The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

[unofan]

So it's regressive based upon comparative relativity between two systems? That does not constitute a regressive tax system. You said that 9-9-9, in and of itself, is, and I quote, "a regressive as all hell plan". Would you like to clarify your original statement, or would you like to stand by it? If the latter is the case, then please explain how you believe that 9-9-9 is, in and of itself, a regressive tax.

Regarding your comments regarding sales tax, you're not really changing much in terms of pricing schema, just to whom the money goes. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a gallon of milk is $2.00 when you include all taxes (BTW, in NYS, that's zero, but that's beside the point), regardless of plan. Some of the money that goes to the producers goes happens to go to a different government. You and I know that neither this hypothetical situation, nor yours where the bottom line price will increase by 18 cents while all other factors remain the same, will happen; there will be some variable change between the two. However, it seems to me that you are saying that sales tax is regressive. Would you please explain how this is case, or if my assumption is incorrect, please explain the type of system sales tax is, and your reasoning behind it?

Sales taxes are regressive. In fact, they are literally the textbook examples of regressive taxation. A poor person must spend the majority of their money on necessities. Rich people can choose to forego luxuries, and the ultra rich would find it difficult to spend their annual incomes.

Since poor people spend proportionatly more of their income, sales taxes are effectively hitting them the hardest.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Sales taxes are regressive. In fact, they are literally the textbook examples of regressive taxation. A poor person must spend the majority of their money on necessities. Rich people can choose to forego luxuries, and the ultra rich would find it difficult to spend their annual incomes.

Tax "necessities" at different rates than "luxuries", and maybe not at all! Hey, look, we already do that! Was that so hard?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Who cares how the guns were obtained? What difference does it make?

None to the victims, obviously. However, gun control advocates insist additional laws regarding gun ownership and acquisition will improve the gun violence problem. The available evidence indicates their case is weak. Especially since they're focusing on a made up category of weapons. Weapons that are almost never used in these killings.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Sales taxes are regressive. In fact, they are literally the textbook examples of regressive taxation. A poor person must spend the majority of their money on necessities. Rich people can choose to forego luxuries, and the ultra rich would find it difficult to spend their annual incomes.

Since poor people spend proportionatly more of their income, sales taxes are effectively hitting them the hardest.

You could have zero taxes and the same would be true. Limited resources is Economics 101, and it doesn't matter if you use commodities, fiat money, or even the barter system. Are you saying that you want to unrealistically change everything so that nothing has value? Good luck with that, especially when there's no longer any purpose to give or do anything.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Tax "necessities" at different rates than "luxuries", and maybe not at all! Hey, look, we already do that! Was that so hard?

And then get the luxuries elsewhere, thereby destroying domestic luxury businesses. I believe FreshFish has already explained the yacht tax.

 

[unofan]

Tax "necessities" at different rates than "luxuries", and maybe not at all! Hey, look, we already do that! Was that so hard?

most states exempt some food but not anything else. And states like nebraska are proposing to eliminate their exemptions so they can eliminate their income taxes entirely.

And there's nothing ive seen where the 9-9-9 plan exempts anything.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

That would be fine if most violence in Chicago is the result of innocent people being shot by gang members. I'm guessing a good portion, perhaps even a strong majority, of the violence is gang on gang related. So I'll ask again, I thought guns were a deterrent. Presumably all these guys or the people they're hanging with are armed. Why isn't that stopping the killing? If more guns stop crime this doesn't add up. NYC dropped their murder rate by over 2/3rds I believe in 30 years. Was that because more people are toting firearms in the city?

Moving on, what your missing is illegal weapons possession makes it a lot easier to bust these punks, or tack on a few years sentence to a prison term. I'd also image getting caught with guns give the cops leverage to use to extract other information. Drop a wild west legalization on everybody and all that goes away.

The problem here is more complicated than whether or not more guns are a deterrent. And whether or not that deterrence has an impact on street shootings. Implicit in your analysis is an apparant acceptance of the killings of innocents whose numbers, you guess, are low. It's time for you to answer the question that has been asked: How many dead innocents are acceptable to you? You're dealing with people whose regard for their lives, let alone the lives of others, is somewhat different from ours. Personally, I'm always skeptical of proposals that would increase the number of weapons in a given situation. Because I'm concerned with more innocents being killed. Virginia Tech. Luby's.

Deterrence is difficult to measure. How many Texas murders, for instance, have not happened because of their vigorous application of the death penalty? As to your NYC example, again you're being way too simplistic in service of your anti-gun position. The murder rate in Chicago has also gone down compared to historic highs. And that decline (which is actually nationwide) is the result of many factors. NYC is benefiting from that plus a significant changes in law enforcement strategy and tactics that have made NYPD much more efficient. I'm all in favor of "stop and frisk," for instance, which gives ACLU types the vapors. How about you? The data seem to indicate that tactic is useful in defusing violence before it happens. It helps officers disarm punks carrying weapons before they start shooting.

