|
On October 10 2010 09:38 Leviathen1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote:
I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors
in many countries (south korea for an example) doctors are paid less than their american counterparts but the job itself (being a doctor) is still highly valued and the field had many new people joining every year
for some people its the status, many others really want to help people out, etc. etc. the field won't die out just because the paycheck is cut a bit.
|
On October 10 2010 08:51 orgolove wrote:
What the idiots don't understand is that the economy is not Obama's fault. He's just cleaning up after what Bush SHAT all over the country over the past 8 years. Jesus fucking christ.
The thing is, he's not cleaning up the mess, he's taking another shit on top of Bush's shit.
Continuing the wars, even more government spending, continuing warrantless wiretapping and expanding it, giving citizens fewer and fewer rights (see the recent FBI threads), backing up Wall St companies over ordinary people, unemployment constantly rising, etc.
He's just like Bush but even worse, I don't get why people like him.
|
On October 10 2010 09:40 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you. Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens). Your second point is an opinion. You follow this with more opinions. Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified. And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them. It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop.
You actually state that the US government has infinite money, and then turn around and complain about "drivel".
|
On October 10 2010 09:41 Navi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:38 Leviathen1 wrote:On October 10 2010 08:10 eLiE wrote:On October 10 2010 08:04 naonao wrote:
I'm not sure if it was Obama specifically but recently a bill was passed so TV commercials can no longer be louder than TV shows, which is A+. i was jealous when i heard about that. i hope theres a law passed in canada, cause it gets ridiculous sometimes. EDIT: and people are prob mad because: 1) FAUX NEWS likes spreading misinformation 2) Change doesn't happen overnight (especially when half of America is automatically against everything you stand for) 3)RE-EDIT Oh and he had to fix the damage caused by past administrations.... But cmon, he's trying to fighting an uphill battle against every needs change. Healthcare is a wonderful example of a really good policy that got battered and battered until it was only a shadow of its former self. Even so, it's better than what was there before, but it could have been so much more. **and take what I say with a grain of salt, cause I don't follow American politics that closely, so I may be slightly off** well im an American and althoguh i dont follow politics the healthcare plan was a form of socialism but when it was battered down it became a lesser version of socialism that might not be called socialism but it still has some of it (basically why it was is that once you switched to national healthcare plan you couldn't get out of it so you would have problems getting a doctor ect ect) the main reason i dont agree with this is that doctors are already having problems running their hospitals and if national healthcare went abroad the doctors wouldn't get paid as much and would have to work the same amount = not good for doctors since with that there it would mean less people want to be doctors in many countries (south korea for an example) doctors are paid less than their american counterparts but the job itself (being a doctor) is still highly valued and the field had many new people joining every year for some people its the status, many others really want to help people out, etc. etc. the field won't die out just because the paycheck is cut a bit.
Half the problem for doctors is that they artificially make the requirements to become a doctor severe, to LIMIT the number of doctors that can practice medicine in the USA. This isn't to increase the quality of health care. This is done purely as a protectionist practice to preserve the high salaries of doctors and limit the competition within the medical labor market.
Therefore, doctors get very high salaries, compete intensely for residencies, and the vast majority of people end up nurses, getting paid far less to do a majority of the work. This is no disrespect to doctors. They more than earn their stripes. But it's rubbish to say that if you lowered the earnings of doctors, you'd give them same work for less pay.
The answer is a composite, not a one-shot. There needs to be tort reform to lower the occupational hazards and financial liability of being a doctor. This then lowers the cost of their insurance coverage, aka their cost of doing business. Lower costs means higher profit. See that? Same work, higher pay for doctors. Then you take a look at how much money doctors have to spend just to process claims for health insurance to get paid for the work they did, and again, you see that the bulk of profits are being swallowed up by insurance companies and both the doctors and the patients lose.
If you lowered the barriers to entry for doctors (to a reasonable degree), offered better student loans specifically for medical students, reformed the medical insurance industry, and allowed tort reforms, I'm pretty damn sure you could end up with a medical industry that operated more efficiently, costed less to patients, and took some of the workload OFF doctors while preserving their salary rates. Win-win situation for everyone, EXCEPT the insurance industries, who quite honestly are a government implemented racket. If Republicans wanted to bitch about too much government and hate on government institutions, they should be going after the insurance industry (which is mandated and propagated by the US gov't) and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
|
On October 10 2010 09:49 omnigol wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 09:40 StorkHwaiting wrote:On October 10 2010 09:15 Williowa wrote:
You can't stimulate an economy by taking money from some people and giving it to others, not even if they are doing things we wouldn't normally pay people to do in a free market.
