populist..........just another veiled term for, and belief in, collectivism.

The reason the constitution is based in "nagative expression of powers" is precisely for this little flaw in human nature.

Probably a majority of humans can be conned into playing along with power-hungry folks who want be the purveyors of "fairness and equity".  But of course equity for thee, not for me (the Premier, Czar, whatever) and family.

People are so needy for this sweet, happy membership on the team of "goodness", that they'll believe any nonsense and any burgeoning dictator.

How else could sentient humans ever accept the embarrassing lies of people like Gore, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and so on  ?

The founders tried their best to minimize the follies of well-meaning but blind, mushy typical humans, by denying government operatives the tools with which to scam and slowly enslave the people.

America was created to be the first place in world history that wouldn't give in to barbarism and savagery, or sophistry and demagoguery.

No place for "populism" or "utopia" or collectivism.

Quote from: Supposn on October 24, 2013, 07:22:55 PM
T Bone Again, for a moment let's put aside our contrary views regarding the incremental or single step transference from my income taxes to a sales tax.

The members of CPF's primarily to my right; I'm a populist.  We do not share our cynicism of government's stated goals and the actual delivered performance and achievements to the same extent but I'm far from fully trustful of stated promises and/or the methods by which our elected officials may attempt to achieve their stated goals,

I'm troubled by Fair Tax proponents acceptance of the "Prebate", (i.e. prepayment per capita of equal compensation amounts to mitigate the sales tax's greater hardship upon lesser income persons).

I envision that as an equal annually COLA modified federal direct deposited monthly amount to the accounts of USA's entire population.
I'd be opposed to the prebates being income qualified, or individuals' prebate amounts being dependent upon the recipients' annual incomes.  That would require IRS continue in size and scope to administer monitor prebate recipients in the same manner as it now monitors individual income earners.

I speculate that the proposal of "fair tax's prebates are simply a sales gimmick.  It's strange that I, a populist find fault with prebates but those considering themselves to be to positioned to my right on the political spectrum would willingly accept enactment of prebates.

Empathizing with what I believe is your own viewpoints, I imagine that conservatives should be much more amiable to some compromises with those of us that are populists and less amiable to the concept of prebates.

Beware of what you wish for.  Among my fears there are two common dreads.  I fear not receiving what I'm entitled to; I also fear that I may get EVERYTHING that I deserve.

Respectfully, Supposn

I'm not a diehard fan of the prebate scheme either. I assume it's a "plug that hole" sort of proposal. The obvious principle behind it is to offer protection from taxation for basic consumer purchases, mainly food and shelter. There are other ways to accomplish that, the most obvious being an adjustment of the basic tax rate. We are overly invested, I think, in the idea that a certain class of earners shouldn't pay any taxes at all. In fact, the way the code is written now, millions of "low-income" tax filers receive "refunds" of taxes never paid. It's just more welfare,  but they call it the "Earned Income Credit."

I think we need to revise things to the point where EVERYONE pays SOMETHING into the pot. Either that, or we need to revise the voting laws so that no one who pays no taxes has the right to vote. Either you have skin in the game or you do not, and if you do not, I don't think you have the right to cast a vote for anything at all.

But that's a minor issue, as you surely understand. The primary issue is completely changing the way in which the federal government is funded.  To that end, I stand fast in my belief that complete replacement of the tax code is the way to go, including the elimination of the IRS.

T Bone Again, the attribute of a general sales tax is everyone who purchases pays taxes.  But if every item without exception is subject to the general sales tax in an era where of currency rather than barter and self sufficient farms are no longer typical, it would be proportionally of much greater burden upon the poor.

If we don't waive sales taxes for items that are legally identified as greater proportion of lesser income families' budget or otherwise reducing their tax burden, it would be less feasible to pass a sales tax through the Congress and if they could pass it through the Congress it would be an economic and political disaster.

If a law could be drafted to waive local commuting on mass transportation but all other commercial transportation would be taxable, I'm for it.
Some governments waive sales taxes upon food and medicine.  I'm a proponent of capped quantities or amounts of specific utilities listed by law and delivered by common carriers such as cables or pipes to a specific residential address.  Such amounts should be annually adjusted to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power.
Taxes inequitable burden upon those less wealthy undermines any government but particularly a democratic government.

The revenue acquired by taxing what are considered as the normal basis of what's minimal existence within our society would not justify their inclusions' political and economic costs.
It would not be as you seem to fear, a case of some segments of our population not paying any taxes at all.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 01, 2013, 12:10:52 AM
T Bone Again, the attribute of a general sales tax is everyone who purchases pays taxes.  But if every item without exception is subject to the general sales tax in an era where of currency rather than barter and self sufficient farms are no longer typical, it would be proportionally of much greater burden upon the poor.

