Ted Cruz's Flat Tax Plan

[IDBillzFan]

Ok, I think I covered the last questions. Now I'll shut up and listen, and maybe learn a thing or two from you fine folks. Cheers

 

No. You still haven't covered mine here. They're genuine questions that will contribute to the whole 'learn a thing or two" bit you're hoping for.

[Azalin]

 

No. You still haven't covered mine here. They're genuine questions that will contribute to the whole 'learn a thing or two" bit you're hoping for.

 

None of mine have been addressed either. On the plus side, he least he doesn't call us poop-heads.

[/dev/null]

 

If it were decided by our elected representatives, who we voted in, that Bill Gates' wife's purse should be stolen and given to the homeless, then I guess so be it. Though, I think that's a pretty messy way to apply wealth re-distribution for the sake of improving society as a whole.

And there's our fundamental difference.

 

I think people should be encouraged to work, and be productive. But I'm not about to subscribe a death sentence to those that don't want to work. I'm also not about to reward them with anything more than a bunk bed in a homeless shelter, and some pretty basic meals.

 

[starrymessenger]

Hume would say that 51% is not mob rule but quite simply by definition the rule of the majority.

But I know many if not most Americans feel differently about it. Seems to be in your national DNA viz the second amendment.

Thou art a stiff-necked people.

[Nanker]

How many Americans died this week because they were hungry and starved to death?

[DC Tom]

How many Americans died this week because they were hungry and starved to death?

 

Probably about 20. Mostly the very aged who stopped eating, sometimes children badly abused and starved by their parents.

 

No one tracks it reliably in the US (which itself is an indication of the rarity), so estimates range from 100 to 3000 starvation deaths in the US annually. But almost universally either "voluntarily" (old people stop eating), or "abusive" (dependents not being fed or having food withheld by their caretakers.) The one thing all the estimates agree on is that the incidence of an otherwise healthy, capable person starving for lack of access to food in the US is virtually zero.

[meazza]

Ends justify the means. Again, I stop well short of the idea that everyone should have the same, and be rewarded equally for their work. But I also, at the same time, believe that we have enough collective wealth and resources that we can ensure a certain minimum standard of living. There is plenty of wiggle room in between the extremes of economies and politics to figure out the right balance.

 

Come and talk to me when you're paying 50%+ income tax, 15.5% sales tax, etc.

 

Then you'll change your mind.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Hume would say that 51% is not mob rule but quite simply by definition the rule of the majority.

But I know many if not most Americans feel differently about it. Seems to be in your national DNA viz the second amendment.

Thou art a stiff-necked people.

David Hume was an abject moron, educated well beyond the capacities of his intelligence. Major portions of his entire thesis have been necessarily discarded by modern utilitarian thought. To wit: the "harm principal" has been discarded within the philosophy, as it was reasoned that all future harm, representing an perceivably infinite quantity, could be dispensed with by simply disposing of all humanity in the now.

 

However, even with the removal of the "harm principal", there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can't be logically and morally justified through gradual and progressive utilitarianism. Utilitarianism subverts all other moralities and rights constructs, and permits them only in-so-far as they report to it's own internal constructs. The individual does not exist within the construct, but rather only the nebulous "51%" in utilitarian democracy. As such, the individual cannot be said to have rights or protections of any sort, as their purpose is always subverted to the greater benefit of everyone who is not themselves.

 

Further, this is not even the greatest crime of utilitarianism: the largest failing of the philosophy is that while it espouses "maximizing benefit", there is no objective means to quantify benefit in the present state, much less into the future built onto the back of present policy. Thus, even when it's actors believe they are operating to maximize benefit; they may just as easily be doing the inverse.

 

Finally, the ease with which the system can be manipulated by those professing it is astounding. The lack of any objective measure of benefit (or harm which is not amassed into the single benefit principle), lends itself very cleanly to the biases of those asserting it. Benefits they do not value, are assumed to have no or minimal value. Benefits (spoken as to the elimination of harms), are ascribed inflated value.

Edited January 20, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[OCinBuffalo]

Tax is quite simply too powerful an instrument of social and economic policy, whatever your policy preferences may be, for tax laws to be meaningfully simplified at the end of the day. If you cannot even simplify and clarify the NFL rulebook, good luck taking on the Code and the regulations.