Nor can health care costs be controlled by bringing them under the efficiency of government, because almost any business operates tighter then the government does. Never does a business say "if we don't use all the money, they will cut our budget".
Obama is a horrible president, he will not keep the Bush tax cuts. He talked cap and trade when the economy was already uncertain. He also is spending billions upon billions of dollars that the government doesn't have to keep public sector union jobs in place. Even with all the extra spending, the latest unemployment numbers put government job losses way above the private sector.
But hey, I'm with the crowd that says Obama is TRYING to destroy the country, not trying to do any good what so ever. About the only positive thing you can say, is if you are a public sector union employee, he is probably looking out for you. Your first point is wrong because the government has the ability to print money, which means they're not taking it from any particular group. Rather, they're taking a small percentage from all US currency holders (of which China is the largest, not the US citizens). Your second point is an opinion. You follow this with more opinions. Then you erroneously state that Obama is responsible for gov't job losses, when in fact many of the losses have been at the local and state level, which the federal gov't has zero authority over. His only influence on those levels of government is by giving them more money, which he has not been able to do based on voter sentiments and political interests. Which leads back to the first point you incorrectly identified. And the government has an infinite amount of dollars. They run the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure what you mean by "they don't have" them. Dollars are IOU's from the gov't so I'm pretty sure they can always write more of them. It's always interesting to see what drivel Obama-haters come up with. You can claim he's not doing the best job, and offer ways for him to improve, but this type of hate is always bred by the parents ignorance and stupidity. Sorry if that's insulting, but you are doing a disservice to the community by spreading lies and falsehood, which personally affects my life. You should stop. You actually state that the US government has infinite money, and then turn around and complain about "drivel".
No. I didn't. I said infinite dollars. There's a difference. Money is a loose term that doesn't mean anything. US dollars is a specific term and yes, the USA has the ability to print an unlimited amount of those. Will they do so? No, because of inflation. But if Obama wanted to print $100 billion over the next two years, I'm pretty confident the dollar would not go into hyperinflation. Would it be a good thing? Not really. But it's well within the ability of the gov't.
I can agree with the criticisms of Jalstar, Omnigol, and Navi though. You guys bring up cogent points with which to criticize Obama.
|
On October 10 2010 09:01 Tadzio wrote:
He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up?
Yes please.
The fact is, it is possible to cut spending. We're wasting billions upon billions in other countries dealing with other people's problems. Its money that a.) we don't have, and b.) could be much better spent here.
I'm tired of being the world's police. Ideologically I'm pretty conservative, but I just don't see why we need to have more troops deployed abroad than we have here at home. Bring everybody back, imo. If someone wants to fuck with us, then we can retaliate. The money going into funding our military abroad could just as easily be spent bettering our military technology and infrastructure so that when we do have to fight, we're much better equipped to do so.
The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy. That's exactly what an income tax does. We need to move to a consumption tax. That way our government collects money on what people spend, encouraging the acquisition of money.
You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue.
What the fuck is with the way we penalize and enforce drug laws? How much money is WASTED by housing inmates for non violent crimes. This is RETARDED!
And what's with our prison system in general? It doesn't encourage rehabilitation. It forces inmates to seek protection deeper within criminal organization. Hey Bob, I'm going to send you to jail for smoking weed. Oh yea, while you're in there you have to befriend murderers and sociopaths if you don't wanna' get raped. And remember, we expect you to be a more productive American citizen when you get out!
What a joke.
And the thing that steams me up the most? Career fucking politicians. Especially the right wingers who talk about adhering to the virtues of our founders. Guess what, guys? Our founders weren't career politicians. They were successful business owners, and wealthy intellectuals who understood that public service meant doing what you can for your country, and then getting out before the whole thing becomes corrupt and sour.
I know I'm not alone in my thinking, and I can't fucking wait to vote for someone with a similar ideology.
|
thats gonna be a really long wait
|
He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor.
The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy
Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable.
You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue.
Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often.
