A SoapBlox Politics Blog
[Mobile Edition]
About
- About Us
- Email Us (news/tips)
- Editorial Policy
- Posting Guidelines
- Advertise Here
Feedburner

Subscribe to Michlib daily email summary. (Preview)
Enter address:

Donate
Become a sponsor and support our work.

 MichLib sponsor list

Michigan Political Blog Ad Network

Advertise Liberally

50 State Ad Network

National Sales Tax

by: Cordelia Lear

Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 20:04:49 PM EST


I recently read that newly elected Congressman Tim Walberg's (R-Tipton) agenda includes eliminating the IRS and establishing a flat tax instead.

No, this isn't a joke. There are people who advocate abolishing the IRS, payroll taxes and estate and gift taxes. In order to find the funds to run the federal government, they would institute a national sales tax instead.

Actually someone has introduced similar legislation every session going back for quite a few years. Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) mentioned the idea in a 2004 book and right-wing blogs went a blaze.  The nut-jobs thought they had a new standard bearer.  But, he's never so much as co-sponsored any of the bills.

The latest version was introduced by Rep. John Linder (R-GA).  It was HR 25 on Jan.  4, 2005. For 2007 the bill would have set the tax rate at 23 percent - calculated as a tax-inclusive rate. That's a bit deceiving, because if you actually do the calculation based on the actual purchase price, the tax becomes 30 percent.

It's a consumption tax. All goods and services would be taxed - medical care, purchases of new homes and even services provided by state and local governments. A house listed for $150,000 would cost you $195,000. Your medical bills would be 30 percent higher. You would even have to pay tax on the education your child receives from local public schools. If your school board values it at $20,000, you'll have to pony up $6,000 for the tax on it. You'd still be liable for your state and local taxes too.

Is it likely to pass?  No. Every economist who has ever looked at the question has concluded that a vastly higher rate would be needed. There would be a massive tax revolt.

Luckily the bill never makes it out of committee.  But, I guess that isn't going to stop Walberg.

Readers should know though that two other republican members of Michigan's Congressional delegation, Candice Miller (R-Harrison Twp.) and Peter Hoekstra (R-Holland) were co-sponsors of the bill in the 108th session.

This is an idea that needs a "no sale" sign.
Cordelia Lear :: National Sales Tax
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
National Sales Tax | 100 comments
Thanks for mentioning this (4.00 / 1)
I'm a firm believer that ability to pay ought to be the determining factor of how much one pays in taxes, and the progressive income tax system is good for that. Whenever I see arguments for a national sales tax, it always seems like someone says something about the "hard-working" rich being punished for their hard work, while the lazy poor (never stated, always implied) get off easy. I can't tell you how much that bothers me.

Someone on Michigan Liberal said that taxes were an investment in America. I think that's a great way to frame this and all tax issues.

The Republicans' ultimate tax goal (4.00 / 1)
Shift the entire tax burden from capital to labor. You can't burden the patriotic Investor Class with the nuisance of taxation.

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
[ Parent ]
Economy killer (4.00 / 1)
What do the economist have to say about what effect this would have on consumer spending. I don't usually buy anythng unless it is 30% off, with this tax I would need to add 30%. 30% more to build a house? That's an economy killer.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Exactly (0.00 / 0)
People will expect a 30% reduction in prices to offset the tax. The economy will collapse from people not buying anything or it will collapse from the effect of 30% deflation. Lose-lose.

