Who is Gary Johnson?

[themadscientist]

Whoever made that argument is stupid. Taxation doesn't automatically dissuade production. If a tax passes the equilibrium point where it starts to become less profitable to produce then, yes, production will begin to taper off. Tax discussions get muddied with class warfare and psuedoeconomics all the time and it just derails a discussion we really need to have.

I would like to see taxation move towards relying more on consumption taxes than income taxes. Taxing a person's labor just seems wrong and counter intuitive.

[IBCoupe]

I would like to see taxation move towards relying more on consumption taxes than income taxes. Taxing a person's labor just seems wrong and counter intuitive.

It doesn't seem to be either to me. What makes it seem that way to you?

[themadscientist]

I hear people throw around "fair" a lot when it comes to taxation and that's a nebulous term. I don't think it means the same think to anyone but still gives the appearance of being some absolute. Consumption taxes are better because they tax spending not earning. If someone is out in the hot sun sweating their a** off to make $10 and the government comes along and says "good job, gimme $2," That's just not right. Obviously, as a I opened with, "fair" has many definitions, in mine, that's ****ed up. Let people accumulate wealth through their labor penalty free. Now, when they then try to put the money they have accumulated back to work for them buying consumable and durable items and investing, then I can see taking a cut.

[IBCoupe]

If someone is out in the hot sun sweating their a** off to make $10 and the government comes along and says "good job, gimme $2," That's just not right.

I think that's not quite realistic, and to the extent that your argument relies on the plight of the poor, I think it's undermined by supposing such an extreme tax burden.

Now, when they then try to put the money they have accumulated back to work for them buying consumable and durable items and investing, then I can see taking a cut.

And for those who have the resources available to put their money into other jurisdictions where there isn't a consumption-based tax? I think your definition of "fair" is an odd one. "Fair" is generally discussed in terms of balance, but here I see you not really discussing any kind of trade-off.

fairness
the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness: I have to admit, in all fairness, that she would only be paid for part of the work.

In your scenario, what's unfair? If the government ends up taking $2 of his $10 either way, why would the means of collecting that money matter?

[themadscientist]

I think that's not quite realistic, and to the extent that your argument relies on the plight of the poor, I think it's undermined by supposing such an extreme tax burden.

No, it's not a class-based argument. I carry that on up the scale. I don't think government deserves a cut of your labor, be it flipping burgers and running a corporation.

And for those who have the resources available to put their money into other jurisdictions where there isn't a consumption-based tax? I think your definition of "fair" is an odd one. "Fair" is generally discussed in terms of balance, but here I see you not really discussing any kind of trade-off.

fairness
the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness: I have to admit, in all fairness, that she would only be paid for part of the work.

In your scenario, what's unfair? If the government ends up taking $2 of his $10 either way, why would the means of collecting that money matter?

If it's a federal consumption tax, where is the alternate jurisdiction?

When taxing income, there is no action of the taxpayer other than labor. This penalizes the attempt to accumulate money, a non-negotiable enterprise in the developed world if you didn't want to live in a cardboard box under an overpass. When taxing consumption, however, there is some room for the taxpayer to make decisions about purchasing that align with their priorities. If they do not wish to pay X amount of tax they select the consumable item that carries the tax burden they can afford.

having every cent they earned in hand since it was not penalized by the government in the form of an income tax they have more spending power at the beginning and since they must only contend with a consumption tax they have more latitude to use that money for things they feel are more important.

Poor people can make their choices and rich people can make theirs. I would like to see necessities like food, water, fuel and power taxed at a lower rate, though so the people at the lower income brackets are not hurt.

[stebo0728]

stebo, if you're going to say: "YAY! FLATTAX IS AWESOME!" Don't link people the http://www.flattax.org site, it's garbage. That's what I looked at, and that's where I made my assumptions, on the information you provided. It told me little of what actually was in the plan and just the general jist of "It's all good, brah!"

I'll look for a better site to link for you.

And, over time, how is the effective tax going to diminish? Are we just going to make more money while the prices of goods stays the same, thus dropping the cost of inflation and the amount of tax burden for buying the object? Because, believe me, companies are going to want to get their money, and if they can throw in another 5 or 6 % to cover the 23% increase that the item is going to have.. yeah.. it'll just keep scaling because people are greedy.