 

[unofan]

You could have zero taxes and the same would be true. Limited resources is Economics 101, and it doesn't matter if you use commodities, fiat money, or even the barter system. Are you saying that you want to unrealistically change everything so that nothing has value? Good luck with that, especially when there's no longer any purpose to give or do anything.

I'm saying that if you look at any economics 101 textbook, you'll see the sales tax listed as an example of a regressive tax. What don't you get about that?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

I'm saying that if you look at any economics 101 textbook, you'll see the sales tax listed as an example of a regressive tax. What don't you get about that?

It's the exact same amount that is paid by everyone. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. What don't you get about that?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

most states exempt some food but not anything else. And states like nebraska are proposing to eliminate their exemptions so they can eliminate their income taxes entirely.

And there's nothing ive seen where the 9-9-9 plan exempts anything.

Why should you exempt anything? It's a fair system. Everyone is treated equally. No special interests.

 

[Rover]

So it's regressive based upon comparative relativity between two systems? That does not constitute a regressive tax system. You said that 9-9-9, in and of itself, is, and I quote, "a regressive as all hell plan". Would you like to clarify your original statement, or would you like to stand by it? If the latter is the case, then please explain how you believe that 9-9-9 is, in and of itself, a regressive tax.

Regarding your comments regarding sales tax, you're not really changing much in terms of pricing schema, just to whom the money goes. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a gallon of milk is $2.00 when you include all taxes (BTW, in NYS, that's zero, but that's beside the point), regardless of plan. Some of the money that goes to the producers goes happens to go to a different government. You and I know that neither this hypothetical situation, nor yours where the bottom line price will increase by 18 cents while all other factors remain the same, will happen; there will be some variable change between the two. However, it seems to me that you are saying that sales tax is regressive. Would you please explain how this is case, or if my assumption is incorrect, please explain the type of system sales tax is, and your reasoning behind it?

unofan covered it. Sales taxes are regressive as in the poor/lower income/etc feel the effects of them a lot more than the wealthy. Look, if that's the way you want it that's fine. All we're doing then is discussing semantics. I happen to disagree strongly with tax schemes such as this but again, its a plan and in Herm's case the guy was pretty straightforward as to where his priorties lay (simplicity over progressive taxation). If you feel that way, embrace it. I personally look forward to this discussion if conservative leaders in Congress make this their official view, complete with a bill or two passed out of the House to codify the idea.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

unofan covered it. Sales taxes are regressive as in the poor/lower income/etc feel the effects of them a lot more than the wealthy. Look, if that's the way you want it that's fine. All we're doing then is discussing semantics. I happen to disagree strongly with tax schemes such as this but again, its a plan and in Herm's case the guy was pretty straightforward as to where his priorties lay (simplicity over progressive taxation). If you feel that way, embrace it. I personally look forward to this discussion if conservative leaders in Congress make this their official view, complete with a bill or two passed out of the House to codify the idea.

106 HR 2525, 108 HR 25 / S 1493, 109 HR 25 / S 25, 112 HR 25 / S 13, the list continues to go on. I understand that this is for FairTax instead of 9-9-9, and even I've said that I'd like to see a hybrid between the two with some tweaks here and there. I also understand that this has yet to pass the house, but you still have a number of Congresspersons that are even agreeing to this measure.

I don't believe in progressive systems, or any unbalanced system for that matter, because you are playing favorites. If everyone benefits from something, then everyone pays the same amount, which based upon this system is an equal percentage based upon principal amount with no hanky panky.

 

[unofan]

It's the exact same amount that is paid by everyone. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor. What don't you get about that?

So we should base our policies off a paranoid troll rather than actual tax experts who know what they're talking about. And then you wonder why people consider actual libertarians to be nutjobs.

If you support sales taxes, that's fine. But trying to argue they aren't regressive is simply factually incorrect.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

So we should base our policies off a paranoid troll rather than actual tax experts who know what they're talking about. And then you wonder why people consider actual libertarians to be nutjobs.

If you support sales taxes, that's fine. But trying to argue they aren't regressive is simply factually incorrect.

Libstains. Always the masters of spin. What, are you now going to tell me that zero taxes is regressive?

 

[unofan]

Libstains. Always the masters of spin. What, are you now going to tell me that zero taxes is regressive?

Its not the amount, its the form. Again, not sure why you're arguing this. Most of my econ professors were fiscally conservative free-trade supporters. One wrote a series of letters arguing with Krugman. But because they understand basic economics, you'd call them libstains. Gotta love willful ignorance

 

[Rover]

The problem here is more complicated than whether or not more guns are a deterrent. And whether or not that deterrence has an impact on street shootings. Implicit in your analysis is an apparant acceptance of the killings of innocents whose numbers, you guess, are low. It's time for you to answer the question that has been asked: How many dead innocents are acceptable to you? You're dealing with people whose regard for their lives, let alone the lives of others, is somewhat different from ours. Personally, I'm always skeptical of proposals that would increase the number of weapons in a given situation. Because I'm concerned with more innocents being killed. Virginia Tech. Luby's.

