So Fildel Castro calls it quits.

[Khamsin]

capitalism is about equality of opportunity.

how?

I think he means something like this:

All major successful enterprises started at the bottom. Microsoft, for example, started with Bill Gates and friends messing around with some electronics in his mom's basement. Anybody could have come up with Microsoft, or Yahoo, or Google, etc. Obviously, today, it's a little late for anyone else so you can't expect that everyone has an equal opportunity to be the next CEO of Google. But they all started somewhere, and everybody has equal opportunity to be that person to found the next new big company.

You could look at the entertainment industry this way, too. Take a random starving artist musician. Most won't end up making it big. Most will probably either move onto something else, or end up on street corners collecting tips. Some will get local gigs and make a few bucks, and will get by. Very few will strike it rich with a lucrative recording contract and be the next big celebrity. Nonetheless, it can happen to anyone.

The government has no say in who is more likely to be successful, and in that respect, it's an equality of opportunity.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You've proven yourself even more of a bigoted idiot in this thread with your hatred of democracy.

I have no clue where I've stated/implied I hate democracy.

do you consider communism the polar opposite of democracy?

I've never thought about it to be honest.

Do you think democracy is synonymous with capitalism?

Generally, sure.

What you seem to want is a far-right totalitarianism.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem if you think totalitarianism is what I want. I don't know how you could have gotten that out of anything I've ever said. Hell, I re-ignited this thread posting a video that goes against that.

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of.

I understand the Fairtax pretty well. In that last thread I didn't understand one thing, average propensity to save, which is an economic principle that doesn't even apply to the Fairtax. I also understand everything in this thread so far as well.

Edit: Just as an aside, why do people use the term "Far right totalitarianism?" I thought the further right you went the less government you advocated, so how do you suddenly jump to that?

[Charla]

That's really only the popular conception of the political "left to right" spectrum. I think the actual definition is more specific, and not quite the same thing as advocating more or less government. Totalitarian governments can be either right or left wing, the important part is control over the citizens' lives.

[aurik]

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of.

I understand the Fairtax pretty well. In that last thread I didn't understand one thing, average propensity to save, which is an economic principle that doesn't even apply to the Fairtax. I also understand everything in this thread so far as well.

Lol? Propensity to save has everything to do with why the so-called fairtax fails and fails hard.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Ug, hwg...

When I said I understood it, I said I understood it like this and you didn't disagree.

If someone makes 20k one year, 30k the next, 40k the next, etc...each year they save more of the 10k they made each year, not more of their total salary. So the first year the person might spend all 20k, the next year all 30k, but the next year $39,900, and the next $49,800. I don't see how that applies to the Fairtax because it's a one time switch, and even if it wasn't, people don't consume less with APS.

[guartz]

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of.

I understand the Fairtax pretty well. In that last thread I didn't understand one thing, average propensity to save, which is an economic principle that doesn't even apply to the Fairtax. I also understand everything in this thread so far as well.

Lol? Propensity to save has everything to do with why the so-called fairtax fails and fails hard.

I see what you are saying. Since it encourages people to not spend, the system is bad for this economy. Right? That's the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

[aurik]

Ug, hwg...

When I said I understood it, I said I understood it like this and you didn't disagree.

If someone makes 20k one year, 30k the next, 40k the next, etc...each year they save more of the 10k they made each year, not more of their total salary. So the first year the person might spend all 20k, the next year all 30k, but the next year $39,900, and the next $49,800. I don't see how that applies to the Fairtax because it's a one time switch, and even if it wasn't, people don't consume less with APS.

And you misunderstand how APS impacts Fairtax even though I provided you a solid example of why it's not fair at all.

[aurik]

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of.

I understand the Fairtax pretty well. In that last thread I didn't understand one thing, average propensity to save, which is an economic principle that doesn't even apply to the Fairtax. I also understand everything in this thread so far as well.

Lol? Propensity to save has everything to do with why the so-called fairtax fails and fails hard.

I see what you are saying. Since it encourages people to not spend, the system is bad for this economy. Right? That's the only interpretation that makes sense to me.

Well, Fairtax does discourage consumption, that's another criticism that I hadn't even bothered to bring up.

The point I was making that repeatedly flies over Swamp's head is that if you tax people on what they spend, you're effectively shifting the tax burden away from the rich and onto the middle/lower-middle class.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

How does it discourage consumption if prices are the same?

As far as the middle class thing, you'd be right if only the income tax were repealed, Bush's 2005 tax panel concluded that, but the Fairtax repeals payroll taxes as well.

[aurik]

How does it discourage consumption if prices are the same?

Because non-spent (or not LOCALLY spent) income isn't taxed?

As far as the middle class thing, you'd be right if only the income tax were repealed, Bush's 2005 tax panel concluded that, but the Fairtax repeals payroll taxes as well.

No, I'm correct regardless of if income tax was repealed or not.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

People are suddenly going to stop buying HDTV's because there is a tax on them? Even though the price is the same?

No, I'm correct regardless of if income tax was repealed or not.

And I say your correct if only the income tax was repealed, but it's not. I think Income tax rate + payroll tax rates > 23% of what you spend.

[aurik]

People are suddenly going to stop buying HDTV's because there is a tax on them? Even though the price is the same?

No, people are going to favor spending their money in non-taxed areas (see: foreign purchases, private purchases, or not spending it at all)

No, I'm correct regardless of if income tax was repealed or not.