Again, its a theory regarding the tax, but its all about market forces. Lets say you, I, and some scrub all CEO one of the top 3 corporations in an industry that sales widgets. Now, one bright sunny morning we wake to discover that the FairTax has been passed. Gone are the days of having to write checks to the IRS to cover the embedded taxes we've been collecting as we sold our widgets. Now, the only costs we have are under out own control. It doesn't take long for one of us to the the bright idea to knock a nickel off of our prices since we're paying a quarter less now. But woah, not to be outdone, another of us decides that just won't do, and will knock off a dime. Before you know it, market forces have driven the prices down to reflect the new tax free costs. Theres real world data to corroborate this theory. The airfare tax was negligently not carried over one year by Congress, and it only took a matter of hours for airfare to begin to reflect this new cost. Now, its a big world out there, more than just airfare, and you'll see a mixture of this sort of activity. Industries where competition is scarce, companies may rake the cake longer. Industries where competition is fierce, you'll probably see prices fall in a matter of weeks. I don't think that the government should in anyway try to force this movement, but I expect the market to force it in mosts cases.

[Marenta]

I think I have an issue with this because I WANT to believe that all people are good, genuine, and interested in furthering humanity; but, in truth, everybody is greedy and if they can find a way to increase their revenue and hide it, they'll do it.

Now, with the airfare tax thing, within a day all the airlines were charging the entire price to cover the loss of the tax and pocket the difference of the tax. Greed, pure and simple.

[stebo0728]

As I understand it flat tax and "fair" tax are not exactly the same. The latter offering a prebate that the previous does not.

Japan has a consumption tax and prices are figured to include the tax. No math in the cereal aisle. I actually find a consumption tax to be fair(er) since people who consume more get taxed more as a monetary figure. There has to be a mechanism where necessities are taxed at a lesser rate than luxury items, though.

Oh its much more than just the prebate thats the difference. The largest diffrence IB hit on, the FairTax is a consumption tax, the Flat Tax is another income tax. But lets look at some other differences, or rather, Ill expound some FairTax features and see if anyone knows if the Flat Tax keeps up.

1. The FairTax rate is a singular rate, and its takes a super majority to be changed. Does the Flat Tax have any similar protections? Im asking, I dont know, but I can tell you, if it doesn't, then the Flat Tax is just a rehash of the 80's. As I've said before, Im head over heals for consumption tax, BUT, if we are going to consider a new income tax plan, we HAVE to insure it doesn't become the mess we have today again.

2. You get to keep ALL of your check. Thats right, no more withholdings, but no more yearly bill either, you pay as you go, as you buy. I hate withholdings, they were designed to lessen the blow, but they served to completely disguise the blow. There's a question as to how employers will handle this transition, as to whether they will pocket payroll taxes they are currently paying, or pass them on to you. I imagine we'd see it go both ways for various employer. I've heard fair arguments on both sides of that issue, and frankly would be ok either way that went down. Again, I dont think government should enforce this in any way, if you don't like it, hop jobs for another that suits your desire.

3. And then to answer your last question, in regards to necessities versus luxuries. That is where the prebate comes in. Do you really want another mucked up tax code with language that tries to sort out whats necessity, or whats luxury? Further more, do you really want someone else deciding what you consider to be in either of those columns? The FairTax does away with all that mucked up code. It doesn't decide what you value more, it just gives you a prebate to cover taxes on spending at a calculated necessity level. If you spend above that, regardless of what you buy, you have a tax burden. If you actually live poorly at a level below what that prebate is, you actually end up pocketing a bit of coin.

[stebo0728]

I think I have an issue with this because I WANT to believe that all people are good, genuine, and interested in furthering humanity; but, in truth, everybody is greedy and if they can find a way to increase their revenue and hide it, they'll do it.

Now, with the airfare tax thing, within a day all the airlines were charging the entire price to cover the loss of the tax and pocket the difference of the tax. Greed, pure and simple.

"Greed" as you call it, will actually be the driving engine. Its about market share. Companies wont slash prices out of the goodness of their hearts. They will do it to increase their market share. Its not about being good, genuine, nice. Hell, ask a business man, price wars are hell. A company that cuts prices gets called everything but a child of god by other companies in the industry.

