My Opinion on the GOP Loss

Re: Fairtax....enough said

With a tax on consumption, the rich pay a smaller percentage of their income. I don't see that as fair.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

The would be less of a problem, but still a problem.

Actually, they do take a higher share of government support. They are the ones with the greater numbers of homes, which must be supported to a greater degree than mere property taxes can cover. They are more likely to use the court systems than the rest of society, especially in the "borderline" cases that no attonry would take on a contingancy basis. They travel more which uses the infrastucture provided to a greater extent per person. There are many other instances where these folks use the general government support to a greater degree. Even the military defense from foreign attack is more aimed at them than anyone else. Who wants to attack a trailer park instead of a mansion if they are wanting more resources?

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

I don't understand how a consumption tax is not the best idea, especially with the bone of "progressiveness", thrown to those who want to redistribute wealth.

Please list the detriments.

Very few of those I know who make $100K+ have more than one home.

This I doubt, since lower class people are more likely to commit crimes (in general quantity), and, hence, are more likely to require state provided defense.

Their "travel" is more likely by air. The lower class workers are more likely to use the road system, which requires a more expensive infrastructure. After all, when was the last time you saw airspace under repair?

When was the last time you saw a mansion attacked (and requiring military response)?

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

The problem is the determination of what is and is not a luxury and to what level it should be taxed. The use of plastic surgery for example is a luxury to many but not to all. The list can go on as you could imagine, but you get the problem I hope.

Is that the division line between the two? If so I believe you are mistaken. How many celebrities can you name who make $100,000 or more? You can probably name more than those more local people who make just above the $100,000.00 level. Many also own investment properties if they wished to participate in the greater increase in wealth through appreciation of property.

Yes, the state provided defense is a small part of the court system though. The prosectuion is there for the wealthly in every case as they are the more likely target. The CIVIL courts are another matter though. The more money one has the longer one will drag out a case in civil court instead of a settlement outside of court.

And air travel requires no use of the road infrastructure? The fuel id brought in by air, the support workers do not require it, the travellers do not need it. Of course, there is a level of direct use by the wealthy but a much greater indirect use, which seems to be ignored in this calculation.

I have not, but then again we have ALWAYS had that protection to PREVENT such an attack in my life time. I would point out the attack on the World Trade Center was more directed at the wealthier symbols than the less wealthy in our country.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

Not to mention the whole infrastructure required to support air travel -- the FAA, air traffic controllers, transportation security, all paid for by the federal government.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

And let's not forget the greater toll that wealthy and middle class consumers take on the environment, which is a hidden cost that will have to be paid by the federal government eventually. More traveling means more need for infrastructure, but it also means more greenhouse gas emissions. More spending on consumer goods means more waste going into landfills.., etc., etc. If you think that consumption does not have such a significant impact, allow me to point out that the USA contributes more than twice the amount of greenhouse gases than all the European countries combined. How much taxes are going to be needed to pay for the damage we are doing now, and whose responsibility is to pay it? I get a little tired of people shirking responsibility for their own behavior and then claiming that something is unfair.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

There already is a luxury tax. The increase of which is what caused George Bush a second term ("Read my lips..."). How do they determine it? As far as plastic surgery, that's the simplest. Elective surgery is taxed as a luxury.

Fair enough. Then when was the last time you saw a trailer park attacked (and required a military response)? After all, if you are to be believed, they have less protection, right?

It may have been directed at the wealthier, but it affected the less wealthy as well. If the terrorists wanted to attack just the wealthy, they would have attacked Beverly Hills.

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

And the more wealthy can shop for a doctor who will help define it as non-elective due to the mental impact if necessary. :wink:

No, thye have the same protection but they do not requires as much protection. Thus, there are no cases of such an attack due to the same reasons previously illustrated. Those who live near the border would in theory have a greater need for such protection if we were going to quantify the need at any given point in time.

