A question for Democrats that I've had for a long time

[AtTheMurph]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Democrat's explanation on the issue.

Why are Democrats so in favor of spending when it comes to other people's money? Isn't that essentially what "tax the rich" does? If it's someone else's money, it's pretty easy to spend, right? Is that it?

Also part of that question is, do you think there is a limit to the national debt that you would consider that we can't go beyond? And if there is a limit, would you consider cutting spending on social programs or do you think we can just eliminate defense altogether to cover "social justice"?

Or do you think we just need to keep raising taxes to cover whatever you want to spend? Is there a limit to the taxes you're willing to make people who aren't you, pay?

And it's not that all Republicans are all that great at frugality. But really, a few now hated Republicans are the only people in Congress that advocate that we truly reign in spending.

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

Democrats confuse government with charity. It's that simple. They cannot separate the two and have no understanding of the nature of government or the power it possesses. They believe that we should help people with your money and if you are against that then you are a greedy capitalist and will try to take your money and property for your own good.

 

[jamil]

Democrats confuse government with charity. It's that simple. They cannot separate the two and have no understanding of the nature of government or the power it possesses. They believe that we should help people with your money and if you are against that then you are a greedy capitalist and will try to take your money and property for your own good.

They understand full well the nature of government and its power. Democrats spin government as charity. The cast currently in charge believes, correctly, that dependents of the state will always vote for the party that makes people dependents of the state. More dependent people make more democrats. And I am indeed a greedy capitalist pig. And I will certainly try to take your money and property for my own good. And I like evil black guns. And I'm most likely a racist. Just ask them.

(Purple implied in the places you'd expect except for the evil black guns.)

 

[Kutnupe14]

you must be a racist!!! ( in my chris matthews voice)

Racist against who?

 

[MisterChester]

Also, the fair tax rate of 23% on new goods would be heavily abused. For instance, a car dealership could sell a brand new car as used if the owner of the dealership legally bought it and immediately returned it. Since it technically had an owner, they can market it as used.

It is a very dumb idea. If the same dealership followed it totally, they wouldn't sell any new cars. The manufacturer now has little incentive to continue making new cars. In the end all it would do is really curb innovation.

 

[88GT]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Forbid the franchise to anyone receiving govt handouts at any level, federal/state/local, and return election of Senators to the state legislatures.

No, if the people of a state want to make it a welfare state, then let them. I have the ability and freedom to relocate to a free state. I still believe we ought to be operating on a republican form of government where the people do have the ability to govern themselves as they wish within their own limited/local jurisdiction. The FF recognized this. Any student of history worth his salt would be quick to recognize the gross contradictions in the limitations placed on the federal government in the name of individual sovereignty and the restrictive, socially-controlling laws that were passed with their blessings in their various states. They weren't libertarians. They just didn't have much love for a strong, central government that ruled like a monarch in the disguise of a democracy (yes, I know we're a republic). This is the "states rights" issue at its core. The states themselves aren't anything. It is the populations within them that should have the power and authority to govern themselves. Even if that means levels of tyranny higher than others are willing to tolerate. This isn't my preferred reality. I would prefer that state and federal government alike operated with a more libertarian/individual-is-sovereign premise. Just in case any one thinks I'm actually condoning laws that control others' behavior.

Back to the issue: if the members of the state want to control the franchise by requiring those who vote to have skin in the game, their prerogative. But the citizens of one state should not be encumbered because the citizens of another state have voting power that results in the residents of the latter being able to take from residents of the former via the feds. So those receiving federal funds need only be prohibited from voting for federal office candidates.

Of course, the perfect scenario would be no federal hand-outs at all, negating the very need for such limitations on the franchise.

Although erroneously attributed to De Tocqueville, this quote fits well: "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." (yes, I know we are constitutional republic.)



I dont know if he originated the idea, but Neal Boortz had an interesting suggestion to fix our current system. I think it was either in the Fair Tax book or Somebody's Gotta Say It, but his idea was this: Rework the voting so that you get 1 vote for every X dollars NET paid in income taxes.

(bear with me on the generalizations for ease of discussion)

• Middle class Individual that takes a few deductions and credits that dont significantly impact his actual taxes paid? He gets 2 votes.
• Upper class individual that takes every deduction and loophole possible that significantly reduce his actual taxes paid? He gets 1 vote. (his net taxes were lower than the guy above)
• Small business owner who is getting hammered on taxes? Based on her tax return, she gets, say, 3 votes. (she paid more than guy #1)
• Single mom with 6 kids who gets every available public assistance and pays ZERO taxes thanks to tax credits and refunds, she doesn't get a vote.