As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works...
|
On October 10 2010 09:01 Tadzio wrote:
He could be a lot better. There's been a lot worse. I'm still hoping for a viable 3rd party, because I'm simply not crazy enough to vote Republican in order to "teach the dems a lesson."
Anyone wanna start one up?
TL political party inc?
day[9] for pres?
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
The most significant difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration, is that about 80% of the officers around Bush had actual business experience. I believe the percentage of Obama officers who have had business experience (ie actually getting shit done with proper timescale and budget consciousness) is smaller than 10%.
This administration is "the politicians'" administration. It's the "if we can't get shit done in time and within budget, hike taxes" school of thought that they come from.
On October 10 2010 08:05 unit wrote:
Obama is doing as i expected, i knew that he was going to be a bad president from the get-go but his amazing speaking skills and ability to tell people what they wanted to hear got him the position
this is merely an example that the skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
Well-put imo.
On October 10 2010 09:19 Suspense wrote:
Is Obama a good President... good question. I'll leave you with a statement.
No country can achieve a government that surpasses the intelligence of the people.
You can quote me on that..
lol TT_TT
|
i don't know much about obama and politics, but i do know that as soon as someone becomes president they will instantly be hated more than before. So people hating the president doesn't seem like an indicator to how well they are doing to me.
|
Well-put imo.
How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it.
I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening.
|
Obama isn't perfect as some have pointed out and he isn't really the guy doing everything as many more have noted. I don't care if you guys think I am bleeding heart librul, but I think that all of the lists of things he hasn't done are kinda overdone. Just because he want's things one way doesn't mean they will happen just because he is the president. I know you guys will tear this down, but here is a quick list of things he has done, or are being acted out (quick list...sorry).
Appointed 2 Supreme Justices
Appointed people to posts in a bipartisan fashion (plenty of old Bush appointees)
stimulus bill
cash for clunkers
improved child's health insurance
The Big health care bill
closing Guantanamo Bay
Time lines for withdrawal for both Iraq and Afghanistan (and sent more troops as requested and has since withdrawn many)
Bank Bailouts
Banned Harsh Interrogation
Stem Cell research can now be gov. funded
Let Cali make those emissions standards
Overturned Bush's choice of not supporting family centers overseas
Released Torture memos
Started spending money to improve relations with the Middle east
Is helping renew middle east peace talks
Helped charter schools
Renewed many Bush surveillance laws
Moving to end Don't ask Don't tell
extended jobless benefits
Created a bill to improve schools nationwide
Is trying to extend tax cuts to everyone but the richest 1%
Auto Industry Bailouts
While many point and say that you can't spend your way out of a depression, most of the money hasn't even been spent yet. In addition, the CBO (see Non-Partisan) claims the stimulus saved or created over 1 million jobs. People say that he is increasing government and needs to help the private sector. Last month, jobs were lost, but most came from government layoffs.
Many of the things he has done are down right conservative while other things are very liberal, so before you all talk about how much he Hasn't done, give the guy a sec and at least give him credit for what he has done.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On October 10 2010 10:37 Djzapz wrote:How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it. I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening.
Personally, I think the vast majority of the population won't independantly realize that,
skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
|
On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. Show nested quote +The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. Show nested quote +You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works...
Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too.
Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact.
That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT.
Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation".
How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing?
People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn.
As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day.
As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue.
|
On October 10 2010 10:47 thedeadhaji wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:37 Djzapz wrote:Well-put imo. How is it well put? He stated the obvious and didn't explain why he thought the Obama administration is doing badly. Only insane people would think it's possible to "fix" the country in such a short period of time given how bad the situation is. Fox news and those kind of networks have been doing such a great job trying to make him look worse than he really is, people are starting to believe it. I may be biased because he couldn't possibly do worse than Bush, but Obama is better than the pitiful alternative you had. I take what I can get - pretty much every other country in the world was cheering for Obama, largely because McCain was frightening. Personally, I think the vast majority of the population won't independantly realize that, Show nested quote + skills to be a good president are not the same as the skills to win an election
I don't know about the "vast majority" part but I agree. However, we can't do much more than vote for the party which we believe will be the best. Their eloquence is a good thing as it gets them elected - their good ideas don't, which is sad. The fact that McCain got any votes at all after the insane stuff he and Palin said is just astounding to me. (To be truthful I'm not astounded at all, I don't really have much faith in humanity at this point.)