Of course, the 50+ nut jobs who cosponsor this crap every session approach it from a stand point of - "if we don't collect taxes then we don't have to provide services." It must be nice to have enough money to fund a private fire department on your own property, or build your own roads. But, details, details.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895

[ Parent ]
In All Fairness (4.00 / 3)
The concept (which I do disagree with) as presented in the book Fairtax (which is an interesting read, if not one I agree with) is that there are inherently tax costs built into the prices we may already. A company that manufactures cars for example would have to pay accountants to do their taxes, would need to pay sales taxes on raw materials, various taxes on their investments, and so on. The economists who devised this book calculated that roughly 23% of the costs of products and services thus is this money that companies or service providersw are paying out in other taxes (to keep their profit margins). So what their principle is (which is nice in its simplicity) is that with a 23% sales tax, these costs are nulled out, so that a $100 product which before was worth $77 but had so many costs built in care of taxes "down the line" that the producer would charge $100 to make a profit. Now the thinking follows that minus these additional costs, companies now WOULD charge $77 and that American consumers would not hae a problem with it now being $100 given the price hasn't changed. Their thesis is though that buying power vastly increases as prices basically stay the same yet we all have no withholding taxes so our gross column on our paycheck becomes our take-home.

The other nice aspect of their plan is that it taxes criminals, as if they extort money they would still be paying the taxes buying their cars, homes, etc.

I do not think it would work. But if it did, while it may seem good, it ends up resulting in the wealthy paying very little taxes. Sure they spend more, but as a percentage of income they will have a lot left in the end that others won't. So it becomes a very very regressive tax. The aspect that makes it different though is that essentially the tax would be invisible so people would not really care that it really is regressive.

AGAIN I DONT AGREE WITH IT. But that is the thesis of the book - which I do recommend reading if you like tax policy stuff which dorks like me do.

check out my blog!

[ Parent ]
Nice job of explaining the theory (0.00 / 0)
I don't believe that manufacturers would voluntarily reduce their prices by the full amount they didn't pay on the front end.

I also believe that any time you talk about taxing services you screw the poorest.

Obviously, I don't argree with it either, but the conversation is interesting. I hope more people jump in here too.  Thanks DW!

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895

[ Parent ]
Two problems (4.00 / 1)
The first, obviously, is that the poor spend a much greater percentage of their income on goods covered by the sales tax.  In effect, if the rumors that the governor is looking at a service tax, it's a tax that affects the poor and middle class more than the wealthy because, for instance, the $10 I pay my barber to cut my hair is a bigger chunk of my income than the $10 some rich dude pays (and, he's probably got lots of money locked up in investments which aren't taxed).

The second is that the price of a consumer good doesn't reflect the total tax paid on it.  As long as the company is still making money, it doesn't need to pass along a cent-for-cent tax increase to consumers.  That's especially true if there is robust competition.  So, if the government taxes widgets at six cents per unit at production, market forces might prevent all of that six cents from rolling downhill to the consumer.  If the government taxes them at 6 cents per unit at sale, the cost is felt entirely by the consumer.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Yeah, regressive taxes are a drag... (4.00 / 1)
...but here in Michigan, the income tax isn't really that much better. The State Constitution specifically bans us from including any real form of progressivity in it (Article IX § 7). This also applies to cities that have income taxes - a double whammy for low income people in cities like Detroit.

Expanding or increasing the sales tax wouldn't be my first choice either. But at the end of the day, that might be what we'll have to settle for (mind you I do NOT mean this should be a replacement for business taxes) unless we want to start making major, brutal service cuts.

Perhaps now is the time to commit ourselves to repealing IX § 7 in the coming Con-Con.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never." - Winston S. Churchill

[ Parent ]
Here's a place to start cutting... (4.00 / 1)
I think we should start pushing for an end to the War on Drugs.  Corrections is the biggest department in the state, and drug abuse is a public health issue, not a criminal one.  Someone who gets coked up and robs a gas station should be convicted of robbery, not being coked up.  And, they ought to still shut down meth labs.  But, we're throwing away millions on programs that aren't doing anything but costing us money.

Jenny Nathan's blog this morning has a post about the Oakland County sheriff (Big Mike) busting 10 pot growing operations in Oakland County a week.  How many dollars are we annually throwing down this rabbit hole?

I'd be more willing to entertain a service tax or a sales tax hike once this kind of failed government is addressed.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
First Time Offenses (4.00 / 1)
I think first time offenses should be treated as public health problems. But after a while there needs to be a time when we actually have consequences to deter that behavior. The problem though to me seems to be the major difference b/w whites and blacks in prosecution. Jeff Smoker snorts coke and gets tossed off the football team, a black kid in Detroit gets time in Jackson.