If we don't waive sales taxes for items that are legally identified as greater proportion of lesser income families' budget or otherwise reducing their tax burden, it would be less feasible to pass a sales tax through the Congress and if they could pass it through the Congress it would be an economic and political disaster.

If a law could be drafted to waive local commuting on mass transportation but all other commercial transportation would be taxable, I'm for it.
Some governments waive sales taxes upon food and medicine.  I'm a proponent of capped quantities or amounts of specific utilities listed by law and delivered by common carriers such as cables or pipes to a specific residential address.  Such amounts should be annually adjusted to the U.S. dollar's purchasing power.
Taxes inequitable burden upon those less wealthy undermines any government but particularly a democratic government.

The revenue acquired by taxing what are considered as the normal basis of what's minimal existence within our society would not justify their inclusions' political and economic costs.
It would not be as you seem to fear, a case of some segments of our population not paying any taxes at all.

Respectfully, Supposn

I have this ridiculous notion that one of these days you'll post something that makes sense. You seem to know all the words, but you haven't yet strung them together into a credible idea. I think of it as an example of the "fifty million monkeys banging on typewriters" theory: sooner or later, one of those monkeys will come up with a typed copy of the Bible, purely by accident. Believe me, it's the only reason I reply to your posts -- I'm hoping you have an accident, and produce a cogent thought.

I don't "fear" that "some segments of our population" don't pay "any taxes at all." It is fact that something over 47% of Americans pay no income tax OR receive "refunds" on taxes never paid. (Welfare) Why don't YOU fear this fact? Why don't YOU see the truth of the matter? Why is it OK with YOU that nearly half the population has no skin in the game, that is, pays no taxes at all?

Seriously, how did it get to be okay with you that half the people who live in the US essentially live off the other half?

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 01, 2013, 12:58:58 AM
I have this ridiculous notion that one of these days you'll post something that makes sense. You seem to know all the words, but you haven't yet strung them together into a credible idea. I think of it as an example of the "fifty million monkeys banging on typewriters" theory: sooner or later, one of those monkeys will come up with a typed copy of the Bible, purely by accident. Believe me, it's the only reason I reply to your posts -- I'm hoping you have an accident, and produce a cogent thought.

I don't "fear" that "some segments of our population" don't pay "any taxes at all." It is fact that something over 47% of Americans pay no income tax OR receive "refunds" on taxes never paid. (Welfare) Why don't YOU fear this fact? Why don't YOU see the truth of the matter? Why is it OK with YOU that nearly half the population has no skin in the game, that is, pays no taxes at all?

Seriously, how did it get to be okay with you that half the people who live in the US essentially live off the other half?

I see I'm not the only one.
I have a feeling he thinks through in his head what he wants to say, then leaves out the pertinent points and all we get are hollow points and gibberish.

Quote from: TboneAgain on November 01, 2013, 12:58:58 AM... I don't "fear" that "some segments of our population" don't pay "any taxes at all." It is fact that something over 47% of Americans pay no income tax OR receive "refunds" on taxes never paid. (Welfare) Why don't YOU fear this fact? Why don't YOU see the truth of the matter? Why is it OK with YOU that nearly half the population has no skin in the game, that is, pays no taxes at all? ...

T Boned Again, It's not OK with me that such a great proportion of USA residents don't earn enough to pay income taxes.  If there were a federal sales tax, every segment of our population will pay sales taxes.

Our disagreement upon many points may (I suppose) be irreconcilable.

It's both my desire and belief that there'll never be a general federal sales tax unaccompanied with provisions for (at very least) not increasing federal tax burdens on the poor.  The transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues . 

The U.S. Congress will not enact replacing the entire federal income tax systems with a federal sales tax in a single step.  There's no expectation of a benefit that would justify the imprudence of such a financial risk.

If a federal multi step program to simultaneously transfer tax revenues from income taxes to sales taxes were enacted, I believe after one of the steps the sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate; At that point the transfer process will be forced to halt and possibly never re-
-continue.  (If I'm incorrect, income taxes will be eliminated).

[Fair tax proponents believe that a 23% tax could fund prebates and replace all income taxes.  Only 5 of our United States have no sales taxes.  Alabama, a state that has no regard for their poorest inhabitants are deservingly the poorest of our states and within some of their localities their sales tax is higher than 11%.  Excluding groceries and medicines, I suppose the median sales taxes on gross retail transactions are well over 5%.  I don't believe the USA voters would swallow a sales tax exceeding 1/3 of their general purchases in a single step; (assuming 34% would produce sufficient revenue)].