And I say your correct if only the income tax was repealed, but it's not. I think Income tax rate + payroll tax rates > 23% of what you spend.

And you don't understand even though I gave you a very clear example. Here, let me put it in terms you might understand:

You are a fucking moron when it comes to economics and therefore you should refrain from engaging in debates about tax policy

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

People are suddenly going to stop buying HDTV's because there is a tax on them? Even though the price is the same?

No, people are going to favor spending their money in non-taxed areas (see: foreign purchases, private purchases, or not spending it at all)

I don't know of any country in the world that produces goods without a tax component in the price, under the Fairtax we would have no tax component built into our prices, thus producing cheaper goods. And for the other two things people might, but thank goodness for a broader tax base.

And you don't understand even though I gave you a very clear example.

What clear example?

[aurik]

It's basic economics that for each extra dollar a person earns, the amount of that dollar they spend decreases monotonically. So while a middle-class worker may spend 80% of his income, and thereby endures an effective consumption tax rate of .23 * .8 = .184, a wealthy worker may spend 40% of his income, and thereby endures an effective consumption tax rate of .23 * .4 = .092. Thus, the middle-class worker spends 98.4% of his income after tax, while the wealthy worker spends 49.2%. Compare this to a bracketed income-tax system, where the middle-class worker would be paying maybe 15% tax, allowing him to save 5%, and the wealthy worker 20%, allowing the wealthy worker to save 40% of his income.

[Charla]

The way I heard it, Fairtax wouldn't apply to the secondary market (ebay, craigslist, possibly Gamestop and Fry's "refurbished" section, etc.), just for a realistic example of a non-taxed area.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I went back and read that. I wasn't sure if that was it. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I'll attempt this one before I go to bed.

Someone who makes 100k right now, the average tax rate across all of their income is 23.7% although they fall into the 33% bracket. They will pay $23,700 total in income taxes. Social Security taxes would be $5,394 and medicare taxes would be $1,450. Thats $30,544 in total taxes leaving $69,456. Under the Fairtax the rebate would be $2,348 so the person would have $102,348. The tax on that comes out to be $23,540, if they spend all of their money. (The Fairtax site has $21k something but it doesn't matter.)

The Fairtax doesn't apply to anything that's already had the Fairtax paid on it Charla, so your right it wouldn't.

[Charla]

It's basic economics that for each extra dollar a person earns, the amount of that dollar they spend decreases monotonically.

...if they spend all of their money.

I sense a discrepancy.

[aurik]

I went back and read that. I wasn't sure if that was it. I'm not sure what the best response is, but I'll attempt this one before I go to bed.

Someone who makes 100k right now, the average tax rate across all of their income is 23.7% although they fall into the 33% bracket. They will pay $23,700 total in income taxes. Social Security taxes would be $5,394 and medicare taxes would be $1,450. Thats $30,544 in total taxes leaving $69,456. Under the Fairtax the rebate would be $2,348 so the person would have $102,348. The tax on that comes out to be $23,540, if they spend all of their money. (The Fairtax site has $21k something but it doesn't matter.)

The Fairtax doesn't apply to anything that's already had the Fairtax paid on it Charla, so your right it wouldn't.

How about instead of inventing your own situation, you respond to the one I posed.

[Vistani]

I have no clue where I've stated/implied I hate democracy.

I actually have no intention of debating it. I've come to the conclusion that people who believe in communism/socialism have no faith in freedom, liberty, or capitalism.

Everybody else is wrong. They don't deserve an opinion. Other beliefs are wrong.

Do you think democracy is synonymous with capitalism?

Generally, sure.

...

What you seem to want is a far-right totalitarianism.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem if you think totalitarianism is what I want. I don't know how you could have gotten that out of anything I've ever said. Hell, I re-ignited this thread posting a video that goes against that.

I used the term totalitarianism wrongly here, what I meant was a dictatorship. The point I'm trying to get across is the same though, you would simply rather if those with opposing political views didn't have a say.

Maybe you should stop paraphrasing shit you don't understand whatsoever, i.e. exactly what happened in the thread where you argued for fairtax, a system you clearly don't actually understand the implications of.

I understand the Fairtax pretty well. In that last thread I didn't understand one thing, average propensity to save, which is an economic principle that doesn't even apply to the Fairtax. I also understand everything in this thread so far as well.

No, you don't. Thanks for making a complete moron of yourself in this thread too on this very issue so I don't have to go hunting for quotes.

Edit: Just as an aside, why do people use the term "Far right totalitarianism?" I thought the further right you went the less government you advocated, so how do you suddenly jump to that?

What do these two completely seperate things have to do with each other?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

How about instead of inventing your own situation, you respond to the one I posed.

Alright. So I did the math with prebate calculated in and the effective tax rate for the person in your example was actually .101, if I did it right. If they have another person in the household, their tax rate drops well below the wealthy person in your example, if I did it right.

So the effective tax rate might be higher, but I wonder what the greater amount is $12,200x.23 (You said a 15% tax rate. That means they make $28,400 a year, the first $10,210 of spending goes untaxed. .8x$28,400=$22,720 minus the untaxed $10,210=$12,200.) or .4x(insert wealthy persons income)x.23? And regardless, the person in your example still pays less in taxes under the Fairtax. In this example they paid $2,806 in taxes under the Fairtax. They pay about $4,786 now. Why is that so bad? The effective tax rate seems like more of a psychological thing than a bad thing really.