The FairTax

[Avinor]

I really don't think illegal immigrants are the wellspring of tax revenue you're making them out to be. And since when was pornography underground?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm not sure, it was just listed in that classification. Even if illegals aren't worth that much revenue, surely the underground economy is.

[evilbau]

It does not disallow rights and powers which are not explicitly codified in the Constitution or its amendments.

Actually, it does. Unless I'm not understanding that correctly.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Constitutionality of Social Security was upheld by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis. They upheld based on the 'general welfare' clause and was generally credited with saving the aging poor.

The thing is, you can't not talk about foreign policy when talking about domestic affairs, because it all ties in together. Do you know our economy is going to shit right now? All the borrowing and the Fed printing money is fucking us over.
Right now the Feds are increasing the money supply by the billions these few days to make wall street look all pretty and nice. But you believe we should police the world, I don't so that's that.

No offense, but that is a really shallow analysis of our economy. The Fed lowered rates to spur growth and curb the effects of the dot.com bust which spread to other markets (really all equities). Years later, they raised rates to curb inflation and try to ease the flow of cheap credit. Then the adjustable rate loans started to reset and everyone who got ARMs based on shoddy underwriting started defaulting (and will continue to happen in the next 5 years probably). To prevent a complete meltdown of the entire credit market, they lowered rates again (which leads to more lending, or creation of money which is what we are seeing now). This again will create inflation (as we are continuing to see with the weakening of the dollar) but it was done to prevent the classic run on the banks. The Fed is doing it to try to save our economy and you taking a sideways glance at what they are doing or repeating some rhetoric and making some judgments when in reality they are trying to do a lot more than 'make wall street look all pretty and nice.'

After seeing the FEMA failure, I don't know how anyone can still believe spending all that money on it is a good thing. The problem with Hurricane Katrina was that FEMA made the state serve them. FEMA made people not able to go to their own homes, took away their guns, which they had legally and more. FEMA shouldn't be the first response to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. The state should be. I'm sure the state knows more about their own state than the federal government. The federal government should be serving the state, not the other way around. The federal government should helping the state by asking what they need, not telling them what to do. What I believe is, instead of wasting money on FEMA, we should have resources set aside for these disasters. When the disasters occur, the federal government would be there to assist the states, but what we have right now is the other way around and I think it's a failure.

I'm going to agree with you there (especially about having money set aside for disasters). But one interpretation of the events (which is heavily anti-President Bush) is that the situation worsened due to the inaction of the federal government. Where was the states then? They expected the federal government's. President Bush, a Republican, probably has a similar view to yours and expected the states to handle the situation, with federal help upon request. That didn't get the job done, and became a huge black eye on his administration. He gets too much blame for the federal govt's response, but it should pretty clearly show that this should not be left up to the states.

[evilbau]

Bah you edited after I responded. Some of the smartest economists beg to differ on that bolded part. Now let me provide some numbers for you. The underground economy accounts for 10% of our GDP. The IRS loses $345 Billion every year in lost taxes. On average Americans pay $2,000 extra to make up for this. One economist estimates that Illicit drugs, illegal labor, and pornography constitutes an underground economy that exceeds $1 Trillion, just from those 3 things alone. With the Fairtax all of those people will be paying taxes, so yes, I think it will be the same revenue collected.

Source? Also, 345 billion (plus 250 billion in corporate taxes 'offset') still doesn't get you up to 1.1 trillion (individual) + 250ish (corporate).

[Avinor]

I'm not sure, it was just listed in that classification. Even if illegals aren't worth that much revenue, surely the underground economy is.

I'd be a bit worried about the relevancy/accuracy/legitimacy of said classification if pornography is listed as underground. Was it written up in 1920?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It does not disallow rights and powers which are not explicitly codified in the Constitution or its amendments.

Actually, it does. Unless I'm not understanding that correctly.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Constitutionality of Social Security was upheld by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis. They upheld based on the 'general welfare' clause and was generally credited with saving the aging poor.

Social Security may be constitutional right now, but it goes against original intent, and if the 16th amendmant were repealed it would be unconstitional.

Edit: Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have no problem with social security, I just have a problem with the government thinking it knows what to do with my money and being forced to participate in it. People should have the choice.

[aurik]

Failing to be charitable to the lower class leads to poverty, poverty leads to crime. Enjoy spending all the money you save on armed guards and gated neighbourhoods.

and be safer from the criminals that already exist?

Enlarge the poverty class, enlarge the poverty-driven crime. You should take a look at South Africa some time: great place to live, if you have money and don't mind hiring armed guards round-the-clock.

[Fyrie]

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Constitutionality of Social Security was upheld by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis. They upheld based on the 'general welfare' clause and was generally credited with saving the aging poor.

