Rep. Stephen Fincher: “If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat Sell them as Slaves.”

[GhostWriter16]

They're so stupid. And of course today Ted Cruz states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...unintentionally-explains-why-we-need-the-irs/

Ted Cruz does suck, but not for that reason...

Oh he's a dbag that's for sure. But I'm not entirely convinced that using the crop insurance program(in the light of decreasing direct subsidization but that's never actually brought up as part of the full picture since it's inconvenient) as evidence of upward redistribution of wealth is a particularly effective example of that in the Republican Party platform.

Not that he used it, but that he said they should take money from the poor and give it to people like him. Nevermind that by virtue of being in Congress, he's a much bigger parasite than any poor person.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Flat tax isn't about simplifying the tax code. It's about reducing taxes on the rich while increasing them on low-income workers. But currently some of the richest people actually pay a lower effective tax rate than your average working class person. So if there was a flat tax, with no deductions, it might actually be a tax hike on the people who take advantage of all the tax-loopholes. Still, evil people like Sen. Cruz sometimes bask in the idea of imposing a further penalty for not being rich.

But it is even worse when you still give them their two major deductions, especially without any ability to determine how much they are lying about them.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Flat tax isn't about simplifying the tax code. It's about reducing taxes on the rich while increasing them on low-income workers. But currently some of the richest people actually pay a lower effective tax rate than your average working class person. So if there was a flat tax, with no deductions, it might actually be a tax hike on the people who take advantage of all the tax-loopholes. Still, evil people like Sen. Cruz sometimes bask in the idea of imposing a further penalty for not being rich.

I don't like Cruz either, but I don't think this particular proposal is intended to "Punish" poverty. Its not JUST about simplifying the tax code either. Its about fixing a perceived flaw in the system. Granted, I don't really agree with the premises of the flat tax movement (Particularly the idea that government is entitled to ANY of our money) but that doesn't necessarily make them evil, at least not any more so than I could say pretty much everyone in government is evil.

But it is even worse when you still give them their two major deductions, especially without any ability to determine how much they are lying about them.

Herein lies the implicit assumption that government actually has a right to take our money at the point of a gun. Why not abolish the income tax? Find a way to cope...

 

[EvenStranger]

Oh I don't know, would a flat tax + a guaranteed income really be so crazy? It would be a lot less prone to abuse and might work pretty well. Of course no system is perfect and people would fall through the cracks, but that's going to be true pretty much no matter what. The idea that the current tax system is too convoluted and open to abuse has merit, I think.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Herein lies the implicit assumption that government actually has a right to take our money at the point of a gun. Why not abolish the income tax? Find a way to cope...

America, love it or leave it

 

[EvenStranger]

So libertarians don't have the right to agitate for their PoV? What committee decides which philosophies are allowed to have opinions?

 

[Goodfella]

Oh I don't know, would a flat tax + a guaranteed income really be so crazy?

All the people who support the flat tax would sooner die than support a guaranteed income.

 

[EvenStranger]

All the people who support the flat tax would sooner die than support a guaranteed income.

Yep, that's because political polarization is dumb.

 

[Murky]

I don't like Cruz either, but I don't think this particular proposal is intended to "Punish" poverty. Its not JUST about simplifying the tax code either. Its about fixing a perceived flaw in the system. Granted, I don't really agree with the premises of the flat tax movement (Particularly the idea that government is entitled to ANY of our money) but that doesn't necessarily make them evil, at least not any more so than I could say pretty much everyone in government is evil.

It may be veiled as a more "fair" tax system, but really what's saying is that the poor should pay more than they do now. Thus yet another penalty for being poor. "Work harder you worthless scum or pay the price in form of a tax hike," is essentially what they are saying.

Herein lies the implicit assumption that government actually has a right to take our money at the point of a gun. Why not abolish the income tax? Find a way to cope...

Without revenues, there can be no government. That would only lead to destabilization or Anarchy. If that happens all bets are off. The rich wouldn't be rich for long afterwords. Those with hard currency might be lords for a while until someone more crafty or cruel takes it from them.

 

[Goodfella]

Yep, that's because political polarization is dumb.

I know, but it's reality.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Herein lies the implicit assumption that government actually has a right to take our money at the point of a gun.

Overruled by the explicit truth that taking money at the butt of a gun really doesn't work very well.

 

[Antilogic]

Oh I don't know, would a flat tax + a guaranteed income really be so crazy? It would be a lot less prone to abuse and might work pretty well. Of course no system is perfect and people would fall through the cracks, but that's going to be true pretty much no matter what. The idea that the current tax system is too convoluted and open to abuse has merit, I think.

Kind of like what Murky said, the idea of the flat tax itself doesn't solve the core complexity problems within the tax code. The biggest question (and what truly increases the complexity) is how incomes are treated differently--carried interest and capital gains have their own special rules and rates that are not applied to regular wage income. Then you have the additional layer of significant deductions. If you really want to break down the complexity and inequalities in the tax code, you have to start by asking whether all income is simply income or should different income streams be privileged with a lower rate.

