma's ass for thirty years, or whatever, isn't "earning" that handout she gives you. That's free money that you didn't work for. If something's going to be taxed, tax that before you tax earned income.

Then why are you advocating a federal sales tax?I'm not. I'm simply picking on the fact that you only oppose it becuase it doesn't hit the rich hard enough. You don't care that it hurts the poor more.

How does it hurt the poor? They end with more money under the fairtax than they do under the current system.

The Corporation pays corporate income taxes on earnings. Then the receipient of the residual after-tax dividends is taxed as an individual. Then the heir of such recipient is taxed for a third time via estate taxes.

This is merely anecdotal myth pulled from some editorial, not fact.

Those are three entirely different incomes, and on entirely different people to boot. Don't even need to address that most corporations don't pay any income taxes at all, and a lot of other stuff. Anybody who actually fills out their own tax forms, pays taxes on their company's profits, taxes on dividends and estates, etc., would know that.

Social security taxes are also double taxed, btw.

Another myth. Social Security is a payroll tax, not an income tax, anyway. It's real rates haven't even been increased since the 1940's.

What does any of this have to do with the fairtax? Stay on topic.

Of course it does, as well as having everything to do with a following post of yours about how the Fed was financed before 1913, especially. you just don't understand the topic, a problem for ideologues who just memorize 'talking points' and anecdotes from editorials.

This is the fatal flaw in reasoning behind all of your political arguments; you think it's impossible for a person to earn their way to being wealthy. That's simply not true.

Name anybody who got wealthy entirely by their own efforts.

The vast majority of wealthy people spend all their time working.

They couldn't possibly spend all their time working. Nobody van get rich that way, it's impossible.

And you think you're morally justified in taking it all away, based on your assumption that they didn't earn it.

I don't see where he advocated taking it all away. This is just hyperbole.

The feds didn't have income taxation until 1913 in the 20th century and it required the 16th amendment.

That's because businesses wanted to get rid of a 'fair tax' on consumption we already had; they were called 'tariffs', and they were lot cheaper, more effective, and easier ad valorems to collect than dumping yet more tax collections on individual retail businesses under the scam you're defending.

See my post on 'Free Trade' Superhighway, wherein ' conservatives' tax American citizens in order to build Mexico a huge freeway to Canada, as just one example.

This is merely anecdotal myth pulled from some editorial, not fact.

Those are three entirely different incomes, and on entirely different people to boot. Don't even need to address that most corporations don't pay any income taxes at all, and a lot of other stuff. Anybody who actually fills out their own tax forms, pays taxes on their company's profits, taxes on dividends and estates, etc., would know that. I wasn't aware that the treasury department wrote editorials.

Under current law, corporate earnings may be subject to two levels of tax: one at the corporate level and one at the shareholder level. Income earned by a corporation is taxed at the corporate level, generally at the rate of 35 percent. If the corporation distributes earnings to shareholders in the form of dividends, the income generally is taxed again at the shareholder level (at rates as high as 38.6 percent). If a corporation instead retains earnings, the value of corporate stock generally will increase to reflect the retained earnings. When shareholders sell their stock, that additional value will be taxed in the form of capital gains (generally at a maximum rate of 20 percent). The resulting rate of tax on corporate income can be as high as 60 percent, far in excess of tax imposed on other types of income.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/kd3761.htm



Another myth. Social Security is a payroll tax, not an income tax, anyway. It's real rates haven't even been increased since the 1940's.I'm not sure what you mean by real rate, but payroll taxes have risen a number of times since the inception of SS. Payroll taxes are inclusive to income and are taxed. SS income gets taxed again if we make too much money while collecting it.

Of course, the expansions of Social Security and the creation of Medicare and Medicaid required additional tax revenues, and thus the basic payroll tax was repeatedly increased over the years. Between 1949 and 1962 the payroll tax rate climbed steadily from its initial rate of 2 percent to 6 percent. The expansions in 1965 led to further rate increases, with the combined payroll tax rate climbing to 12.3 percent in 1980. Thus, in 31 years the maximum Social Security tax burden rose from a mere $60 in 1949 to $3,175 in 1980.
Despite the increased payroll tax burden, the benefit expansions Congress enacted in previous years led the Social Security program to an acute funding crises in the early 1980s. Eventually, Congress legislated some minor programmatic changes in Social Security benefits, along with an increase in the payroll tax rate to 15.3 percent by 1990. Between 1980 and 1990, the maximum Social Security payroll tax burden more than doubled to $7,849.