I was talking about the income tax. I have an libertarian view on that and that is:

"A libertarian viewpoint proposes the existence of a natural right to "enjoy all the fruits of one's own labor" (previously protected, some libertarians claim, by the Ninth Amendment). Taxation of income is argued to be an infringement on that right."

No offense, but that is a really shallow analysis of our economy. The Fed lowered rates to spur growth and curb the effects of the dot.com bust which spread to other markets (really all equities). Years later, they raised rates to curb inflation and try to ease the flow of cheap credit. Then the adjustable rate loans started to reset and everyone who got ARMs based on shoddy underwriting started defaulting (and will continue to happen in the next 5 years probably). To prevent a complete meltdown of the entire credit market, they lowered rates again (which leads to more lending, or creation of money which is what we are seeing now). This again will create inflation (as we are continuing to see with the weakening of the dollar) but it was done to prevent the classic run on the banks. The Fed is doing it to try to save our economy and you taking a sideways glance at what they are doing or repeating some rhetoric and making some judgments when in reality they are trying to do a lot more than 'make wall street look all pretty and nice.'

No, it doesn't just make wall street look all pretty and nice. It makes the rich wall street investors happy while the "inflation tax" eats away at the middle class and lower class. Quite a few economists have recommended letting the economy run its course because this will only prolong the "prosperity" that we have.

Before you talk about helping the poor with government hand outs, you first need to know why they are in the lower class and why they aren't climbing out of it. The reason they can't climb out of it, is because of the government printing money fucking over the poor, the "inflation tax."

I'm going to agree with you there (especially about having money set aside for disasters). But one interpretation of the events (which is heavily anti-President Bush) is that the situation worsened due to the inaction of the federal government. Where was the states then? They expected the federal government's. President Bush, a Republican, probably has a similar view to yours and expected the states to handle the situation, with federal help upon request. That didn't get the job done, and became a huge black eye on his administration. He gets too much blame for the federal govt's response, but it should pretty clearly show that this should not be left up to the states.

Bolded part was the exact problem. It shouldn't be like that. And I don't know how it shows that it shouldn't be left up to the states because when it happened it was left up to the federal government.

[evilbau]

It does not disallow rights and powers which are not explicitly codified in the Constitution or its amendments.

Actually, it does. Unless I'm not understanding that correctly.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Constitutionality of Social Security was upheld by the Supreme Court in Helvering v. Davis. They upheld based on the 'general welfare' clause and was generally credited with saving the aging poor.

Social Security may be constitutional right now, but it goes against original intent, and if the 16th amendmant were repealed it would be unconstitional.

Edit: Just so you don't get the wrong idea, I have no problem with social security, I just have a problem with the government thinking it knows what to do with my money and being forced to participate in it. People should have the choice.

I'm still pretty sure Social Security will hold up even without the 16th amendment. Quoted from wiki (I checked their sources)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has indicated that the Social Security Act has a moral purpose and should be liberally interpreted in favor of claimants when deciding what counted as covered wages for purposes of meeting the quarters of coverage requirement to make a worker eligible for benefits.[39] That court has also stated: ". . . [T]he regulations should be liberally applied in favor of beneficiaries" when deciding a case in favor of a felon who had his disability payments retroactively terminated upon incarceration.[40] According to the court, that the Social Security Act "should be liberally construed in favor of those seeking its benefits can not be doubted."[41] “The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.”[42]

I was talking about the income tax. I have an libertarian view on that and that is:

"A libertarian viewpoint proposes the existence of a natural right to "enjoy all the fruits of one's own labor" (previously protected, some libertarians claim, by the Ninth Amendment). Taxation of income is argued to be an infringement on that right."

Except that the quoted Article 1 Section 8 still allows taxation. We are going in circles so I will leave it at that.

No offense, but that is a really shallow analysis of our economy. The Fed lowered rates to spur growth and curb the effects of the dot.com bust which spread to other markets (really all equities). Years later, they raised rates to curb inflation and try to ease the flow of cheap credit. Then the adjustable rate loans started to reset and everyone who got ARMs based on shoddy underwriting started defaulting (and will continue to happen in the next 5 years probably). To prevent a complete meltdown of the entire credit market, they lowered rates again (which leads to more lending, or creation of money which is what we are seeing now). This again will create inflation (as we are continuing to see with the weakening of the dollar) but it was done to prevent the classic run on the banks. The Fed is doing it to try to save our economy and you taking a sideways glance at what they are doing or repeating some rhetoric and making some judgments when in reality they are trying to do a lot more than 'make wall street look all pretty and nice.'

No, it doesn't just make wall street look all pretty and nice. It makes the rich wall street investors happy while the "inflation tax" eats away at the middle class and lower class. Quite a few economists have recommended letting the economy run its course because this will only prolong the "prosperity" that we have.