If a federal multi step program to simultaneously transference of tax revenues from income taxes to sales taxes were enacted, I believe after one of the steps the sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate; At that point the transfer process will be forced to halt and possibly never re-
-continue.  (If I'm incorrect, income taxes will be eliminated).

Your belief that the transference of tax sources will be the termination of the IRS is unfounded.  The IRS's numbers of employees would decrease somewhat if income taxes were eliminated but enforcement is no less necessary for sales taxes than it is for income taxes.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 01, 2013, 11:52:11 PM
It's both my desire and belief that there'll never be a general federal sales tax unaccompanied with provisions for (at very least) not increasing federal tax burdens on the poor.  The transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues .

You asked hat it was in your words that made it hard to get your point across?
I believe this paragraph is a good example.

I'll translate:

QuoteIt's both my desire and belief that there'll never be a general federal sales tax unaccompanied with provisions for (at very least) not increasing federal tax burdens on the poor

.
I don't want a federal sales tax if it isn't progressive.

QuoteThe transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues .

Translation:
I want to believe the economy is improving under a socialist ruler, because this way we can soak middle America an rich people even further through progressive methods.

Supposn, with all due respect, try using plain language, your need to sound like an economist when trying to explain your position, does nothing more than murder your point.
You're no good at it, so drop it, use plain English like everyone else.

Now to address your point. Why are you against everyone sharing in the cost of govt?
The flat tax only taxes goods, not food, so a low income earner could virtually avoid taxation altogether, like cars, buy a used one, avoid the tax, buy a yacht, get taxed accordingly.
It really is simple, it eliminates the IRS, since taxes are born at point of purchase collected by the States and turned over to the Fed.

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2013, 07:40:40 AM...
...Now to address your point. Why are you against everyone sharing in the cost of govt?
The flat tax only taxes goods, not food, so a low income earner could virtually avoid taxation altogether, like cars, buy a used one, avoid the tax, buy a yacht, get taxed accordingly.
It really is simple, it eliminates the IRS, since taxes are born at point of purchase collected by the States and turned over to the Fed.

Solar, are we discussing another version of income taxes or are we discussing a general sales tax?  General sales taxes are applicable to all segments of population and are we cannot more closely approach a flat tax that the U.S. Congress might pass.

Admit tingly sales of used items generally do not pass through recognized businesses and thus to a great extent they evade paying state sales taxes.
That is not the case with vehicles and boats that are required to be registered by  the government having jurisdiction over the locations where they're used, or docked, or parked, or garaged or for items the law requires to be covered by proper liability insurance. The states generally do collect much of the sales taxes with regard to the sales of vehicles and boats.

The states do not sufficiently  trust each other and are less likely to agree to dependence  upon states' collection and  THE U.S. Treasury receiving the federal government's   full share of the revenues.

Some, if not all states now  collecting state income taxes generally do significantly reduce their administration and enforcement expenses by keeping their tax regulations and forms similar and compatible to federal income taxes.  They actually rather than  legally are allied with the IRS and have adopted the majority of IRS methods and policies to reduce their enforcement and administration costs.

A federal sales tax dependent upon states' rather than federal collection or enforcement or administration would be of greater aggregate overhead expenses and would experience much more difficult passage through the U.S. Congress.  The collection methods wouldn't significantly differ from a sales tax administered and enforced by the IRS.

Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 03, 2013, 02:45:41 PM
Solar, are we discussing another version of income taxes or are we discussing a general sales tax?  General sales taxes are applicable to all segments of population and are we cannot more closely approach a flat tax that the U.S. Congress might pass.

Flat tax.
The rest of your comment made absolutely no sense at all, I'll bold it.

Quote
Admit tingly sales of used items generally do not pass through recognized businesses and thus to a great extent they evade paying state sales taxes.

Again, What? Tingly?
Again, you made no sense, but if you just claimed used items escape sales tax, that's because they've already been taxed once.

Quote
That is not the case with vehicles and boats that are required to be registered by  the government having jurisdiction over the locations where they're used, or docked, or parked, or garaged or for items the law requires to be covered by proper liability insurance. The states generally do collect much of the sales taxes with regard to the sales of vehicles and boats.

The states will still get their portion of said tax, that won't change.

QuoteThe states do not sufficiently  trust each other and are less likely to agree to dependence  upon states' collection and  THE U.S. Treasury receiving the federal government's   full share of the revenues.

I'm about to give up, again, check your sentence structure before posting, again, you made no sense.