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Of course it does, as well as having everything to do with a following post of yours about how the Fed was financed before 1913, especially. you just don't understand the topic, a problem for ideologues who just memorize 'talking points' and anecdotes from editorials.The fairtax has nothing to do with a NAFTA super highway. I suggest you read some history of taxation and stop being a dick.

That's because businesses wanted to get rid of a 'fair tax' on consumption we already had; they were called 'tariffs', and they were lot cheaper, more effective, and easier ad valorems to collect than dumping yet more tax collections on individual retail businesses under the scam you're defending.

See my post on 'Free Trade' Superhighway, wherein ' conservatives' tax American citizens in order to build Mexico a huge freeway to Canada, as just one example.All I'm saying is that the fairtax is better than the income tax system we currently have. Are you advocating that we adopt a tarriff system of taxation? The fairtax taxes all finished goods at an equal rate. Do you want to pick and choose what gets taxed and how much? If you don't like the fairtax, you're going to have to do way better than this nonsense. Any idiot can protest without giving specifics.

I wasn't aware that the treasury department wrote editorials.

It doesn't. The political appointees who tell it what to put out there as PR do, just like they did with that nonsense you cut-and-pasted.


I'm not sure what you mean by real rate, but payroll taxes have risen a number of times since the inception of SS.

Nope, they've merely been adjusted to account for inflation, while wages lag way behind. A 7% rate today is the same as a 3.5% rate in 1972.

Payroll taxes are inclusive to income and are taxed. SS income gets taxed again if we make too much money while collecting it.

Payroll taxes are taxes on wages and salaries, not income. You don't what income means. you don't get taxed on Social Security again; in fact you get a large exemption before you pay taxes on income beyond a certain ceiling. nothing 'double taxed' about that. You've been reading too many editorials by Sobran or some other paid shill.

The fairtax has nothing to do with a NAFTA super highway. I suggest you read some history of taxation and stop being a dick.

Of course it does. It's merely another tariff. I suggest you take some arithmetic classes, and stop being a dick.

All I'm saying is that the fairtax is better than the income tax system we currently have.

And you would be seriously wrong about that.


Are you advocating that we adopt a tarriff system of taxation?

You yourself were so proud to point out we didn't have an 'income tax' until 1913.
What was it exactly do you think the Feds were doing for funds before that? ...

The fairtax taxes all finished goods at an equal rate.

No, it won't. You just read that somewhere, and foolishly believe it.


Do you want to pick and choose what gets taxed and how much?

Me personally? Of course! Who wouldn't? what a dumb question ...

If you don't like the fairtax, you're going to have to do way better than this nonsense.

No, I don't ...

Any idiot can protest without giving specifics.

I agree ... just as any idiot can post ideological spam and call it a 'fair tax' ...

The fairtax taxes all finished goods at an equal rate. Do you want to pick and choose what gets taxed and how much?
All tax systems pick and choose in that way. Why else, for example, does the SCFT (So Called Fair Tax) make a distinction between finished goods and others? Who benefits? Why, it's the "extractive" industries such as mining and forestry which do not produce what would be considered finished goods under the SCFT, and whose representatives are not-so-coincidentally prominent in Washington. Some, such as geolibertarians or the good folks behind Green Tax Shift (http://www.progress.org/banneker/shift.html), would say such a system creates incentives for precisely the wrong kind of behavior, and they'd be right; choosing to advocate such a system anyway is an inherently political choice.

In any case, we've already discussed the lies behind SCFT advocacy (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1249632&postcount=14), just as we've discussed the misrepresentation of the estate tax as a tax on the decedent rather than a tax on the inheritor who never paid a dime of tax on it before and thus can't be subject to double taxation. Were you guys just hoping you could get away with pretending your arguments hadn't been buried by the facts before?

