Fairtax familiar around here?

so are the people here familiar with the fairtax act? look up fairtax.org and discuss.

Hi, >>40, it's >>39. Did you miss me?

Anyway, I have a little secret to tell you. I've never told anyone else, so don't let the world know, okay? ...I'm not >>35.

Surprising, isn't it?

PS. You really need to brush up on your flaming.

>>41

I understand the concept of World4chan, you fuckwit. I don't care what number you are.

And: HAHAHAHA! "Flaming"? The only thing flaming around here is the horde of AIDS compacted into your asshole by your boyfriend's dick.

This isn't an AOL chatroom, nobody says "flaming" anymore.

>>42 is anti-chan.

Still a repressed fag with anger issues.

>>43

I can understand how you think calling you a cocksucker makes ME a fag. (Yet, you calling me a fag doesn't?) - But what I don't understand is what mechanism you're using to translate anger over the internet.

I can assure you, my delivery is entirely dry. I simply don't take alot of you very seriously.

Why should I?

Excuses, excuses. You're obsessed with buggery, penises, and shit. A large number of posts you've made since you arrived on /newpol/ have some gay innuendo or insult in them.

As for dry, >>37 is you, right? How very dry.

>>45

Maybe you just take all of internet business a bit more seriously than I do. "Buggery", penises, incest- all of this shouldn't translate over as "obsessive" at your age. Especially when you *just* called me a fag. Would it be safe for me to assume that you're obessesed with "anti-chan" or "niggers" or "liberals"? Come on there guy, get over yourself. You are on 4chan.

Maybe if you actually socialized with colorful, open, energetic people like myself (or like, socialized at all)- most of what I say wouldn't even show up on your radar. But nope: You're out there in the trenches man- looking for the profane and more importantly calling people out on it- because it makes you look soooo clean by comparison.

Hahaha. What a looong defence.

>>47

defense*

Failure comes naturally to you, doesn't it?

>>40
Err, so why do you believe that there's this conspiracy to keep the "status quo" intact?  If anything it's just a bunch of incompetent politicians progressing slowly in a stupid direction. 

Someone (or a group of people) with an idea in mind and charisma sufficient to sway the voters could easily destroy the "status quo" in our system.  All it takes is time. 

Anyway, what, if anything, do you support?  All out war on the government?  Good luck in waco, bud. 

>>46
I don't know, it just seems unneccsary in intelligent debate to call your opponent dickless or shit-eating.  Would you like me to call you a nigger who doesn't know anything?  A porch monkey?  Antique farm equipment?

>>50
And it shows how emotionally seriously you're taking the debate too. 

>>35
If they could do it under those circumstances, does it not stand to reason that they could do it now?  Why not? 

>>52
Honestly, I don't believe that corporations are out to enslave mankind.  I mean, that goes against their business model...

>>50

You've obviously done so in the past, why change?

>>49

Huh? Who's talking about a conspiracy? Is your scope for thought really that narrow? Do you remember the sixites at all? Have you at least *read* about the sixites?

>>51

Exactly. *I* don't take people seriously when they point out one PUNCTUATION MISTAKE and claim they couldn't read the entire post.

>>54
#1 Yet again you assign identity to a poster incorrectly.

#2  What? 

#3  You still feel the need to fling your feces around.  Getting into it with cretins who point out stuff like that doesn't exactly make you look like the Duke of Wellington. 

>>54
What I meant in >>49 is that politicians aren't people who try to hold on to power no matter what.  What happens is that they get into power by giving people what they think they want, and the people in turn little by little give them more power to do that. 

>>55

1. Have I? Or do you just not want to own up to some of the comments you may have made?

2. I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to >>49. Sackface.

3. Don't you get it? I don't care how it makes me look to a bunch of guys who freely spew "nigger nigger, porch monkey, liberal, conversative, kike, faggot!"

LOL, you know what? Fuck it: You win. It doesn't even matter.

>>56

Again, you need to google 1960, to understand what I mean. Our government isn't just a bunch of ragtag politians. It's a culture of a certain group of people. (Aristocrats)

Just answer my question.

for those of you wondering what you can do to help get the fairtax passed, you can find details at fairtax.org. essentially they have a petition, and contact information of the people you'd talk to, and either get to support the fairtax, or replace with someone who will.

i'm thinking it may help to put some pressure on state govenments, to adopt a micro version of the fairtax. if any do so, they'll probably thrive and set the precedent for.

more on the probablility of it passing. the current mess of rules ws made by poiliticians who like to use confusion to make themselves look good. seeing fairtax support that isn't shaken by deceptive, or outright dishonest counter-arguments, they'd probably take the hint and see there's no point in supporting the tricky income tax if the voters won't fall for it. though we'd probably do better to replace him if he doesn't take to it.

let me repeat that it's all up to the people of america to choose this change and force it through. some politician won't do it for us. we have to get our elected officials to support it or replace them with someone who will.

Cool your jets 32, this is 35 and the message was directed at 31. Sorry for the mishap, lol.