[stebo0728]

I've said all along, its my belief that a consumption based tax is the only way to tax a free people. The freedom of whether you pay a dime or not rests in your own hands based on whether or not you purchase things. It also makes paying taxes inescapable, even for people that live here, that we don't even know about. No more under the table incomes, no in fact thats wrong, all income will be under the table, because income won't matter. Everyone consumes, to some degree. The poor can consume necessities without fear of a tax burden, and would quite possibly see overall a very small change in price. The "evil rich" end up paying more. Its still progressive.

I'll agree that Romney's quote there was quite silly. Painting a picture that tax is punitive is not wrong, but its not that simple either. You always have to consider diminishing returns. If you tax something, you WILL see less of it, but only past the point of diminishing returns. And this point varies by individual, based on individual inclinations. For income, who wouldn't put up with 40-50% tax rates to get to a comfy million or so. But then you start to edge up to diminishing returns. Is it worth extra stress, more work, less free time, whatnot in order to make another million that you don't really need? For 40-50% taxes, probably not. And that's where tax becomes punitive and burdensome on progress. Similarly the consumption tax would see the same issue. Wealthy people will happily pay taxes on goods and services that get them to a life with a certain comfortability level, but then they hit the same wall. The consumption beyond that point begins to experience a diminishing return, to where paying the extra tax just isn't worth the purchase.

[stebo0728]

Here's the bill itself http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/text

[themadscientist]

Live town hall with GJ in just over half an hour. Get in and ask questions!

http://www.vokle.com/series/31608-johns ... town-halls

[IBCoupe]

If it's a federal consumption tax, where is the alternate jurisdiction?

Canada and Mexico are the first two that come to mind. If you want to boost the economies of our immediate neighbors, I think a federal consumption tax is probably a good way to do it. But, regardless, this is purely a matter of policy, and that's not what I'm really interested in; apologies for side-tracking.

When taxing income, there is no action of the taxpayer other than labor. This penalizes the attempt to accumulate money, a non-negotiable enterprise in the developed world if you didn't want to live in a cardboard box under an overpass. When taxing consumption, however, there is some room for the taxpayer to make decisions about purchasing that align with their priorities. If they do not wish to pay X amount of tax they select the consumable item that carries the tax burden they can afford.

Isn't that still the same? "Government is going to tax $X, so spend wisely."

having every cent they earned in hand since it was not penalized by the government in the form of an income tax they have more spending power at the beginning and since they must only contend with a consumption tax they have more latitude to use that money for things they feel are more important.

They only have more spending power if the consumption tax is revenue-negative (i.e., adds to the federal budget deficit and debt). Think about it this way: You earn $50, and the government takes $8. That means, you have $42 to spend. You buy $42-worth of goods. Alternatively, you earn $50, and the government takes $0. That means you have $50 to spend, but if the government is to collect the same amount of money, you will still only have the ability to buy $42-worth of goods. The value of the goods doesn't change, regardless of how important you think it is.

Poor people can make their choices and rich people can make theirs. I would like to see necessities like food, water, fuel and power taxed at a lower rate, though so the people at the lower income brackets are not hurt.

I can agree with that, but I don't think that differs much, morally, from a progressive marginal income tax like the one we have now.

[Marenta]

I kinda see the prebate as a negative. Here's the reason why:

If you are already given a prebate to take care of the basics and that taxation, you will NEVER feel the need to elevate your lifestyle because it is cost prohibitive to do so. It makes it more painful to move into the middle-class lifestyle. You could live like a slum dog with tons of money because you would never want to spend that horrendous amount of money to buy a house or get new cars or anything that is an index of how the market is doing. The FairTax rests solely on the idea that everybody wants to "Keep up with the Jones" and makes it almost painful to move up in the world.

If I had to pay the 23% on the house I just bought, I would never have been able to afford it, nor would I have been able to afford the place I was living at prior (which isn't the best, but it's not the worst, either), I would have to move into HUD housing.