The idea is intriguing... Allow only those with "skin in the game" to actively participate. After all, if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, should you really be in control?

Boortz illustrates this idea with the free hosted dinner approach. You and several of your friends are invited by a wealthy friend to dinner. Since the host is footing the bill, should he be forced to abdicate the choice to his guests, or should he, the actual person paying the bill, be the one to decide whether it's Denny's or Shula's Steak house? Yes, the friends may suggest Shula's or Ruth's Chris, but ultimately it should be the host who has the final say as to whether to be excessively generous, or to say "you know, I really cant afford your suggestion, so we need to make a more prudent choice."

Combine the theory above with Approval voting ( Approval Voting ) and we may have ourselves a game changer!

Yep, lots of alternatives to the 'one man, one vote' paradigm we have. I would prefer a complete dissociation of politics from election law. No public funding of any party.

What would that look like? Parties either run their own candidates and pick internally for a general election nominee in November OR all candidates regardless of party are in the primary and the top vote getters move on to the general. Which could mean one party doesn't have anybody running in November. In addition to or instead of, I could also accept the concept of weighted votes. Instead of your example which allowed for multiple votes to be given to a single candidate, each voter would rank their choices. We had a thread on this type of voting a while back. Of course, the alternative you describe has merit in several ways as well.

There is no perfect set-up.

 

[88GT]

Also, the fair tax rate of 23% on new goods would be heavily abused. For instance, a car dealership could sell a brand new car as used if the owner of the dealership legally bought it and immediately returned it. Since it technically had an owner, they can market it as used.

It is a very dumb idea. If the same dealership followed it totally, they wouldn't sell any new cars. The manufacturer now has little incentive to continue making new cars. In the end all it would do is really curb innovation.

Why would the owner personally eat the 23% sales tax just to sell the vehicle as used?

 

[MisterChester]

Why would the owner personally eat the 23% sales tax just to sell the vehicle as used?

He could buy it at cost, then sell it at higher price (most likely the regular price any Joe Shmo who walked in would buy it for). If the net profit covers what he paid in taxes, the very least he could do is break even. So it's risk losing new car sales or take some extra steps, not lose money, and make sales. This is all hypothetical, but I could see it happening. Plus the very nature of car dealerships being what it is, I wouldn't be shocked.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

He could buy it at cost, then sell it at higher price (most likely the regular price any Joe Shmo who walked in would buy it for). If the net profit covers what he paid in taxes, the very least he could do is break even. So it's risk losing new car sales or take some extra steps, not lose money, and make sales. This is all hypothetical, but I could see it happening. Plus the very nature of car dealerships being what it is, I wouldn't be shocked.

Seems to me the 23% tax would be built into any buying decision, no matter who pays it. The dealer/seller has to make a profit. If he is paying the tax, he's not going to sell the vehicle at a loss - as a policy; he won't be able to stay in business.

One problem I see with a set sales tax as the sole form of taxation: there would have to be some mechanism to set a limit on such taxes, or we'd get into the same situation as we did here in Indiana with property taxes. I'd like to see a severe limiting of the federal government's ability to tax.

I wonder what would eventuate if we decided that the federal government is - in effect - a "protection racket" , that is, its whole purpose is to ensure the Constitution is followed; the laws equally applied, and the borders secured and defended. I wonder if the "Defense Department" could be run as "The National Defense Security Corporation" - run as a non-profit corporation which would not have to show a profit, but would have to show that its expenditures were all in line with its budget, and its budget would be determined by the core objectives outlined in its Corporate Charter. I'm not sure such an organization could work effectively for a nation as large as ours, but it might be doable.

 

[Cameramonkey]

The tax is only on new RETAIL Sales. NOT wholesale. So the car dealer doesn't pay it when they buy from the automakers.

VAT which some are pushing is charged at each and every level of sale driving up the final cost. You are thinking of a VAT.

The FairTax only applies for the new purchase to the consumer at the retail level.

ray skillman doesn't pay the tax when they buy from Kia. You pay the tax when you buy from Skillman. Three years later I don't pay the tax on that car when I buy it from you. Or if skillman takes it back on trade they don't pay.