So this is what we've come to? Something might be hard, so we shouldn't even try to improve it?

 

Last time I checked that is 180 degrees out from what Teddy Rosevelt defined as being a "progressive" attitude. If anything: keeping everything the same no matter how bad it sucks...used to be known, in other Western Democracies, as Conservativism. Especially in the first part of the last decade, you know, when Teddy Rosevelt invented the term "progressive".

 

I find it hilariously ironic that the country that could mobilize from intentional isolation and weakness and win a war on 2 fronts, or rescue itself from the 1970s mess of stagflation...according to supposed progressives, can't do comparitively miniscule tasks such as:

1. Get the tax code reformed in a fair and honest way, and clean house at the IRS

2. SSI reform

3. Medicare/Medicaid reform

4. Build a common sense helth care solution based on things that work: like competition and markets, and clean house at CMS and especially the VA

5. Reform Education at all levels and/or throw out the entire system and start over

6. Defeat ISIS, and provide a national defense that is in line with our dangerous times

7. Secure the border, reform immigration, then force every single law enforcement entity to enforce those reforms, in that order.

8. Get a REAL energy policy...you know like the one Pelosi promised way back in 2006, and stil hasn't delivered...together so that we all know what's what

9. Get a REAL EPA policy and obviously clean house at the EPA. Investigate the Global Warming people for fraud, and hold their feet to the fire: either show us hard science or GTFO

10. Reform legislative policy and procedure such that lobbyist acitivity is exposed and transparent. (Simple: every meeting with a lobbyist can only be held if it is at a Congressional office, video taped, then placed on Youtube. ALL lobbyists must be licensed and regulated, and no Congress critter can receive unofficial communication from them, or just happen to meet them somewhere without risking their license)

 

Our people are more educated, our natural resources are still available, our infrastructure is 10x better, we have the Internet, we have the capacity to be 100x more productive than we were in 1939 or 1979...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe we can't do things that take a lot less effort? Pfft.

 

Pick any one of the 1-10 imporant and urgent MUST DOs above. All of us KNOW they can be done. Well, the serious people know we can do any of these any time we want.

 

I read the quote above, and I ask myself: Who are today's Know Nothings? Who are the people standing in the way of reform, and won't even consider fixing that which is so obviously broken?

Edited January 20, 2016 by OCinBuffalo

[Dorkington]

Well, I concede my opinion guys, definitely looks like I'm in the wrong here.

 

Can anyone direct me to some educational text on what the right answer is for a country? What, if any taxes, and social programs should be allowed?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well, I concede my opinion guys, definitely looks like I'm in the wrong here.

 

Can anyone direct me to some educational text on what the right answer is for a country? What, if any taxes, and social programs should be allowed?

I'll simply state that all spending and structure needs to be scrutinized and reformed before any more tax increases are implemented.

 

You may also wish to read my critique of utilitarian philosophy in my above post.

[DC Tom]

Well, I concede my opinion guys, definitely looks like I'm in the wrong here.

 

Can anyone direct me to some educational text on what the right answer is for a country? What, if any taxes, and social programs should be allowed?

 

Why is it that any time our resident liberals are asked to justify one of their statements, they just fold? Grow some balls, man.

[Dorkington]

 

Why is it that any time our resident liberals are asked to justify one of their statements, they just fold? Grow some balls, man.

Because I find debate to be tiresome. I generally prefer to read, review, ask a couple questions, and hopefully learn a thing or two. I'm ok with having 'no balls', balls are incredibly fickle and weak things anyways.

[KD in CA]

 

Why is it that any time our resident liberals are asked to justify one of their statements, they just fold? Grow some balls, man.

 

Or run to the assumption that critics of the federal government want to outlaw all forms of taxation and all social programs.

[DC Tom]

Because I find debate to be tiresome. I generally prefer to read, review, ask a couple questions, and hopefully learn a thing or two. I'm ok with having 'no balls', balls are incredibly fickle and weak things anyways.

 

Then how about discussion? I'm still waiting for you to establish a moral basis for taxation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Because I find debate to be tiresome. I generally prefer to read, review, ask a couple questions, and hopefully learn a thing or two. I'm ok with having 'no balls', balls are incredibly fickle and weak things anyways.