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Offenses? (4.00 / 3)
I wouldn't have a problem with someone being banned from drugs in the same way that people who drink and drive are forbidden to drink.

But, let's face it ... the beer I drank with dinner tonight is just as much a drug as marijuana, and the bottle of Wild Turkey 101 I bought myself shortly after Christmas was more dangerous to myself and others than any joint anyone's ever rolled.  If addiction is a disease, then the continued criminalization of drugs means throwing sick people behind bars.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
Why would the economy collapse?  That shows a lack of understanding.  Either you would have an offsetting amount in your increased paycheck OR the prices would be lower to compensate for the tax.  It's a zero sum game except for the savings in reducing the compliance cost.
If the Government gets the same amount of money as before then how can there be an increase in net costs?
[ Parent ]
Remember these two phrases for 2008 (4.00 / 1)
Peter Hoekstra wants to raise your taxes.

Candice Miller wants to raise your taxes.

Learn it.  Live it.  Love it!  Repeat it until they're known as a bunch of evil little tax and spend conservatives!

Raising sales tax (4.00 / 1)
In a way this reminds me of what proposal A did by cutting the property tax and raising the sales tax 50%. We all know what this has done to public education in this state.

The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.

 - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Don't feed the Fairtax1 Troll (0.00 / 0)
Subtle. Really subtle. Sign up for a userid and leave multiple finger wagging posts about "your small-minded liberal world views."

Nice try. We're not playing.

Progressive - Protect the poor ??? (2.00 / 2)
I really dislike it when people claim to protect the poor, and then secretly want to take our money behind our backs by hiding our tax cost in my inflated purchase price of goods and services.  It doesn't matter if you argue only 50%, 75% or 100% of the tax cost passes to the end consumer; the fact is if you pass any of it to my purchases you're secretly raising my cost of living (a dire one at that) without giving my money back!  And then claim I don't have to pay taxes. (yeah, that you can see!)

How about the 15.3% S.S. paid by me or on my behalf of every dollar I earn without exception.  You call that progressive! (eliminated under the FairTax)

The FairTax is the only plan I've seen to actually eliminate those hidden tax costs, reducing true prices, and give my tax money back to me on all my purchases of new goods and services up to poverty level spending based on my household size.  In addition, I see that most of what I buy which is used; being low income, is not taxed again anyway and yet I still get the full prebate.  That's over $5,000 in tax money for me whether I spend it or not.

That sure beats the joke of an Earned Income Credit which the IRS themselves say over 1/3 of qualified people don't claim because they believe it's to complex or they think wouldn't qualify.

Don't claim to protect me if you don't feel my pain!
Somehow people think a magic wand is waved and the metal or glass cost in an automobile is somehow different then the producing company's tax and compliance costs.  Nonsense!

With the FairTax I could buy a used car, to keep my job, and not have to pay any sales tax as it was paid already when bought new.  The rich buy almost exclusively new items and would have no exemptions or loopholes.  I buy almost all used items and would not have to pay the tax again.  Now we're talking progressive!

I see neither Candice Miller or Pete Hoekstra have re-cosponsored this proposal HR25 in the last Congress or the current 110th.  Do you wonder why?  They'd rather hide what they take from you and make you FEEL an income tax system is better for you!  At least Democratic Rep Dan Boren [OK-2] can see through all this crap and has cosponsered!