 

[88GT]

He could buy it at cost, then sell it at higher price (most likely the regular price any Joe Shmo who walked in would buy it for). If the net profit covers what he paid in taxes, the very least he could do is break even. So it's risk losing new car sales or take some extra steps, not lose money, and make sales. This is all hypothetical, but I could see it happening. Plus the very nature of car dealerships being what it is, I wouldn't be shocked.

He'd have to have at least a 23% mark-up on the at-cost price just to break even. I don't think the car sales industry is that lucrative.

Seems to me the 23% tax would be built into any buying decision, no matter who pays it. The dealer/seller has to make a profit. If he is paying the tax, he's not going to sell the vehicle at a loss - as a policy; he won't be able to stay in business.

One problem I see with a set sales tax as the sole form of taxation: there would have to be some mechanism to set a limit on such taxes, or we'd get into the same situation as we did here in Indiana with property taxes. I'd like to see a severe limiting of the federal government's ability to tax.

We could stop taxing the people. Tariffs seem to have worked in the past.

 

[beararms1776]

Although erroneously attributed to De Tocqueville, this quote fits well: "A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." (yes, I know we are constitutional republic.)



I dont know if he originated the idea, but Neal Boortz had an interesting suggestion to fix our current system. I think it was either in the Fair Tax book or Somebody's Gotta Say It, but his idea was this: Rework the voting so that you get 1 vote for every X dollars NET paid in income taxes.

(bear with me on the generalizations for ease of discussion)

• Middle class Individual that takes a few deductions and credits that dont significantly impact his actual taxes paid? He gets 2 votes.
• Upper class individual that takes every deduction and loophole possible that significantly reduce his actual taxes paid? He gets 1 vote. (his net taxes were lower than the guy above)
• Small business owner who is getting hammered on taxes? Based on her tax return, she gets, say, 3 votes. (she paid more than guy #1)
• Single mom with 6 kids who gets every available public assistance and pays ZERO taxes thanks to tax credits and refunds, she doesn't get a vote.

The idea is intriguing... Allow only those with "skin in the game" to actively participate. After all, if you have nothing to lose and everything to gain, should you really be in control?

Boortz illustrates this idea with the free hosted dinner approach. You and several of your friends are invited by a wealthy friend to dinner. Since the host is footing the bill, should he be forced to abdicate the choice to his guests, or should he, the actual person paying the bill, be the one to decide whether it's Denny's or Shula's Steak house? Yes, the friends may suggest Shula's or Ruth's Chris, but ultimately it should be the host who has the final say as to whether to be excessively generous, or to say "you know, I really cant afford your suggestion, so we need to make a more prudent choice."

Combine the theory above with Approval voting ( Approval Voting ) and we may have ourselves a game changer!

Does sound interesting but why in the world would lower working class taxpayers want tax increases just to buy more votes. At what point would this class finally decide it's time for dinner and start taking more deductions to feed themselves so they can work?

 

[beararms1776]

Yup....
I'm mystified how they can reconcile the fact that they want us to have all kinds of costly ID's, permits, background checks, and pay Firearms taxes just to exercise our RIGHT to bear arms.
But they say it's an unreasonable burden to have to show a FREE Government ID card to vote.

What they really mean is uh, ....well, wait a minute, yeah you got it.

 

[Johnny C]

Which could be fixed quite simply by returning the voting powers back to where they originally came from.

People who owned land.

Hard to buy a vote when it requires giving people land to even make them eligible to vote. But it is quite easy to buy a vote when the welfare class is allowed to vote, simply promise them more income.

"Hello, I am your friendly vote empoweror from the democratic party.
Since citizens now have to own land to vote, I am here to make sure you own Land.
If you do not, There is a privately owned land bank available to allow you to purchase 1 square inch of land from them.
If you cannot afford the $2500 to purchase the 1 square inch of land, there is a government subsidy program to give you the $2500."

 

[Johnny C]

(For example Romney has a very low tax bracket due to his primary income being investments)

This is a prime example of the rich folks putting the screws to the working class.
Which should be taxed more, money you earn for "having money", or money you earn by actually working?

 

[Johnny C]

Its IMPERATIVE that you follow the link. Yes, 23% FEDERAL SALES tax on all new items sold at the retail level. No tax collected on wholesale or used (unlike VAT), and the most important part...

THE IRS IS ABOLISHED AND FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ARE NO LONGER COLLECTED.

You no longer file taxes in april, etc.

This would really give the economy a boost for a while because everyone would spend all of their savings before the new fair tax was instituted to get out of the 23% sales tax.