Were you guys just hoping you could get away with pretending your arguments hadn't been buried by the facts before?

It doesn't matter; it's just an ideological tactic to keep repeating some 'talking point' over and over on message boards, like TV advertising; no 'debate' is actually wanted, just head bobbing affirmations from the faithful.

And you would be seriously wrong about that.Explain further. These trite little answers mean nothing.

You yourself were so proud to point out we didn't have an 'income tax' until 1913.
What was it exactly do you think the Feds were doing for funds before that? ... It's nothing to proud of, but it is a fact. Before that we had tarrifs on specific things like sugar and raw materials. That's considerably different from what the fairtax suggests.

No, it won't. You just read that somewhere, and foolishly believe it.I read it in the legislation.

Me personally? Of course! Who wouldn't? what a dumb question ...

No, I don't ...

I agree ... just as any idiot can post ideological spam and call it a 'fair tax' ...Damn dude. If you can't contribute to the thread, at least stop being a dick.

All tax systems pick and choose in that way. Why else, for example, does the SCFT (So Called Fair Tax) make a distinction between finished goods and others? Who benefits? Why, it's the "extractive" industries such as mining and forestry which do not produce what would be considered finished goods under the SCFT, and whose representatives are not-so-coincidentally prominent in Washington. Some, such as geolibertarians or the good folks behind Green Tax Shift (http://www.progress.org/banneker/shift.html), would say such a system creates incentives for precisely the wrong kind of behavior, and they'd be right; choosing to advocate such a system anyway is an inherently political choice.

In any case, we've already discussed the lies behind SCFT advocacy (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1249632&postcount=14), just as we've discussed the misrepresentation of the estate tax as a tax on the decedent rather than a tax on the inheritor who never paid a dime of tax on it before and thus can't be subject to double taxation. Were you guys just hoping you could get away with pretending your arguments hadn't been buried by the facts before?The fact remains that you haven't come up with anything better. Hint:bitching about the fairtax is not a solution. Something has to be taxed and I prefer the burden be shifted to the end consumer so that they have some realization of what's going on with their government and their money. By putting tarrifs on things like sugar and raw materials, the end user is unaware of the taxation taking place.

The fact remains that you haven't come up with anything better.
Actually I have (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1252066&postcount=3), and anyone can see you were in that thread, so that's not a fact but a lie. That you, or other people who don't know the difference between garbage and fact, do not accept it as better means absolutely nothing.

Actually I have (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1252066&postcount=3), and anyone can see you were in that thread, so that's not a fact but a lie. That you, or other people who don't know the difference between garbage and fact, do not accept it as better means absolutely nothing.A tax system that abolishes private property is your best solution? Property rights are one of the few protection s we have against government tyranny. Sorry, I forgot about this garbage.

A tax system that abolishes private property is your best solution?
As was pointed out to you repeatedly in that thread, a land value tax does not abolish private property any more than any other tax does. Can you ever stop repeating your wingnut talking points long enough to learn anything?

As was pointed out to you repeatedly in that thread, a land value tax does not abolish private property any more than any other tax does. Can you ever stop repeating your wingnut talking points long enough to learn anything?You need to understand that I hate the fact that the county I live in collects property tax. I've learned all I need to know about LVT. It's your turn to learn. You've heard it before, but this sums up my opinion of property taxes. If you think it's just wingnut talking points, then you still don't understand.

Private property forms the backbone of the western democratic system. Its central purpose is twofold: firstly, civil liberty (the right to pursue one's own interests, and lead one's life as one chooses within the bounds of the laws of the land) and, secondly, political freedom. These are both a direct function of the existence of private property. To the extent which government controls property, it controls people. Without private enterprise, people become totally dependent on the government for their livelihood and their autonomy to choose their own occupation vanishes. As private property declines, governmental power increases. As the governing bodies obtain more power, they do so at the expense of the individual and the government's reliance on those individuals for its growing power becomes less and less, until it is merely responsible to itself. Foremost, without private property, the people lose their own power to check and oppose the government, should the need arise and, in particular, in instances when government officials are found to be corrupt. In short, without private property, democracy will remain but a fraudulent myth.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/westdem/chap5.htm