Taxes (4.00 / 2)
There are many problems with the Fairtax. In your argument you say,

"It doesn't matter if you argue only 50%, 75% or 100% of the tax cost passes to the end consumer; the fact is if you pass any of it to my purchases you're secretly raising my cost of living (a dire one at that) without giving my money back!" While the Fairtax would 'eliminate' this sort of thing. The argument you are making seems to indicate any sort of cost associated with any given product is problematic. The costs for many corporations go to already well-paid executives, should we eliminate those cost inputs also? How do you account for pollution costs that are faced by everyone in the society whether or not they buy the product? There are already many associated costs, that the taxation costs aren't high enough to warrant ridding of our entire system of taxation (aside from the FairTax's problems)

"How about the 15.3% S.S. paid by me or on my behalf of every dollar I earn without exception.  You call that progressive! (eliminated under the FairTax)"

The S.S. is NOT progressive, and I did not see anyone say it was. While it may be beneficial to have it be progressive, S.S. is very different in that it pays you dividends LATER. If it were held in a personal savings account it may work completely differently. The Fairtax also puts a lot of faith in this entire system working so foolproof that we won't have the need for S.S. which is quite the assumption and risk to put many Americans to.

"That sure beats the joke of an Earned Income Credit which the IRS themselves say over 1/3 of qualified people don't claim because they believe it's to complex or they think wouldn't qualify."

The failure of people to apply for the EITC is their fault. The EITC though has been proven to work in getting people off the welfare roles (which is its major goal). Programs like VITA (which I did while at State) - Volunteer Income Tax Assistance, guarantees people get the EITC. You make a strong argument for raising awareness of the EITC for low-income people, but don't show anyway in which it is bad. As opposed to relying on welfare, people find with an EITC that they can get a low-wage job, and get a tax credit that makes a big difference in their ability to survive financially. But furthermore the point is that these are now people off of welfare and in a job from which hopefully they can work and move up a ladder or gain experience or finance an education with - bettering their lives.

"With the FairTax I could buy a used car, to keep my job, and not have to pay any sales tax as it was paid already when bought new."

This is a separate issue. Most people would not have any problems not taxing second-hand goods. Textbooks is a great example for many college students. But the FairTax doesn't really change this specifically, and it is not impossible to implement this without riddin gof our entire tax system.

While our tax system is far from perfect. A progressive income tax is a better alternative than the FairTax. The FairTax gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy (no capital-gains taxes for one) that allows them to further consolidate their wealth. If it were to work perfectly it is possible that buying power of the poor would increase, yet their wealth would not increase at the same rate as the wealthiest (who likely would exponentially increase their wealth in comparison) which would further the differences between the poor and rich in America - a chasm already far too great.

Tax reform should do the following:
(1) Encourage work
- The EITC does this. Furthering the EITC and bringing in State EITCs can encourage this. These encourage people to work as opposed to collect a check (something anyone can agree with).
(2) Reduce the gap between haves-and-have nots
- The progressive tax system does this. While it doesn't do it fantastically it is a step in the right direction whereas a flat tax or FairTax is a clear step in the wrong direction encourage a growing gap.
(3) Fairly tax corporations.
- Corporations have lower tax rates as is in comparison to individuals and this is not necessarily a bad thing. We need our companies to be competitive and not have these costs born by the consumers. Yet corporations should be taxed. By allowing all these loopholes they often do not serve the public, as we already incur the costs of corporate pollution and other externalities (pension failures, massive jobs losses in company towns, etc)
(4) Be simple.
- The advantage of the FairTax is its simplicity. However we must not let simplicity be our sole guide for an ideal tax system. We need to simplify our current system (like how the system has different tax categories for minor differences in products or uses etc that complicate while not influencing behavior significantly) but an overhaul doesn't not mean tearing it down and starting from scratch as the FairTax implies.

The FairTax is nice for its simplicity, but ultimately only helps the wealthiest ascend to even further wealth. It does nothing to encourage work as an EITC does. Also it is a huge act of faith to simply adopt this system which requires us to scrap Medicare and Medicaid funding as we know as with Social Security. While there are nice aspects, the fact criminal activity is now taxed, it does not rise above its many flaws. THAT is why it has not gained widespread support, it certainly is not a love by Hoekstra or Miller of 'higher hidden taxes'.

check out my blog!