Are you saying a single structure in Beverly Hills is valued more than either of the World Trade Center structures? Do you know how expensive the property is in New York City?

 

Re: Fairtax....enough said

One of the biggest problems with this consumption tax idea is that, like the current income tax system, it taxes most heavily those in the middle class. Some provisions are made for lower income taxpayers, in both systems, so they are not further impoverished by the tax system. The wealthiest taxpayers spend the smallest portion of their income on goods and services that would be taxed under the "fair tax," just as they have the most opportunities in the present system to shelter their income from taxation. That leaves those in the middle to shoulder the responsibility for supporting our society.

 

Actually, the luxury tax was enacted in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, and phased out entirely, effective January 1, 2003.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P65067.asp

As enacted, the tax was 10% of the excess over a certain amount for specific categories of luxury goods, like cars and boats. It was reduced to 5% in 1997, and by 2002, it was 3% of the excess over $40,000. Now it's nothing.

We do pay federal excise taxes on some other things that might be considered luxuries -- alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, tires, telephone service . . . (but I don't think that's what you meant by luxury tax).

Some of the regressivity of a sales tax can be addressed by exempting certain items, such as food, medicine, clothing under a certain price per item. That still leaves the middle class paying the greatest share of the bills relative to their income.

 

Senator Lincoln Chafee's take

Senator Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who was defeated in his bid for re-election, has an op-ed in the NY Times stating his opinion about the GOP losses. He describes a meeting he and a few other moderate Republican senators had with VP-elect Cheney after the 2000 election.

He concludes the piece with remarks about his hopes for the future:

You can read the whole article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/opinion/12chafee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

I just hope the Democrats have learned the lesson on partisanship. Web need to work with the few remaining centrist in the Republican party if we wish to accomplish anything.

 

I agree, absolutely. I think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democratic leaders are indicating, at least at this point, that they want to work with Republicans in a bi-partisan manner. I just hope the neo-cons don't try to push through a whole lot of their right-wing agenda during the lame duck session that is coming up. Just as one example, there are plenty of qualified conservatives who could be nominated as ambassador to the U.N., instead of the polarizing figure we have there now.

 

Interesting discussion of the economy and tax policy, slightly off the original topic but what the hell. The FairTax is in my opinion nothing less than the 2nd American revolution. The current tax structure allows politicians to pick the winners and losers in society. They can provide credits and reductions to promote businesses and individuals they like and punish those they don't. This is NOT the role of government. neither George Bush of Nanacy Pelosi should get to decide the winners and losers. The FairTax treats everyone the same. You buy it, you pay tax. You get to keep what you earn. In addition, it will help curb spending in DC by limiting the pot. As Americans we have been led to believe that if we want it we can have it. If I myself can't afford it, no problem. The gov't at gunpoint will extract funds from my neighbors for my use. Face it, like the Stones said "You can't always get what you want". I had to teach my son when he was 5 the difference between wants and needs. In govt speak their are no WANTS, everything is a NEED. Wake up, the govt is sapping your freedom and stealing your future Dem and GOP alike.

 

I've learned that "bi-partisanship", whether spoken by Democrat or Republican, means we do it my way and you add your name as co-sponser.

 

:lol: Yup...like I said in another thread: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (awesome Keith Moon drum roll)...

 

Yep on the new and old bosses but its the rest of the song we seem to forget

We, Won't be fooled again!!!

Maximum R&B

 

Alas, if only that were true.

Unfortunately, as I have bemoaned many a time in these forums, they'll vote them in again next time.

 

[/quote]
I can hardly believe it, but I screwed up a R&R reference. The awesome Moon drum work I was thinking about comes before the new boss / old boss line. My bad.

You are so right about Who's Next. If there's a better R&R LP, I can't think of it (Zeppelin IV, maybe?), right down to the perfect photo on the cover. But, I don't need to fight to prove I'm right :wink:

Snuff

 

I cannot believe the Dark Side of the Moon is not included in your list of top five (even a quick top five)