You're right, it still looks like wingnut talking points, and I don't have any interest in understanding outright lunacy other than to counter its appearance in political debate. Nobody's talking about abolishing even real estate, let alone all property. The author you cite is addressing a figment of his own twisted imagination, based on the twin delusions that (a) property rights are the only kind that matter and (b) they must be absolute to exist at all. Note how he goes directly from "existence of private property" to "without private enterprise" without so much as a glance at the vast conceptual gulf between property and enterprise. It's almost funny, except that I feel guilty laughing at the cognitively challenged.

If you want to understand what's wrong with the warped concept of freedom to which you and others adhere, read this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/06/libertarians_an_2.html). Hilzoy's a far better thinker and writer than Cooray could ever hope to be (that's almost damning with faint praise), but I'm sure some will reject any argument no matter how strong if it conflicts with their own preexisting bias or dogma.

You're right, it still looks like wingnut talking points, and I don't have any interest in understanding outright lunacy other than to counter its appearance in political debate. Nobody's talking about abolishing even real estate, let alone all property. The author you cite is addressing a figment of his own twisted imagination, based on the twin delusions that (a) property rights are the only kind that matter and (b) they must be absolute to exist at all. Note how he goes directly from "existence of private property" to "without private enterprise" without so much as a glance at the vast conceptual gulf between property and enterprise. It's almost funny, except that I feel guilty laughing at the cognitively challenged.We've been down this road before. The actual ownership of property is synonomous with freedom and freedom is what free enterprise is all about. Don't you want to be free to enterprise and make money however you choose? History proves that allowing government control over land leads to a degredation of civil rights and creates an environment where government can force dependency upon itself.

The system where I live absurdly allows no one to actually own a piece of land as taxes must be paid, or the land will be confiscated by local government. We essentially rent from the county forever and as I've told you before, this removes freedom. You may ask how? Since these taxes are used to pay for public schools, those without children or who pay to put their children in private school are forced to pay property tax, even though they don't use the services provided. The money paid could be freely used for whatever purpose the property owner desired, but the county has deprived him of the freedom to do so.

To give the federal government this power on a nationwide level is even more absurd. I paid for and was taxed on the land when it was initially purchased. It should be my property, without government interference of any kind and without further taxation. If government can tax my land perpetually, then I can never truly own it and freedom cannot exist. The government has no more of a right to ownership than I do. Only a socialist would find these remarks even remotely funny.

If you want to understand what's wrong with the warped concept of freedom to which you and others adhere, read this (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/06/libertarians_an_2.html). Hilzoy's a far better thinker and writer than Cooray could ever hope to be (that's almost damning with faint praise), but I'm sure some will reject any argument no matter how strong if it conflicts with their own preexisting bias or dogma.If there's a warped view of freedom here, it lies with you and Hilzoy. His arguement is wrong from it's inception because he assumes that freedom means equality. It never has and it never will.

We've been down this road before.
...and we'll keep going down it either until you stop making the same vacuous statements over and over no matter how often or how clearly their shortcomings have been pointed out.
The actual ownership of property is synonomous with freedom
That's a statement of faith, not of fact, so don't expect me to accept its use as a basis for discussion. I can exercise plenty of freedom without a penny's worth of property, and I can hold plenty of property without any freedom at all. The two are related but by no means synonymous. You really need to accept that others don't equate property and liberty and individuality like you do, and there's no reason they should. You haven't even advanced what I would consider a serious argument for treating them as inseparable; you just assume that they are, and expect others to assume likewise. If you want people to believe like you do, give them a reason. Your reliance on misrepresentation and hauteur will never convince anyone of anything.
If there's a warped view of freedom here, it lies with you and Hilzoy. His arguement is wrong from it's inception because he assumes that freedom means equality.
She makes no such assumption. In fact, she explicitly rejects that view at several points in the article. Could you at least show the rest of us the basic courtesy of not spouting off about something you clearly didn't even read before you dismissed it as inconsistent with your prejudices? If you want to be an effective champion for your cause, and not an impediment to it, you could do a lot worse than to study that article as an example of how to actually explain the reasons behind a belief instead of just trying to ram it down people's throats because it's what you personally believe.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact, so don't expect me to accept its use as a basis for discussion. I can exercise plenty of freedom without a penny's worth of property, and I can hold plenty of property without any freedom at all. The two are related but by no means synonymous. You really need to accept that others don't equate property and liberty and individuality like you do, and there's no reason they should. You haven't even advanced what I would consider a serious argument for treating them as inseparable; you just assume that they are, and expect others to assume likewise. If you want people to believe like you do, give them a reason. Your reliance on misrepresentation and hauteur will never convince anyone of anything.
Someday, I sincerely hope you learn what freedom is. When you do, get back to me. Until then, your just another useless rant away from Marxism.