[ Parent ]
Misguided arguments (1.33 / 3)
It is up to all companies to control their costs, including well paid executives, in the best way they feel makes them competitive and to stay in business.  They suffer and will be replaced if they make poor decisions with those costs.  But these are controllable costs where tax costs are not!
The Fact is if we, individuals, end up paying all these costs in the end anyway, why have the politicians hide our true cost of government and not have transparency?  I want to see on my receipt and have a choice in what I pay in taxes.  The FairTax does this.

Do you know most of our European partners have over a 15% price advantage purely from taxation?  Because they have a VAT with boarder transparency and we do not!  They rebate the tax cost on exports to the USA making them cheaper here while adding that same VAT tax to all our products sold there same as their domestic products have.  It's a double whammy and everyone just ignores it as we lose jobs, jobs, jobs!

Nothing I said makes these 'other' non-tax related costs problematic as you say.  The other agreed legitimate costs like pollution have no bearing on this discussion as they don't change under either tax system!  The Income tax system doesn't pay for these costs in anyway different than the FairTax would.

Next; the benefits of S.S., survivors and disability do not change at all by the FairTax only the method of funding changes.  The funding would be far more stable with a broader base then the current system relying on a shrinking pool of workers.

The S.S. system of financing is part of our tax system and must be included in the overall burden we calculate anyone pays.  It is not that different, as you claim as we get (dividends) benefits from our current taxes by way of government services.  Just because S.S. benefits MAY come later doesn't mean the costs should be distributed any different than other services.

The fact is the rich get a break if you separate this cost.  S.S. costs per the person have little to do with benefits.

Your desire or sole guide to have 'in appearance' a progressive tax system is killing our jobs and the ability for the poor to move up the ladder.  We pay more every year, year after year, in tax compliance costs (not taxes themselves) than we're spending on military costs!  Who bears this burden?  We do!  45 states already have sales taxes they rely on for funding. So where is this leap of faith you refer to?  This country survived for over 130 years without an Income based tax before the politicians decided it was a way to gain more control over their citizenry and hide what we really pay.

I don't disagree with some of what you say regarding the EITC but we have to deal with reality not what should be.
The EITC doesn't help as many as it should and it's expensive relative to what it does!

1. Do you deny the poor have higher costs due to the embedded taxes (you would be the only one if you do!)
2. The minimum estimate of our annual tax compliance costs is over $200 billion per year and reach as high as $800 billion.  That all works down to US!
3. Do you believe the over 60,000 pages in the IRS code where put there by lobbyist hired by the poor or for the benefit of the rich?
4. You don't seem to understand that corporations do not bear the burden of taxes they only collect it and pass them on to an individuals like all other costs.  (An un-deniable fact!)

If you look at overall tax burden the FairTax is more progressive and yet encourages economic growth or jobs compared to our income tax system which is riddled with problems.  Someone can earn a billion dollars but doesn't benefit from it until they spend it!  Then they will be taxed without exception!

I hate using the troll button.... (2.67 / 3)
I love debating people.  Which is why I hate giving out zeros.  Yet this is the 2nd time I've done it this week.  Sigh....

The tax systems are simple:

1. Progressive tax system (enacted under Clinton): 22 million jobs.

2. Bush's tax system: Increased cost of living, biggest economic crisis since the great depression.

I rest my case.

[ Parent ]
The Poor (4.00 / 1)
Simply put. The poorest in America currently don't pay any income taxes as is. With the EITC that number vastly increases so that the majority of the poor don't pay taxes. The middle class pays a lot of taxes. The wealthy pay (as a percentage of income) the least (they also have many loopholes available to use - charitable donations, etc.).

With the FairTax:
The poor - begin paying taxes as everything they purchase is taxed.
The middle class - continue paying the most in taxes as they purchase a lot, and everything they purchase is taxed.
The wealthy - continue paying taxes, but as a percentage of income pay by far the least now - even less than the poor, as everything they purchase is taxed.

Regarding the VAT, every country in the world with the exception of America has a VAT. But Europe also has progressive income taxes (far higher than ours), so simply put the VAT does not make any given country better than another, because if it did America would have amazing problems competing due to their lack of a VAT. Australia the only other last holdout got one and their economy hasn't expanded dramatically since.