Before you talk about helping the poor with government hand outs, you first need to know why they are in the lower class and why they aren't climbing out of it. The reason they can't climb out of it, is because of the government printing money fucking over the poor, the "inflation tax."

Sure inflation is hurting the poor but the Fed has a higher mandate than helping them. You are quick to judge 'wall street investors' for making money off the situation but you aren't looking at it from a macroeconomic viewpoint. Would you still recommend 'letting the economy run its course' if you realized a possible scenario to be a complete meltdown of the bond and stock markets, destruction of credit as we know it, and loss of faith in the US Dollar (only backed by the now damaged 'Full Faith And Credit of the United States'). The possibility of runs on banks (which will essentially bankrupt them) and an uncertain future regarding our debt is not something we should just let play itself out. Then there is a real risk of foreign countries liquidating US Treasury Bonds, which would seriously hurt their own economy too, but might be a wise move for them if they no longer have any faith in the US. People right now think this is a likely doomsday scenario (i don't), but its the Fed's mandate to prevent it. 'Letting it run its course' makes it a much greater possibility.

edit x2: fixed quoting

[kareface]

I found this a while ago. I'm sure some of the people here have seen it, or something like it. I see someone in supports Ron Paul, and hes in this video. Check it out when you get the chance.

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=U_vLTSWpQcY
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=L0l9i2yOs5Y
Part 3: http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgMFQ24rz8k
Part 4: http://youtube.com/watch?v=mMS7Gw4_1Uc
Part 5: http://youtube.com/watch?v=N8uSK6qufWg
Part 6: http://youtube.com/watch?v=glhkrsToQpk

Some of it is interesting.

[Fyrie]

Except that the quoted Article 1 Section 8 still allows taxation. We are going in circles so I will leave it at that.

Yes, it allows taxes, but the income tax violates our natural rights.

Sure inflation is hurting the poor but the Fed has a higher mandate than helping them. You are quick to judge 'wall street investors' for making money off the situation but you aren't looking at it from a macroeconomic viewpoint. Would you still recommend 'letting the economy run its course' if you realized a possible scenario to be a complete meltdown of the bond and stock markets, destruction of credit as we know it, and loss of faith in the US Dollar (only backed by the now damaged 'Full Faith And Credit of the United States'). The possibility of runs on banks (which will essentially bankrupt them) and an uncertain future regarding our debt is not something we should just let play itself out. Then there is a real risk of foreign countries liquidating US Treasury Bonds, which would seriously hurt their own economy too, but might be a wise move for them if they no longer have any faith in the US. People right now think this is a likely doomsday scenario (i don't), but its the Fed's mandate to prevent it. 'Letting it run its course' makes it a much greater possibility.

This is why we need an asset backed currency. This makes it so the government can't devalue money artificially.

[evilbau]

Except that the quoted Article 1 Section 8 still allows taxation. We are going in circles so I will leave it at that.

Yes, it allows taxes, but the income tax violates our natural rights.

[quote:c42f9]Sure inflation is hurting the poor but the Fed has a higher mandate than helping them. You are quick to judge 'wall street investors' for making money off the situation but you aren't looking at it from a macroeconomic viewpoint. Would you still recommend 'letting the economy run its course' if you realized a possible scenario to be a complete meltdown of the bond and stock markets, destruction of credit as we know it, and loss of faith in the US Dollar (only backed by the now damaged 'Full Faith And Credit of the United States'). The possibility of runs on banks (which will essentially bankrupt them) and an uncertain future regarding our debt is not something we should just let play itself out. Then there is a real risk of foreign countries liquidating US Treasury Bonds, which would seriously hurt their own economy too, but might be a wise move for them if they no longer have any faith in the US. People right now think this is a likely doomsday scenario (i don't), but its the Fed's mandate to prevent it. 'Letting it run its course' makes it a much greater possibility.

This is why we need an asset backed currency. This makes it so the government can't devalue money artificially.[/quote:c42f9]

But that will limit our growth. It takes a lot of gold to represent the full wealth of the united states. Then it becomes a question of 1. owning gold haha, 2. how much gold can we find/buy. why tie our currency to something so arbitrary as gold? or any one thing else for that matter? It was a good move to not have the gold standard anymore.

[Fyrie]

It was a good move for the rich investors and bankers, but not for everyday people. I said asset backed, not gold or any one thing. Just because you don't know how much it fucks over the middle and lower class doesn't mean it's a good thing.

edit:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
This is a very good video about our monetary system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56PMOvsaSA
This is Ron Paul talking about the "inflation tax."