[stebo0728]

Did you not read my passage on diminishing returns? Who would choose to live as a slum dog, especially if prices are nearly the same. There will be an incentive to move higher, until diminishing returns are met. Who says that a brand new house and brand new car is where its at? Thats not how everyone thinks. I live in a second hand home, and feel no less happy than if I owned a new home. I drive used cars as well. Both second hand homes and vehicles are FairTax free. The tax is only levied on purchases of NEW goods, and services (don't think you can classify services as new or used lol)

Now, are there some who will choose slum dog over tax? Sure, but they aren't the rule, they're the exception.

[Marenta]

The only examples I can see are the ones for cars, which makes sense. However, houses? Yeah, that's a big slice. No construction company would ever build a house again because nobody would want new (unless they just happened to win the lottery or whatever) diggs.

[themadscientist]

Canada and Mexico are the first two that come to mind. If you want to boost the economies of our immediate neighbors, I think a federal consumption tax is probably a good way to do it. But, regardless, this is purely a matter of policy, and that's not what I'm really interested in; apologies for side-tracking.

No worries, we'll catch em!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PKtGnyGuKM[/youtube]

Isn't that still the same? "Government is going to tax $X, so spend wisely."

Only if you buy more than you did before. Taxing you on the front is not negotiable, taxes after the fact, not completely, but to a much greater degree are. If you do not buy more than you did before, there is a net savings. If you did buy more than before, your net savings ar the same, but the goods and services acquired or used are more. It's all good.

They only have more spending power if the consumption tax is revenue-negative (i.e., adds to the federal budget deficit and debt). Think about it this way: You earn $50, and the government takes $8. That means, you have $42 to spend. You buy $42-worth of goods. Alternatively, you earn $50, and the government takes $0. That means you have $50 to spend, but if the government is to collect the same amount of money, you will still only have the ability to buy $42-worth of goods. The value of the goods doesn't change, regardless of how important you think it is.

That math is correct, but it assumes that I expect the Federal government to enjoy the same revenue they did before. I don't. They need to start curtailing spending, not increasing revenue.

I can agree with that, but I don't think that differs much, morally, from a progressive marginal income tax like the one we have now.

I think that even this one tax pursued as I have described would be a progressive tax so that's true. I catch a lot of hell from my rightie friends for it too.

[stebo0728]

The only examples I can see are the ones for cars, which makes sense. However, houses? Yeah, that's a big slice. No construction company would ever build a house again because nobody would want new (unless they just happened to win the lottery or whatever) diggs.

Again, diminishing returns. Why do people buy new homes now? I'll admit that some roll back on new home construction would occur, but new home construction is already in the pisser thanks to Fannie & Freddie. But what about the used home market? Only with this bubble bursting have we started to see a real increase on used home acquisition. During the boom everyone was gung ho to get a NEW home.

Grant it, this particular issue is not tops on my reasons for supporting the plan. If logic reasons can be presented as to why second hand goods should be taxed, I'm open to considering it, but the reasoning behind the exclusion of taxation on used goods is a position that taxing used goods presents 2 problems:

1) Tax is being paid twice on the same good. Market value, when they settle out, might well come to rest at a price point that takes the initial 23% into account, and if this is true, then adding tax to it again increases the cost with no additional value.

2) Taxing at each change of hands makes government aware of market entities at a level deeper than it needs be concerned with. Remember, part of the push of the FairTax is not only to pass a fair tax code, but to also reclaim power from the government, and place it back into the hands of the people, and further, to serve as an avenue to increase the seperation of government from the free market. Once a new product is purchased, taxed initially, and put into the market, thats it as far as government goes, with the exception of safety regulations.

[themadscientist]

Roger Stone to Republicans.
PAYBACK'S A b****

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/r ... 2-12175013

He points toward the convention floor. "Snubbing Ron Paul's people today, and not counting their votes, was just magical, wonderful for us," he says beaming, arms spread wide as if to say come to papa. "A bunch of people are gonna leave here very angry. To not announce Ron Paul's total from the chair is an insult. He won those delegates, he's entitled to — shall we say — be defeated gracefully. They are angry, and we are going to pick up those people."

I'm still not pleased this shark is on the team, but I must admit, with the attacks that are coming from the GOP if Johnson gets traction, they will need a mercenary like him to swing back and he's old school GOP bare knuckle. I find it interesting that I pounded on the Libertarians during the midterms for being too kumbahyah and soft and to get mean and now that they have essentially done what I told them, I'm worried. If everything I read about this guy is true, he is going to spill blood in Gary Johnson's name.