So these two key arguments don't hold much weight ultimately.

check out my blog!

[ Parent ]
FairTax (2.00 / 2)
With the FairTax, as proposed in the book, progressivity is built-in by using a Milton Friedman-like (its so ironic that a conservative economist was the brainchild of the EIC, a now liberally-adopted mantra [the EIC has consensus, and is a good, but not perfect, addition to income taxes], and progressivity in taxes goes back well before Clinton, to respond above) "negative" tax "pre-bate" or rebate to those earning less than a certain income.  That means the poor (indeed, everyone) get cash up front to compensate them for their first X-thousand in purchases.  Indeed, if one earns less than the prebate cap income, the prebate would act as supplemental income, a sort of welfare (or guaranteed minimum income).  One could retain additional welfare or other social safety nets on top of this (although you might have to charge a higher FairTax rate to pay for them).  In essence, it is a proposal that Democrats or liberals could get behind if the "deal" or goodies on the back end were right.  Any number of other modifications could be made to make it more politically palatable.

Now you guys have fairly criticized a pure "Value Added Tax" (VAT) or "National Sales Tax".  These are regressive because they have nothing in the way of protection for the poor and are straight consumption.  Whether they are more or less regressive than our current system is a different question.

Finally, while I consider the FairTax a fascinating idea, I do have one major concern.  It is a very major change and such changes will create short-term uncertainty and short-term "dynamic" changes in the economy while people figure out the new system.  For example, one might see a short-term dive in consumption (which would force producers and retailers to bring those prices down to a rate offsetting the tax rate and similar to their previous profits, but it might also initiate a recession).  I don't know how the FTs answer this concern, or whether its "worth it" in terms of risk.  It would however remove all "hidden" taxes, and make savings much, much more attractive (all saving would be tax deferred, and would increase capital formation).

I've zero'd those zeroing out the FT supporters here because I see no responses that are mean-spirited or not in the vein of debate, and given fours to the FTs so their responses can be seen.  You can disagree with them, but you should be willing to hear them out after attacking them.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
"Pre-bates" (4.00 / 1)
Unless I'm mistaken, you're the first to mention the "pre-bate" idea on this thread, though I've heard it mentioned elsewhere. Here are a couple questions on this front.

- Would a pre-bate be determined based on geographical costs of living? If it covers what would be minimum expenditures for, say, a family of four, the amount paid in my little town of 8,000 people would be dramatically different than in a city of 8 million.

- Who determines the appropriate level of the pre-bate?

- Who would pay for the pre-bate? Others have said that state governments, which often already have sales taxes in place, could collect the taxes and send them on to the federal government, but would the state also be responsible for paying out $XX,000 at the beginning of the year to everyone in their borders? Or would a federal agency (say, the IRS that we're apparently eliminating) do this?

- What about the politics? Would the pre-bate become a minimum-wage type of issue? By this, I mean, would it regularly increase with inflation, or would it sit unchanged for 10 years as various groups lobby against raising it?

Besides those concerns, I'm still not comfortable with the idea. A $50,000/year income family and a $70,000/year family won't have radically different spending habits, nor would a $100,000/year family, all firmly in the middle-class. If each ended up paying, just to pick a number, $5,000 in taxes, the $50,000/year family would be paying a greater percentage of their total income (10%) than the $100,000/year family (5%). To me, that doesn't seem fair.

Or do I misunderstand the concept?

[ Parent ]
EIC is uniform, so no different than pre-bate (0.00 / 0)
The EITC is uniform regardless of cost-of-living regional differences, so what's the difference.

No, I wouldn't try to make it that complex.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Sure.... (4.00 / 2)
I've zero'd those zeroing out the FT supporters here because I see no responses that are mean-spirited or not in the vein of debate, and given fours to the FTs so their responses can be seen.  You can disagree with them, but you should be willing to hear them out after attacking them. 

Yeah, because on the conservative blogs they love to have nothing better than a good natured discussion.  Before they question your patriotism and tell you you should be shot for treason.