As for what we should look for before we vote, it's not always obvious. Some people value experience - and I agree. However, if someone's experience is limited to years upon years of actively f***ing up the country (and by extension, everyone on earth), then perhaps an unexperienced crew would end up causing less damage.
|
On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue.
Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing, like you said. But it means that you can't just put it into place and hope it works. If you try and make it happen overnight, it'll crash horribly. If you slowly switch over to it, chances are it'll fail horribly and by the time you switch back (if it's even possible), the damage will have been done. As for you saying that the concept of democracy was laughed at at some point, I don't believe it's so true. It wasn't used because controlling people is convenient. Maybe the kings laughed at it because they believed that they were Kings because "God" put them there.
As for VAT's, they also come with income tax. If you're not talking about basically abolishing income taxes, we can talk. However, try to understand that in a country like the US where there are EXTREMELY RICH people, if you don't make them pay more, then the lower and middle class end up paying a lot more, so they consume a lot less. Of course this is a generalization. To me, freedom is very important. Yes, I understand why graduated taxes may be considered to be "unfair". However, I believe that it's a large portion of why the US economy has been so powerful. For a long time, the highest tax bracket for people with extremely high incomes was 99%, I believe. I'm not saying it should still be like that. It would be absurd and would mess everything up, but I just wanted to point it out.
As for increasing taxes on businesses, it has its place - but I wouldn't have done it right now.
|
On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue.
We do have consumption tax in the form of sales tax, but again it's not 100%. Would be interesting to see how that'd play out though. I'm not against the idea.
One obstacle I see off the top of my head though, is that wouldn't it be difficult to gauge how much someone is actually spending? What if someone bought stuff, but used his girlfriend's name to get it etc. A lot of evasion could occur by spreading the consumption on paper, couldn't it?
|
On October 10 2010 11:21 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2010 11:03 MrBitter wrote:On October 10 2010 10:23 Djzapz wrote:He's doing OK. Even pretty good, considering the mess he inherited from Bush. He's not the best president, though it's hard to judge. It's safe to say he's doing better than his predecessor. The way our government collects money is a fucking joke. I don't care how liberal the internets tend to be, penalizing people for being successful is not how you stimulate an economy Based on the fact that every economical superpower uses graduated taxation, your claim is pretty laughable. You know what else is great about a consumption tax? Everyone pays. Illegal immigrants? Check. Douchers who hide money abroad to evade taxation? Check. Criminals with black market incomes? Check. That's BILLIONS in revenue. Sounds like a good reason to sell stuff under the table pretty often. As for most of what you said, it seems pretty good. I guess I'm not a big fan of your conservative part as it appears to be rather ignorant of how the economy actually works... Just because no one has ever used a truly 100% consumption tax doesn't mean it's a bad thing or that it won't work. People laughed at the concept of Democracy once, too. Aside from that, many, many nations across the world use a Value Added Tax, which is a form of a consumption tax. Most of Europe, in fact. That said, I'm not necessarily endorsing a VAT. Incidentally, you didn't say Income Tax outright, but rather "graduated taxation". How is a consumption tax NOT the same thing? People who spend more, pay more. The only difference is we're taxed on what we spend, not on what we earn. As for the incentive to do business under the table - that happens plenty with out current system. People go to jail for tax evasion every day. As for my economic ignorance - I'm no Warren Buffet, but I'm quite certain that when you increase taxes on business owners, it doesn't create jobs and it doesn't promote spending. Those are the two driving forces behind government revenue. We do have consumption tax in the form of sales tax, but again it's not 100%. Would be interesting to see how that'd play out though. I'm not against the idea. One obstacle I see off the top of my head though, is that wouldn't it be difficult to gauge how much someone is actually spending? What if someone bought stuff, but used his girlfriend's name to get it etc. A lot of evasion could occur by spreading the consumption on paper, couldn't it?
The transition would have to be be slow and tax would probably be collected by the seller like it currently is. I don't believe it would work. One of the reasons is that government finances would be even more affected in times of recession as taxes are directly attached to the amount of stuff that's sold.
|
Short answer? No, he's not, but he was a better choice than what the Republicans fielded that year.
I'm allergic to Creationists, I wish the GOP would stop running them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
