I do not have time to argue with evangelists at the moment. I do not enjoy debate for the sake of debate. A discussion where people are actually listening to one another is one thing, but it seems like people are mainly just waiting for the next cue for *them* to say something. And it doesn't seem fair to argue one point then say whoops, don't have time for this, peace out.
But gawd I hate an empty appeal to authority. Notice that he doesn't say *which* professors, and glosses over the professors on the other side. I seriously have enough to Google without pulling up links that nobody will click, and will go back to staying out of the tread after this. But since I already *have* failed to bit my tongue I'll mention a couple of points that have not arisen yet -- or if they have I missed them, but I *have* been reading the thread. Then I go poof. The thing is, no matter where you set the standard, it takes some amount of money to live. The cost of a "decent" lifestyle might be $25k or it might be $40k. Or 100. It's really a matter of definition. Generally people define some sort of poverty level below which they "excuse" people. I see it this way: define a number at which people begin to have disposable income. In other words, the point where they can buy, oh, dinner at a nice restaurant, without having to worry about whether the expense will make it hard to pay the electric bill. Or whatever. The level will differ depending on whether we are talking about $10 expenses or $50 expenses or $1000 expenses. I'm arbitrarily setting that level at $50k a year, though that is not poverty, because it doesn't have to be, and also because I am lazy and I don't have time for this. Makes the math easy. So. From the micro-economic perspective: Above that level, the fair tax gets seen as a great idea because it reduces the outlay on taxes. It really does seem to boil down to that. Also, at this level the reduction in paperwork for tax compliance would be significant. It's a win here, and requires no special effort or accommodation. Right around 50k, fair tax proposals as I understand them might provide incentives to buy say a used car not a new one, and to come up with small schemes to reduce the tax burden by doing this or that, some equivalent of spending a Saturday afternoon at Costco in the next state. Yes yes I realize that example is for state sales taxes... I just can't think of my own example right now. What I am trying to say is that it becomes worthwhile to buy a slightly less shiny product or to put up with a couple of hours of hassle to get a better outcome. That better outcome is possible and perhaps needed. But at $50k the person probably has more money in their pocket overall, so it's still a win. Once you get significantly below 50k the problems start. By our definitions this person does not have enough money to live, and we are going to reduce that by a further 10%. The usual refutations of this are that this person isn't buying new products anyway and that necessities like food and housing won't be taxed. Y-e-e-s-s....Also there is apparently going to be some sort of tracking of who bought what to make sure these people don't pay too much. Say what? This is not a small-government proposal. Everyone gets their own minder checking the total of their purchases? Cause... this is not going to be a case of oh yeah the poor, we will have social programs for them. Let me say it again. They are going to check to make sure people aren't paying more than a certain amount of their income. Which means an ENORMOUS financial accounting. Not to mention disclosure. And isn't this going to have to be across the board? So that happy guy in the first category has a problem too -- he just doesn't see it coming. Ok, well, he can probably pay someone to manage his paperwork for him. Below 50k people are working multiple jobs and have kids in daycare maybe; they are already starved for time. Here the paperwork risks becoming catastrophic. And that's before we consider the possibility of somebody getting financially weed-whacked because the government doesn't consider that his daughter's prom dress or whatever *really* needed to be bought new, and won't credit the purchase, or deducts the price of it from the rebate that is supposed to generate from somewhere somehow, protecting him from the effects of this tax system. Oh the places we'll go ;) On the macro side: I can't see how this makes sense. Current taxpayers will pay markedly On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Cameron Childress <camer...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yeah, Gruss. Professors. You should trust them ;) > > I have noticed you keeping your distance this time around... ;) > > -Cameron > > ... > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:340086 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
