Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (667194)	1/5/2005 2:32:03 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Again, while I think a flat tax would be a great improvement over the current system, it still is highly intrusive and anti-freedom." More then any other tax? How so? "...Moreover, while some countries such as Russia and some Baltic states, have had "very good" results relative to what they had prior to their flat tax structures, compliance and cheating in these economies were very serious issues to begin with." Yep... just as these are also serious problems under our current corrupted tax system. [Well, DUH! [Taking people's production by force is] the definition of taxes!] "Well since to you this definition of taxes is sufficient to warrant our actually encouraginge the government to intrude in our lives" Lie. "I wish to keep the government out of my business as much as possible and think to this end we can do much better than a leftist light flat tax." Hilarious!!!!!!! everything you disagree with you call 'leftist'!!!!! The newsboy who splashes your morning paper in a puddle is probably a 'leftist' to you... so is the dog who chases your cat! The flat tax has been associated with solid conservative thinking for decades (and opposed by most every 'leftist'), because it is not a 'progressive' (tax the rich at higher rates) kind of tax... but don't let the facts get in the way of a good fantasy, Pilchie! LOL! [Wrong!!!!!! It's the multiplicity of loopholes that requires a large bureacracy. A flat tax system with only a loophole for charitable contributions and a home mortgage deduction could result in the elimination of about 90% of the IRS's positions. A consumption tax, on the other-hand, would require a HUGE new bureaucracy to enforce.] "There needs be no loopholes at all in a consumption tax." Here you hilariously even DISAGREE WITH YOURSELF! (Earlier you proposed numerous items to exempt from your proposed 'consumption tax'... including: food, medicine, and God-knows-what-else. All would require massive record-keeping.) "...Even so, I can scarcely see how this job could not get done with a federal tax agency of 16,000 people (dear me)." HaHaHaHaHaHaHA!!!!!!!!! (You faith in bureaucrats is touching, though more then a bit misguided. The IRS themselves has estimated the increased numbers of government workers that would be required to track value-added taxes, and or other forms of consumption taxes. So has the Heritige Foundation... so, too, the example of nations which actually USE such a complicated tax system.) [Of course it is! (The system of payroll deductions would function the same as it does now.)] "That is the problem, of course." (One you have YET to describe....) [Oh YEAH!!!!! We REALLY want people deciding what to eat (or WHEN to eat) based on a complicated federal system of taxes and exemptions!!!!! You must LOVE huge bureaucracies and federal intrusion into every private economic act.] "Nonsense." Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You support a big, new, complicated tax system that intrudes the federal government into every economic transaction of the economy... and massively extends federal power and grows the bureaucracy. I DON'T. I propose massively simplifying the tax system, with the wholesale elimination of corrupt loopholes and special interest preferences, lowering rates, and treating all income the same. YOUR'S is a 'leftist' Western European-style 'solution' to financing the government... mine a free market, limited government plan. [Incentives for tax cheating are FAR LESS under any reasonably simple flat rate system (assuming reasonably low tax rates). EVERY SINGLE ONE ENACTED has demonstrated this beneficial effect. How do you argue with proven success?] "Success at the price of freedom is not success at all." Flashy rhetoric, but no argument! (ALL forms of taxes reduce individual freedom... by definition.) [ONE WORD: blackmarket!] "The word does not exist. Consider not yelling and screaming so much here." A cute, but totally disingenuous slip-slide. Black Markets and underground economies certainly DO EXIST... and your plan to finance the federal government through consumption taxes would MASSIVELY INCREASE OURS. [I agree. The growth of government continues at an alarming rate... but it cannot logically ever reach 100% of the GNP, so it MUST hit a ceiling (or, better still: fall) at some point.] "Of course trusting in this "ceiling" to do for us what sound fiscal policy can do proactively is just a leftist's dream and America's nightmare." I am not 'trusting' in some kind of deus ex-machina rescue from the totalitarian Big Brother State --- I'm merely pointing out the factually OBVIOUS: a government CANNOT grow so much that it totally absorbs all sectors of the economy, all private economic actions. Perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of the CURRENT SIZE (measured as a percentage of GNP) of our US 'government sector' (which includes ALL governments... local and national), and then judge for yourself: how much larger can it grow, crowding-out private enterprise? I contend it is very much like a Laffer Curve ---- the larger the government sector, the larger the drag on the economy, and the slower and less optimal the economy's growth. [Negative. the federal government ALREADY TRACKS income... but they DO NOT currently track the imposition of sales taxes on HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of transactions, at EVERY LEVEL of the distribution chain.] "And the feds won't have to track every transaction under a consumption tax (dear me)." R-I-G-H-T... I'm SURE there will NEVER be the need for an AUDIT! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [THAT WAY lies the creation of the LARGEST FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY in the history of the world.] "Well okay then." Big Government, Big Brother Pilchie!!!!!!!!! (Well... at least we've got you on record about this!) [in fact: the percentage of their incomes on average that they choose to invest - over spending - is far higher then the percent invested by the middle class or poor.] "Irrelevant. The lifestyle differences between wealthy and poor would in simple terms mean the wealthy would pay more than the poor." (I have already pointed-out that it is TRUE when you say the 'wealthy would pay more then the poor' under a consumption tax... EXACTLY AS THEY DO NOW UNDER OUR BENIGHTED CURRENT TAX SYSTEM, AND EXACTLY AS THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO DO UNDER THE FLat TAX SYSTEM I PROPOSE! So, let's quit typing over and over the things we already agree with. WHAT YOU CONVENIENTLY FAIL TO MENTION IS THAT IS THAT BOTH 1) AS A PROPORTION OF THEIR INCOME, and 2) AS A PROPORTION OF THE TAXES RAISED, YOUR PROPOSED 'CONSUMPTION TAX' WOULD REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN ON THE WEALTHY --- RELATIVE TO THE POOR --- AND WOULD INCREASE THE TAX REVENUE EXTRACTED FROM THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS.) Here is one very simple example of how easy it would be for the rich to avoid taxes: instead of buying a personal jet here in the States... I would merely need to purchase and take delivery overseas. Then I could fly my property back, all tax free.