Furthermore, I know this is 4chan and all, but didn't you think the response made no sense? Why didn't you question whether or not it was addressed to you? It didn't answer your question at all and you could have just ignored it. Instead you launched a barrage of ad hominim attacks. 43 might right about you and anger issues.

>>52
They are doing it now, slowly. I'm just saying fairtax accelerates the problem.
>>53
I don't think it's their intent to enslave mankind either, but their business model is one that is supposed to increase value for shareholders. When there's no more competitors the most obvious way to increase value is to increase prices. Then it would be an objective of corporations to get rid of competition.

>>60
It would be easier to just form a trust with your competitor, and then cooperate.  But they dont' do that now do they?

The reason?  Oh, I dunno, law.

>>61
Have you seen what's happened to SBC and AT&T recently?

>>60
aside from the govenment periodically splitting up monopolies,

the fairtax will probably be better for competition. larger companies have already implemented tax workarounds, know the deductions, and have special interest lobbyists lined up to get more. newer, and smaller buisnesses will have an easier time competing when thier smaller workforce(maybe even one person!) doesn't have to choose between taking a hefty cunk of time out of doing actual work, or making the best of taxes. main effect on competition when the fairtax passes will probably be elimination of a major advantage for larger companies who make the tax code work for them (well, as much as it can, considering the costs it adds)

>>48
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defence

You're an illiterate, anti-chan.

so, here's what i see now, there's no reason NOT to supprt the fairtax. there's no good argument against it.

the fairtax is made to be an antidote to the current tax system which is like a poison to america.

arguing against the antidote is arguing FOR the poison.

this plan was made by economists and researchers, who spent years desighning a better way for the government to collect taxes.

people aren't pertfect, and so they can't make a perfect system, but the fairtax seems to be as close as we can get, and better yet, it's right in-line with american idealisim, so what better plan to run america on?

>>65
I still haven't heard a good rebuttal to >>15 or >>19.

Until I do, this sounds like wankery.

>>15
let's look at this again, i need to swat it DOWN.
i belive you miss the point that the taxed consumption income is OPTIONAL.

it's all down to how much luxuries to buy. the poor can tighten thier belts so thet they're playing the same income tax rate as someone rich will. here's your math:

Imagine:
* I have $2,000,000 dollars a year.
* I need $100,000 to live nicely.
* This leaves me with $1,900,000 dollars to use.
* If I spend it all on goods right now, I can acquire $1,900,000 * (1 - 25% tax) = $1,425,000 worth of goods
* If I invest instead, and it grows by 25% over a number of years, I now have $2,375,000 lying around, just for that year.
* If I now spend that $2,375,000, I can buy $1,781,250 worth of goods. I'm effectively taxed at 6.25%.

this points out that saving and earning interest is a good idea.
necessities atre untaxed by the prebate, so it's up to the individual to decide how much in luxuries they will buy.

meaning: the poor won't be hit harder by the fairtax, it's thier bad spending habits that are hurting them.

next apparently unadressed point. . .

well then that's thier own fault, not the fault of the fairtax.

the fairtax untaxes spending up to the poverty level via the prebate, unlike now where there are taxes imbedded in all you buy, even nescessities.

if this is a second post by >>15, you only pointed out that saving is a good idea.

if people spend all the money they have, when they COULD be saving some of it, it's thier fault, not the fault of the fairtax.

>>1  Sounds like Reganomics. Trickle-Down thoery only made the rich richer.

>>68  Your an idiot. There are only so many houses and new cars a person can buy. After that it's just wealth hording, followed by a stock market crash. The machine needs a constant back and forth of money or it will sieze up.

>>15  Your smart, now figure 30 thousand a year income in expenses and luxuries for the "fair"tax proposal.

>if people spend all the money they have, when they COULD be saving some of it, it's thier fault, not the fault of the fairtax.

Or we could have a progressive income tax, and it will be no one's fault, dumbass.

>>69
looks like we got a communist class warlord here!
seems to me in your eyes anything that's good for the rich is automatically bad for the poor.

your bash of my post at 68 seems to be nothing more than a "saving money is bad!" statement. with a bit of economic paranoia thrown in. you speak of wealth hoarding as if saved money negates all other cash flow, resulting in disaster. as it is now, money is flowing out of the united states, earing interest overseas.

think of this, where do banks get interest money to pay people with savings accounts? essentialy, the deal is, banks let other people borrow your money, and give you a cut of the interest as loans are paid back. so interest-earning bank accounts ARE money flow! only under the current system, people are sending that cash overseas to avoid capital gains taxes, and making that cash flow work for other countries.

think not? then explain how else the bank can pay YOU to keep your money locked safely away in thier secure building.

and how do you define fairness? i see fairness as equal treatment of all parties. thus the fairtax is fair because everone pays the same way, the govenment gets a cut of all thier luxury spending.

and a progressive tax is thusly UNFAIR, because it penalizes you more the more you earn. how would you like to be paid LESS for overtime, and the guy who only works an hour or two on the weekdays to get paid more? that's the way a progressive income tax works, if you work harder to earn more, you get less buck for your bang as higher precentages of siezure of your money penalize the extra effort.