Deterrence is difficult to measure. How many Texas murders, for instance, have not happened because of their vigorous application of the death penalty? As to your NYC example, again you're being way too simplistic in service of your anti-gun position. The murder rate in Chicago has also gone down compared to historic highs. And that decline (which is actually nationwide) is the result of many factors. NYC is benefiting from that plus a significant changes in law enforcement strategy and tactics that have made NYPD much more efficient. I'm all in favor of "stop and frisk," for instance, which gives ACLU types the vapors. How about you? The data seem to indicate that tactic is useful in defusing violence before it happens. It helps officers disarm punks carrying weapons before they start shooting.

# of innocents dead due to gun violence is the same as # acceptable due to workplace accidents, which is zero. However, how many is acceptable is not the same thing as how many can you reasonably hope to prevent. That # will never go down to zero.

Regarding your other questions, I'm always in favor of robust law enforcement. I'm more familiar with the Boston situation than NYC (although both are widely credited to the same person, Bill Bratton). However, in Boston active policing did the trick. Gangs were being sent up wholesale on racketeering charges and the like instead of waiting for them to murder people. Cops were in the neighborhoods keeping an eye on things. All crime, not just major crime, was being cracked down on. This was helped in no small measure to federal support, particularly the COPS program mind you and a change in policing tactics as you mentioned.

I'm all for the death penalty also although as a matter of justice. I don't think for a minute it reduces crime or again Texas would be the safest state in the union, followed by CA and FL.

But to get back to guns, simply put buying and selling deadly weaponry needs to be done out in the open (figuratively speaking). If you're not up to no good, I'm not sure what the problem is. Will that reduce all crime? No. But implementing that and a more complete effort to enforce existing background check info is in fact the way to go, and its relatively painless. If all cars have to be registered, I'm not sure why guns get an exemption.

Assault weapons bans are a lesser point for me. Its really the background checks I'm after.

 

[Rover]

106 HR 2525, 108 HR 25 / S 1493, 109 HR 25 / S 25, 112 HR 25 / S 13, the list continues to go on. I understand that this is for FairTax instead of 9-9-9, and even I've said that I'd like to see a hybrid between the two with some tweaks here and there. I also understand that this has yet to pass the house, but you still have a number of Congresspersons that are even agreeing to this measure.

I don't believe in progressive systems, or any unbalanced system for that matter, because you are playing favorites. If everyone benefits from something, then everyone pays the same amount, which based upon this system is an equal percentage based upon principal amount with no hanky panky.

Sorry Flag but merely introducing something doesn't cut it. You have bills being introduced trying to put Reagan's face on the dime and bills to name the Superdome after Britney Spears. No points off for not getting this through the Dem Senate but a House version shouldn't be too hard to do. After all these are the same people who passed the Ryan budget.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Sorry Flag but merely introducing something doesn't cut it. You have bills being introduced trying to put Reagan's face on the dime and bills to name the Superdome after Britney Spears. No points off for not getting this through the Dem Senate but a House version shouldn't be too hard to do. After all these are the same people who passed the Ryan budget.

I love how you assume that every GOP person in Congress is fiscally conservative. I bet most of them aren't.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Its not the amount, its the form. Again, not sure why you're arguing this. Most of my econ professors were fiscally conservative free-trade supporters. One wrote a series of letters arguing with Krugman. But because they understand basic economics, you'd call them libstains. Gotta love willful ignorance

Why are you trying to ram down that people need to pay more simply because they have more? Are you so deprived that you can't build yourself up, so you have to pull others down in order to make yourself feel good? I also find it funny that you're using the "they're on your side" argument in order to try to get me to agree with them. You should know by now that I hold water for no one. If it's a good idea, you'll hear that. If it's not a good idea, you'll hear that, too.

 

[unofan]

Why are you trying to ram down that people need to pay more simply because they have more? Are you so deprived that you can't build yourself up, so you have to pull others down in order to make yourself feel good? I also find it funny that you're using the "they're on your side" argument in order to try to get me to agree with them. You should know by now that I hold water for no one. If it's a good idea, you'll hear that. If it's not a good idea, you'll hear that, too.

I don't give a shiat that you think sales taxes are great. I strenuously disagree, as would the founder of modern capitalism, Adam Smith. But it's tough to hold a serious coversation when you refuse to agree to basic definitions of economic terms. Why bother at that point? It's like trying to discuss algebra with someone who thinks 2+2=5.