QuoteSome, if not all states now  collecting state income taxes generally do significantly reduce their administration and enforcement expenses by keeping their tax regulations and forms similar and compatible to federal income taxes.  They actually rather than  legally are allied with the IRS and have adopted the majority of IRS methods and policies to reduce their enforcement and administration costs.

OK, and your point?

QuoteA federal sales tax dependent upon states' rather than federal collection or enforcement or administration would be of greater aggregate overhead expenses and would experience much more difficult passage through the U.S. Congress.  The collection methods wouldn't significantly differ from a sales tax administered and enforced by the IRS.

Respectfully, Supposn

Wrong! The overall point of sales, sales tax, would merely increase, the state deducts it's cut, and sends the rest off to the Fed.
Completely removing the need for the IRS filing process.

Quote from: Supposn on November 01, 2013, 11:52:11 PMFrom reply #50:
... It's both my desire and belief that there'll never be a general federal sales tax unaccompanied with provisions for (at very least) not increasing federal tax burdens on the poor.  The transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues .  ...

Solar, you're contending that this and my other  posts  meanings are not what I supposed them to be and you are presuming to better know my mind and translate my meanings and beliefs to others.

Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2013, 07:40:40 AM
You asked hat it was in your words that made it hard to get your point across?
I believe this paragraph is a good example.

I'll translate:.
I don't want a federal sales tax if it isn't progressive.
Translation:
I want to believe the economy is improving under a socialist ruler, because this way we can soak middle America an rich people even further through progressive methods.
...

Solar, have you ever actually read Jonathon Swift's book,  "Gulliver' Travels"?
I recall Swift writing within that book of extreme paranoid s that achieved political power within England 's government at that time.

They perceived completely unfounded  undermining of their nation by anything done or proposed by others who they did not agree with.  Anything done or proposed or written by their opponents were (within those paranoid minds)  absolutely certain (or at very least, strongly indicative)  of their opponents deliberate or naïve unrelenting striving to undermine  England's best interests.  They perceived their opponents to be everywhere.   Little was simply innocent or unrelated  to what they perceived to be unrelenting plots to degrade England.

I have never read a dictionary defining populism as being related to socialism.  The individual concepts of populists need not be particularly popular to be considered as populistic; (i.e. they need not be popular or even well known).  Equating populism and what's popular or what is socialistic is a product of your own imagination.

It's supposed that every patriot believes the government policies they  support are the best for their nation.  I do not agree with you but I do not question what I consider as your disregard for lesser earning segments of our population as treason;  I consider it as poor economic  judgment.

Over two centuries ago Jonathan Swift described you very well.
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 03, 2013, 08:55:26 PM
Solar, you're contending that this and my other  posts  meanings are not what I supposed them to be and you are presuming to better know my mind and translate my meanings and beliefs to others.

Then post in clear, concise language!
You try and write as if you hold some sort of degree in economics, only to prove your ignorance through your laborious need at selecting language that does not fit in any way.
It is not my fault you fail miserably conveying your thoughts into writing.

Can you attempt to have a real conversation on the FLAT TAX?
You post that:
From reply #50:

Quote... It's both my desire and belief that there'll never be a general federal sales tax unaccompanied with provisions for (at very least) not increasing federal tax burdens on the poor.  The transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues .

...

Obviously you have no understanding of the proposal, a proposal that in no way increases burdens on the poor, they merely pay their fair share through purchasing new luxury items.
If they want to avoid the tax, they only need to look to quality used items that have already been taxed.
Is that really all that hard to understand,? The poor can avoid paying fed taxes altogether and in some states, like Ca, they can avoid all taxes since food is not a taxable item.

Then you turn right back around and claim they should be taxed, a bit hypocritical, don't ay think?
But you fail to understand that the economy will not improve until obozo is out of office, he is a hindrance, and purposely stagnating growth to get more to join the welfare rolls of big govt.

QuoteThe transfer of tax sources should be part of our generally improving economy such that the median wage's and median family incomes purchasing powers increase; thus enabling a greater proportion of our population to contribute to our federal net revenues .

You cannot increase the low income earner to the ranks of middle income earner through taxation, that is what the free mkt does, govt either gets out of it's way, or does as Obozo is doing and stifle it.

Now, was that all that hard to grasp?

Quote from: Solar on November 04, 2013, 07:15:55 AM...
Obviously you have no understanding of the proposal, a proposal that in no way increases burdens on the poor, they merely pay their fair share through purchasing new luxury items.
If they want to avoid the tax, they only need to look to quality used items that have already been taxed.
Is that really all that hard to understand,? The poor can avoid paying fed taxes altogether and in some states, like Ca, they can avoid all taxes since food is not a taxable item. ...