She makes no such assumption. In fact, she explicitly rejects that view at several points in the article. You clearly don't know what socialism reads like, despite your desire for it. Let me show you where she provides several fine example from the excerpt you provided the link to.


Second, there are things that are useful for all sorts of purposes. For instance, a legal system of private property creates opportunities for people with all sorts of different conceptions of the kinds of lives that are most worth living, as do fair and efficient markets for labor and capital. Likewise, spending on public health, access to health care and having a decent education increase people's opportunities regardless of what their specific conception of the good life is.
I think that the rules should be set up so as to provide access to these sorts of all-purpose opportunity enhancers, insofar as this is possible. In the case of a legal system of private property, what's needed is just the creation of such a system. In the case of fair and efficient markets for labor and capital, what's needed is the creation and enforcement of the various regulations that ensure the efficiency and fairness of those markets. (E.g., accounting requirements for publicly traded firms.) In the case of education and health care, by contrast, they may require government programs, if those prove to be the most effective means of ensuring access to the goods in question. In all cases, however, these laws or programs are justified by the fact that they secure the greatest possible freedom for all.
Money is, I think, a special sort of all-purpose means. I think that once we have satisfied the conditions already mentioned, we should try to set things up in such a way that the least well off have as much money as possible. To the extent that inequality works to provide incentives that benefit everyone, either by motivating people to do useful things or by discouraging behavior that benefits no one, fine. But given a choice between two systems, one of which provides greater rewards to the most well off but less to the least well off, while the second makes the poorest a little less poor at the cost of reducing the benefits to the rich, I think we should choose the second. (Note that in figuring out the effects of both systems, you have to take into account the effects of markets and incentives on everyone's well-being.)

I read the link you provided and found it be a nice happy story similar in nature to the communist manifesto. There is at least one reference to a socialistic tendency in almost every paragraph. Sorry, but this is an absolutely unacceptable alternative to freedom and certainly not something upon which a system of taxation should ever be based. :p

Let me show you where she provides several fine example from the excerpt you provided the link to.
Any literate person can see that nothing in the quote you provided equates freedom with equality even to the degree that you habitually equate freedom with property. Your claim, therefore, is self-evidently

:bs:

Continue playing tar baby if you want. We're done.

I never play tar baby, Karl.

Have you ever read this before?

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Or anything like thiis?

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is a direct descendent of the "law of the land" provision of the Magna Carta, and is perhaps the most important protection not only of property rights but of individual liberties to be found in the Constitution. But there is more to the protection than meets the eye. If all government had to do was follow legal rules — which Congress could enact — then it would be relatively easy for the government to impinge on individual liberties. But the courts have interpreted the Due Process Clause to contain not only procedural rights (the means that government must follow) but also substantive rights (limits that exist on government itself that derive from both "natural law" and the English legal tradition). History is unfortunately replete with examples of corrupt or dictatorial governments using legislation to steal the people's wealth and to restrict their liberty, all the while claiming they were doing nothing more than following the law. The Due Process Clause essentially says that the Congress cannot pass such laws, because they violate the spirit that animates the entire constitutional arrangement — the protection of individual liberties, including property rights.When you're willing to take the time to undertand what this means, we'll be a bit closer in understanding.