The thing is, you haven't learned anything (or at least it doesn't seem so), because you haven't challenged your assumptions yourself, or defended your assumptions against the challenges of others.

 

Edit: as Tom just mentioned, it's not just debate you're shirking, but also civil discussion.

Edited January 20, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Dorkington]

 

Then how about discussion? I'm still waiting for you to establish a moral basis for taxation.

We've already discussed it, and we've found, that the majority here disagree with my opinion on taxes. So I'd rather take a seat, and listen to what you guys have to say on the subject.

The thing is, you haven't learned anything (or at least it doesn't seem so), because you haven't challenged your assumptions yourself, or defended your assumptions against the challenges of others.

Then I guess I'm just an idiot (as Tom would say).

[TakeYouToTasker]

We've already discussed it, and we've found, that the majority here disagree with my opinion on taxes. So I'd rather take a seat, and listen to what you guys have to say on the subject.

Then I guess I'm just an idiot (as Tom would say).

You hold a position.

 

Why can't (won't?) you explain it's moral basis?

[Dorkington]

You hold a position.

 

Why can't (won't?) you explain it's moral basis?

I already have multiple times. You just don't accept it as an explanation. I'm ok with it, I encourage you to be ok with it, as well. Now go on and have freedom in discussing Cruz's tax plan with like minded individuals, and I will take it all in.

[starrymessenger]

So this is what we've come to? Something might be hard, so we shouldn't even try to improve it?

 

Last time I checked that is 180 degrees out from what Teddy Rosevelt defined as being a "progressive" attitude. If anything: keeping everything the same no matter how bad it sucks...used to be known, in other Western Democracies, as Conservativism. Especially in the first part of the last decade, you know, when Teddy Rosevelt invented the term "progressive".

 

I find it hilariously ironic that the country that could mobilize from intentional isolation and weakness and win a war on 2 fronts, or rescue itself from the 1970s mess of stagflation...according to supposed progressives, can't do comparitively miniscule tasks such as:

1. Get the tax code reformed in a fair and honest way, and clean house at the IRS

2. SSI reform

3. Medicare/Medicaid reform

4. Build a common sense helth care solution based on things that work: like competition and markets, and clean house at CMS and especially the VA

5. Reform Education at all levels and/or throw out the entire system and start over

6. Defeat ISIS, and provide a national defense that is in line with our dangerous times

7. Secure the border, reform immigration, then force every single law enforcement entity to enforce those reforms, in that order.

8. Get a REAL energy policy...you know like the one Pelosi promised way back in 2006, and stil hasn't delivered...together so that we all know what's what

9. Get a REAL EPA policy and obviously clean house at the EPA. Investigate the Global Warming people for fraud, and hold their feet to the fire: either show us hard science or GTFO

10. Reform legislative policy and procedure such that lobbyist acitivity is exposed and transparent. (Simple: every meeting with a lobbyist can only be held if it is at a Congressional office, video taped, then placed on Youtube. ALL lobbyists must be licensed and regulated, and no Congress critter can receive unofficial communication from them, or just happen to meet them somewhere without risking their license)

 

Our people are more educated, our natural resources are still available, our infrastructure is 10x better, we have the Internet, we have the capacity to be 100x more productive than we were in 1939 or 1979...yet somehow I'm supposed to believe we can't do things that take a lot less effort? Pfft.

 

Pick any one of the 1-10 imporant and urgent MUST DOs above. All of us KNOW they can be done. Well, the serious people know we can do any of these any time we want.

 

I read the quote above, and I ask myself: Who are today's Know Nothings? Who are the people standing in the way of reform, and won't even consider fixing that which is so obviously broken?

I'm sure there are always many things that stand to be improved and therefore should be improved. My comment was simply that the IRC and regulatons will in this day and age, and for the future, inevitably feature both volume and complexity and therefore that simplification and reduction in the burden of tax administration is not really an argument for the flat tax, whatever its merits or demerits may be. The real issue is a much more difficult and substantive one, namely what principles should govern and determine the right rate (or rates) of tax, as the pages of this thread indicate.