Solar, VAT, (Value Added Tax) is the only sales tax administrative method which assures that nothing will be taxed more than once.
Refer  to:  http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-%28i-e-vat%29/  .

Sales tax laws almost always, (if not always) tax all levels of sales transactions including used goods.  To draft the regulations otherwise would promote great legal loop holes.
You

Are you becoming amiable to the concept of waiving  sales taxes upon products that are a greater proportion of poorer family's expenditures?  Used food is defecation. That's why many states waive taxes on food not provided by restaurants or caterers.

You believe that a federal sales tax would be applicable to groceries but waived for a used  Rolls-Royce or a used ocean going yacht?  I believe a federal sales  tax that wasn't waived for many of lesser income earners' items that are proportionally greater than higher income earners' budgets could not and should not pass the U.S. Congress.
 
Respectfully, Supposn

Quote from: Supposn on November 05, 2013, 10:46:54 PM
Solar, VAT, (Value Added Tax) is the only sales tax administrative method which assures that nothing will be taxed more than once.
Refer  to:  http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-%28i-e-vat%29/  .

Sales tax laws almost always, (if not always) tax all levels of sales transactions including used goods.  To draft the regulations otherwise would promote great legal loop holes.
You

Are you becoming amiable to the concept of waiving  sales taxes upon products that are a greater proportion of poorer family's expenditures?  Used food is defecation. That's why many states waive taxes on food not provided by restaurants or caterers.

You believe that a federal sales tax would be applicable to groceries but waived for a used  Rolls-Royce or a used ocean going yacht?  I believe a federal sales  tax that wasn't waived for many of lesser income earners' items that are proportionally greater than higher income earners' budgets could not and should not pass the U.S. Congress.
 
Respectfully, Supposn

Cut the crap, this country will never accept the socialist trap of a VAT tax, Never!

Quote from: Solar on November 06, 2013, 06:33:54 AM
Cut the crap, this country will never accept the socialist trap of a VAT tax, Never!

VAT's socialistic?

Solar, if you do not know a word's meaning, I suggest you refrain from using the  word.

VAT, (Value Added Tax) refers to a method of administering sales taxes.  In the case of VAT, it is an absolutely superior method.  I'm aware of nothing regarding other sales tax methods that would within any circumstances be of greater advantage then the VAT method.
Vat is the only sales tax method that assures no redundant taxation of any item; (i.e. ALL other sales tax methods to some extent levy taxes upon prior taxes paid within the links of commerce transactions' chains.
               Since sellers within intermediate transactions return only the differences between the sales taxes they collect and the sales taxes they paid, There's much less inducement for intermediate purchasers to request that the sales transaction not be recorded and the sales tax be evaded.
This quickens and increases enterprises cash flows.  That's particularly important to small businesses that couldn't afford the additional costs of revolving credit if the banks would even offer it to them.
Many nations that had used conventional sales taxes, have converted to VAT.  I'm unaware of any nation that has enacted other sales tax methods since VAT has been generally used by nations.  I'm aware of no nation that had a Vat system and then converted to another method of sales tax administration.
Your paranoiac and perceive socialism within anything you disagree with.

Refer to:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-%28i-e-vat%29/

Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Quote from: Supposn on November 06, 2013, 07:37:40 AM
VAT's socialistic?

Solar, if you do not know a word's meaning, I suggest you refrain from using the  word.

VAT, (Value Added Tax) refers to a method of administering sales taxes.  In the case of VAT, it is an absolutely superior method.  I'm aware of nothing regarding other sales tax methods that would within any circumstances be of greater advantage then the VAT method.
Vat is the only sales tax method that assures no redundant taxation of any item; (i.e. ALL other sales tax methods to some extent levy taxes upon prior taxes paid within the links of commerce transactions' chains.
               Since sellers within intermediate transactions return only the differences between the sales taxes they collect and the sales taxes they paid, There's much less inducement for intermediate purchasers to request that the sales transaction not be recorded and the sales tax be evaded.
This quickens and increases enterprises cash flows.  That's particularly important to small businesses that couldn't afford the additional costs of revolving credit if the banks would even offer it to them.
Many nations that had used conventional sales taxes, have converted to VAT.  I'm unaware of any nation that has enacted other sales tax methods since VAT has been generally used by nations.  I'm aware of no nation that had a Vat system and then converted to another method of sales tax administration.
Your paranoiac and perceive socialism within anything you disagree with.

Refer to:
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/financial/value-added-tax-%28i-e-vat%29/

Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Full Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

My understanding of the VAT is a product is taxed at each step of production as value is added to a product or service. That being the case, then a product could be taxed multiple times.