>>71
Tell that to Japan. One reason why their economy is so solidly fucked is that a lot of the money is tied up in savings. In Japanese banks.

Also, most banks I've seen expect you to pay them, they don't pay you. Even though that money is usually being put to use elsewhere, if you have enough money what you get back is below the inflation rate. GJ.

>only under the current system, people are sending that cash overseas to avoid capital gains taxes, and making that cash flow work for other countries.
Can you explain this in more detail. It sounds like strawman tactics to me.

Here's an idea. Rich/high income people tend to be smarter. They tend to think of more ways to save their money. As a result they're the ones that tend to evade/avoid taxes. So punish them. The poor people barely have money to be taxed. They're not squirreling away money to foreign countries. They're keeping the money here. So now you propose a "fair" tax to punish them? Under fair tax poor people get less bang for their buck. That doesn't sound like equal treatment of all parties.

>>60

Hey, there dumb-dumb. Go back to your post and look who you quoted. Thanks for playing, dummy!

>>64

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defense

I'm a what, now?

That's what I thought.

>>74
A complete idiot? They're both right. zOMG!

Amazing, I know...

>>73 yeah, the rich are so evil, how DARE they have the intelligence to earn more money and save that money! anyone who makes good financial decisions is the scum of the earth!
about the only thing the rich do that you mentioned that's actually a vice is using workarounds to reduce thier tax burden, and shifts the burden to the poorer working class.

which is just another reason to switch to the fairtax! that tax evasion will be a LOT harder to pull off, as first of all we don't have the individual filing that we may as well say is working on the honor code, allowing them to earn hidden untaxed income. the tax will be collected as they spend that wealth on thier luxurious lifestyle.

let me let you in on something, the rich don't avoid taxes just for the fun of it, or to specifically hurt the poor, to them it's just a way to save money. fairtax evasion would be considerably more difficult, or even cost more money than it saves. for example, say you were rich and wanted to get your stretch limo painted, but didn't want to pay the fairtax on it. you'd have to ship it out of country to avoid the tax, would the time and money spent doing so cost less than the fairtax potion? or you'd have to dig for someone who will risk legal action just to lower prices for thier customers, whith no direct benefit to themselves.

your argument is compries ENTIRELY of spite and class warfare. which is how we got this horrid income tax system that just doesn't work.

consider this: your argument is that the rich will pay a smaller percent of thier income in taxes. and is thus worse than the current system which REALLY crushes the working class. a chunk of thier income is automatically seized from what they earn, and they're paying about the same prices they'd pay under the fairtax, only they don't get a prebate to compensate for the embedded taxes on thier nesscessities. whereas the rich get thier income from souces that don't automatically ship the cash to uncle sam, and need only to hide those earnings to avoid paying taxes on it.

you know, it's really funny, because you're arguing backwards. the fairtax would crush tax evasion, and the rich would finally be paying thier share via thier luxury spending.

your argument is compries ENTIRELY of spite and class warfare.

Why do you think there's class warfare? Why do you think you can live the life you do today? If it wasn't for class warfare we'd still all be serfs, you damn fool.

And no, rich is not equal to goody good (you are from the US). Few people get rich by playing the rules; most get rich by being lucky amoral assholes. If you think otherwise, you're a naive kid who has never been in the workforce.

>>77
>>73
>>72
>>70
so, can you do anything other than pick at a single sentance of one of my posts, disagree and sage? try downing my whole argument. oh wait, you can't. because all my other points are apparently too solid for you to even MENTION.

you're arguing that the fairtax would be bad for the poor, when it simply isn't true, because the CURRENT tax system is the one that's crushing the poor. let me quote mayself:

consider this: your argument is that the rich will pay a smaller percent of thier income in taxes. and is thus worse than the current system, which REALLY crushes the working class. a chunk of thier income is automatically seized from what they earn, and they're paying about the same prices they'd pay under the fairtax, only they don't get a prebate to compensate for the embedded taxes on thier nesscessities. whereas the rich get thier income from souces that don't automatically ship the cash to uncle sam, and need only to hide those earnings to avoid paying taxes on it.

you know, it's really funny, because you're arguing backwards. the fairtax would crush tax evasion, and the rich would finally be paying thier share via thier luxury spending.

(77)>"And no, rich is not equal to goody good (you are from the US). Few people get rich by playing the rules; most get rich by being lucky amoral assholes. If you think otherwise, you're a naive kid who has never been in the workforce."

and how much of that is because of a tax system that punishes honest achivements, and inderectly rewards criminal and overseas activity via dodging the income tax?

"Why do you think there's class warfare? Why do you think you can live the life you do today? If it wasn't for class warfare we'd still all be serfs, you damn fool."

to awnser:
spite and envy,
american free enterprize.
and true, but slavery is illegal in america, and the rich don't OWN the poor. so presently there's no real call for class warfare.

because all my other points are apparently too solid for you to even MENTION.

Show me the math. >>15 has demonstrated why it shouldn't work. Now it's your turn.

I don't care what you say, the only thing that can convince me is numbers.

>>77
Most people get rich by inheriting their parents money.