[evilbau]

It was a good move for the rich investors and bankers, but not for everyday people. I said asset backed, not gold or any one thing. Just because you don't know how much it fucks over the middle and lower class doesn't mean it's a good thing.

edit:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iYZM58dulPE
This is a very good video about our monetary system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56PMOvsaSA
This is Ron Paul talking about the "inflation tax."

those videos are pretty funny. If you believe most of what they say, more power to you, but it is ridiculous. If you want to bring up any individual points, I'd be happy to refute them.

Inflation hits the middle and lower classes the hardest but its the price you pay for loans/credit. Do you believe credit is evil too? lol People become enslaved to debt and interest payments because they aren't careful with credit, but it allows you use your credit worthiness as leverage. Lots of wealth was generated through loans/leveraged debt (business loans, mortgages) which would slow to a crawl with an asset-backed currency. You see how fast this nation's economy grinds to a halt when you have to own enough gold or any other asset to represent the full wealth of the United States. The value of gold sky-rocketed after we were taken off the gold standard, and you know that was because the price/exchange rate was artificially depressed by the fact it was backing dollars. What happened was people were using gold for its real uses (as a extremely malleable conductor and jewelry) at cheaper than its true value. If it were to go for long enough, people wouldn't use it as a medium of trade at all, but as a cheap material because it will never be more valuable than the dollars it represents. I'm singling out gold because we have a history with it, but the same would be for any other asset.

You have been taken in by these 'crusaders' who bemoan the negatives of our current system but completely ignore the severe consequences of their own ideas. I don't believe in stunting the growth of the US Economy.

Edit: You said its not good for 'everyday people' but obviously you don't understand the relationship between interest rates, credit, and the loan process, or you don't care about the positive effects. Taking us off the gold standard allowed more credit creation which increases the velocity of money and spurs growth. Any intelligent, responsible person with good credit standing can leverage themselves and use it to their advantage and create their wealth: the American Dream. I believe it has done an enormous amount of good and helped lots of families.

Personally, I don't feel the fear or uneasinesses libertarians experience with having a currency that is backed by nothing material. Calling for an asset-backed currency is an attempt to assuage individuals' insecurities.

[evilbau]

From wiki:

Effects of gold-backed currency

The commitment to maintain gold convertibility tightly restrains credit creation. Credit creation by banking entities under a gold standard threatens the convertibility of the notes they have issued, and consequently leads to undesirable gold outflows from that bank. The result of a failure of confidence produces a run on the specie basis, which is generally responded to by the bankers suspending specie payments. Hence, notes circulating in any “partial” gold standard will either be redeemed for their face value of gold (which would be higher than its actual value) — this constitutes a “bank run;” or the market value of such notes will be viewed as less than a gold coin representing the same amount.

Many nations back their economies by holding gold reserves. These reserves are not intended to redeem notes, but are retained as a hard liquid asset to protect against hyperinflation. Gold advocates claim that this extra step would no longer be necessary since the currency itself would have its own intrinsic store of value. A Gold Standard then is generally promoted by those who regard a stable store of value as the most important element to business confidence.

It is generally opposed by the vast majority of governments and economists, because the gold standard has frequently been shown to provide insufficient flexibility in the supply of money and in fiscal policy, because the supply of newly mined gold is finite and must be carefully husbanded and accounted for.
A single country may also not be able to isolate its economy from depression or inflation in the rest of the world. In addition, the process of adjustment for a country with a payments deficit can be long and painful whenever an increase in unemployment or decline in the rate of economic expansion occurs.

One of the foremost opponents of the gold standard was John Maynard Keynes who scorned basing the money supply on “dead metal.” Keynesians argue that the gold standard creates deflation which intensifies recessions as people are unwilling to spend money as prices fall, thus creating a downward spiral of economic activity. They also argue that the gold standard also removes the ability of governments to fight recessions by increasing the money supply to boost economic growth.

Wiki is not the best source but it sums up the points. The bolded part is where the insecurities lie

edit: to add this

The total amount of gold that has ever been mined is surprisingly small - about 125,000 tonnes.

If all of it were stacked up in one place, it could be fitted into a small basketball hall (the stack would be about 18m x 36m x 9m). [1], [2] At current gold price of around $640 per Troy ounce, or around $20,000 per kilogram, the value of this entire planetary stock would be $2.5 trillion, which is less than the value of currency circulating (including bank current account balances) in the US alone. Thus any proposed gold standard would necessarily operate on a fractional reserve basis.

Guess I was right about there not being enough gold in the world Well, we could always pick something else lol. Pick a commodity!

[Khamsin]

Guess I was right about there not being enough gold in the world Well, we could always pick something else lol. Pick a commodity!

Salt! Let's back everything with salt. It's not exactly rare or valuable, but there's plenty of it.

Goodbye, Utah.