 

[bhsup]

Senator... Tennessee ... "“If the Poor Want Their Children to Eat… Sell them as Slaves.” "

Am I the only one that thought of Reba's song "Fancy" when reading that title?


Link to video.

 

[EvenStranger]

Kind of like what Murky said, the idea of the flat tax itself doesn't solve the core complexity problems within the tax code. The biggest question (and what truly increases the complexity) is how incomes are treated differently--carried interest and capital gains have their own special rules and rates that are not applied to regular wage income. Then you have the additional layer of significant deductions. If you really want to break down the complexity and inequalities in the tax code, you have to start by asking whether all income is simply income or should different income streams be privileged with a lower rate.

Fair enough.

 

[Cutlass]

So libertarians don't have the right to agitate for their PoV? What committee decides which philosophies are allowed to have opinions?

Sure they are.

You're new here. Let me offer a bit of advice. A (very) large part of the libertarian problem, particularly here, is that the libertarian position is being brought up, but it is not being brought up well! That is, there hasn't been much in the way of a thoughtful and articulate presentation of the ideas.

And, quite frankly, far too much of it has been conflated with that unmentionable former Texas officeholder who is either not actually libertarian at all, or just just flat out utterly sucks at being one.

Now because of that, it becomes hard for the libertarian position to get an unbiased hearing. If you want to make those arguments, and you want them to get a better hearing, you may need to work at making a better, a more thoughtful, presentation of them.

They could be a really useful addition to the discussion. But they rarely manage that, because they are so rarely presented well.

 

[GhostWriter16]

America, love it or leave it

Which is a fallacy

All the people who support the flat tax would sooner die than support a guaranteed income.

I'd take it over the nonsensical bureacracy that we have now.

It may be veiled as a more "fair" tax system, but really what's saying is that the poor should pay more than they do now. Thus yet another penalty for being poor. "Work harder you worthless scum or pay the price in form of a tax hike," is essentially what they are saying.

Or the attitude could be that everyone should pay their fair share rather than only a small percentage of the population paying for government.

Without revenues, there can be no government. That would only lead to destabilization or Anarchy. If that happens all bets are off. The rich wouldn't be rich for long afterwords. Those with hard currency might be lords for a while until someone more crafty or cruel takes it from them.

I technically agree with you, and I don't think we could really survive with ZERO revenue. But no income tax =/= no revenue. I get they're still taking SOME money at gunpoint but I want to reduce that as much as possible. On everyone. So I don't really agree with Cruz either. I just don't necessarily believe he's EVIL, at least not for that reason.

Sure they are.

You're new here. Let me offer a bit of advice. A (very) large part of the libertarian problem, particularly here, is that the libertarian position is being brought up, but it is not being brought up well! That is, there hasn't been much in the way of a thoughtful and articulate presentation of the ideas.

And, quite frankly, far too much of it has been conflated with that unmentionable former Texas officeholder who is either not actually libertarian at all, or just just flat out utterly sucks at being one.

Now because of that, it becomes hard for the libertarian position to get an unbiased hearing. If you want to make those arguments, and you want them to get a better hearing, you may need to work at making a better, a more thoughtful, presentation of them.

They could be a really useful addition to the discussion. But they rarely manage that, because they are so rarely presented well.

What specific errors do you see in the presentation?

How are you defining the term "libertarian?"

 

[Farm Boy]

How are you defining the term "libertarian?"

It's usually closer to what we have now than it is to Feudal England. I'd say it almost has to be a minority of libertarians that realize neither that a) wealth without security is a curse not a blessing and b) national security cannot be obtained without acquiring some form of revenue from it's citizens at the point of a gun.

 

[Cutlass]

What specific errors do you see in the presentation?

Taxes are not theft, and anyone who says they are is an utter frakking idiot.

How are you defining the term "libertarian?"

A person who wants actual liberty, both for themselves, and for others. Not one who only wants the liberty of the wolf to eat the sheep.

 

[El_Machinae]

We ought to abolish the IRS and instead move to a simple flat tax, where the average American can fill out our taxes on a postcard. Put down how much you earn. Put down a deduction for charitable contributions and home mortgage. And put down how much you owe.

So, he endorsed a home mortgage subsidy? Why not other subsidies, then? May I have a deduction for my food? My schooling? Why not, if I can have a home deduction?
I'd honestly be okay with a flat tax, too. I think it should start after some minimum, though. Mise very kindly pointed out that any flat tax with a minimum is essentially a progressive tax, but ehn. I was thinking the first $70k should be non-taxed, and then a flat tax after that.
It's honestly true that the tax code is pretty freaking complex.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's honestly true that the tax code is pretty freaking complex.

Isn't it coming up at closer to 4 million words than 3 anymore? If you can get people to agree on just what the entirety of the Federal income tax code actually is?