[Marenta]

stebo, in theory, it all works. Communism works on paper, too.

With human nature, we know where it will go. All I am saying is that with humans leading the way (even the scant few who are altruistic) there is going to be corruption in a system that was perceived to be uncorruptable.

Was there a reason why eBooks had to be so damned expensive? Oh yeah, that's because BN, Amazon, and Google all got caught price gouging their eBooks. It was an agreement across the industry. And, even for the companies that weren't in the loop on that one, they still had to make their prices near the others without understanding why those prices might be so damned high. While in theory, free market works, it doesn't work in reality. There will be little competition between companies because they'll all canoodle and agree to set a price that's inflated.

Now, if, say... FairTax were enacted and there were regulations put in place to prevent price gouging regardless of the product or service, then I could stand behind it.

In summation of all my posts, my 3 fears are:
1. New housing sales would drop drastically, pulling the construction industry down.
2. There is very little incentive to move up in the world, even with the prebate.
3. Relying on the industries to drop the prices of their goods just because they got a wild fancy is tantamount to economic suicide.

[WDRacing]

While in theory, free market works, it doesn't work in reality.

Um...what? You're free not to buy something you feel is too expensive. If you don't want to pay ebook prices, simply buy paperbacks. How would you replace the free market since it "doesn't work"?

[stebo0728]

You're free not to buy something you feel is too expensive.

Except for health insurance.

[WDRacing]

I hear that, thanks to Obamalamadingdong and his band of Libs my premiums go way up starting next year, AFTER the election...how convenient. The same applies to all active and retired military. Thanks bending over those that serve.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

[stebo0728]

stebo, in theory, it all works. Communism works on paper, too.

With human nature, we know where it will go. All I am saying is that with humans leading the way (even the scant few who are altruistic) there is going to be corruption in a system that was perceived to be uncorruptable.

Was there a reason why eBooks had to be so damned expensive? Oh yeah, that's because BN, Amazon, and Google all got caught price gouging their eBooks. It was an agreement across the industry. And, even for the companies that weren't in the loop on that one, they still had to make their prices near the others without understanding why those prices might be so damned high. While in theory, free market works, it doesn't work in reality. There will be little competition between companies because they'll all canoodle and agree to set a price that's inflated.

Now, if, say... FairTax were enacted and there were regulations put in place to prevent price gouging regardless of the product or service, then I could stand behind it.

In summation of all my posts, my 3 fears are:
1. New housing sales would drop drastically, pulling the construction industry down.
2. There is very little incentive to move up in the world, even with the prebate.
3. Relying on the industries to drop the prices of their goods just because they got a wild fancy is tantamount to economic suicide.

I can certainly understand your concerns, they are valid. Let me share a quote that comes to mind

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”

The point being as it applies to your concerns? Businesses and governments are made of the same people, and there's no reason to believe either to be more or less corrupt or corruptible than the other. With this equality in mind, a capitalist nation should value business more than government. Why do you have an intrinsically better feeling about leaving power in the hands of government as opposed to having it placed in the hands of the individual, and the market that drives them? Just food for thought.

[IBCoupe]

I hear that, thanks to Obamalamadingdong and his band of Libs my premiums go way up starting next year, AFTER the election...how convenient. The same applies to all active and retired military. Thanks bending over those that serve.

http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/

Well, you know, you could support raising taxes. Just gonna throw that out there.

[WDRacing]

How does raising taxes have anything to do with my healthcare premiums? Oh I get it, you think that by giving the Gov more money that they will somehow, all of the sudden, become fiscally responsible. I think not.

[IBCoupe]

Why exactly do you think the government is cutting back on your premium support?

[WDRacing]

Not sure what you mean by that? Under Obamacare I pay more for health care. There is no reason why.

[themadscientist]

They have to offset all that extra "free" stuff. Guess what...

[themadscientist]

Apparently, this was a little skit the local Libertarian group was kicking around and Gary agreed to do it. It's funny, but is pretty spot on.

Fighting the zombie apocalypse!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... gnyZdClTpM[/youtube]