Didn't you get booted off here for being a troll?

[ Parent ]
No, and you're welcome on my blog anytime (0.00 / 0)
No, I don't believe I've been "booted," and you are welcome to participate on my blog any time you want. 

"You can't handle the truth."
[ Parent ]
Not booted permanently (4.00 / 1)
but the owners of this blog have deleted his comments (not the same as zero rating) on several occasions.  Some of his stuff from March 2006 was a real hoot.  Now he's gotten a clue and mixes in just enough coherent content to justify making us feel sorry for him when we don't want to waste our time engaging in "rational discourge" with him.

A troll is a troll is a troll.

[ Parent ]
No one told me the comments were deleted (0.00 / 0)
that's a surprise, and explains why I can't see them.

Matt, why were the comments deleted?

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
In defense of Chetly (0.00 / 0)
... I have rarely if ever seen any comment of his that hasn't had a legitimate** point of debate.  I think it's likely that the tone, rather than the content, of his comments is what gives him a bad rap. jmho.

**doesn't mean I agree

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
Possibly that's why he's improved his manners.  And I agree with you that he occasionally raises an interesting angle on a debate.  Many trolls do.

It's a tough call for a blogger to gauge the intent of his or her members.  For some, it's so difficult that they give up and just say, OK, anything goes unless obscene or libelous.  For others, any sign of misbehavior brings an immediate ban.  The former gives you a signal to noise ratio that makes your blog almost useless except for people with all kinds of time on their hands to sift through the chaff.  The latter gives you an echo chamber.

Different blogs serve different purposes. I'd say that Matt's found a middle ground here by letting Chetly stay as long as he plays nice, except for one thing:  have you noticed how he can suck the air out of a thread?  To me, that's the essence of trollishness, and it has very little to do with the troll's politics. Trolls blog in order to divert the purpose of the blog from discussing issues to discussing the troll.  Often they're very subtle about it.  Sometimes they're not subtle at all--the surest sign of that is when you get long, long, long posts from them bloviating on subjects they have no knowledge or background information on, sans links.  Chetly's easily capable of grinding out a hundred or so of those in any 24-hour period, far outstripping those of us with day jobs and personal lives.  Some here have floated the idea that he's a paid troll.  We have no way of knowing the truth of that, no matter what his protestations.

I won't debate Chetly because, whatever the truth of his ideas, he's not here to learn from what I say.  He's here to argue endlessly for his own point of view and get ego gratification when we all climb on board and engage in discussion with him. When I have to read through a 90-comment thread where 50 of the comments are by Chetly, I'm out of here--got better things to do with my time.

[ Parent ]
hmm (0.00 / 0)
First, thanks Christine.

If anyone has mistaken my writing style for some kind of mal-intent, I apologize perhaps for not being more clear about my intent.  I do pointedly express disagreements.  I see nothing wrong with that, but believe sharpness can be important and hope that I don't I don't cross lines with personal attacks, irrelevant points, or innuendo.  On the other hand, beating around legitimate points is a waste of everyone's time.

Eartha, this is about a 90 response thread.  I don't see 50 responses by me.  Indeed, a review of my entire comment history shows a very miminal participation on MichiganLiberal generally.  I comment where I am really interested in the issue, or feel it particularly important.  I follow this blog because I don't want to read only conservative sources of opinion, althoguh I suppose I could do that.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Quality instead of quantity (4.00 / 1)
I've zero'd those zeroing out the FT supporters here because I see no responses that are mean-spirited or not in the vein of debate, and given fours to the FTs so their responses can be seen.  You can disagree with them, but you should be willing to hear them out after attacking them.

I gave dude a zero or two, not because he made mean-spirited comments, but because his post was poorly written and full of half-truths that correcting it would itself require a response three times as long as the original.

I've also suspect that "Liberation" is his second incarnation, coming quickly on the heels of someone who'd earlier posted a bunch of highly derogatory remarks about "liberals" and came back under a new name.

So, he gets zeroes for general ass-hattery.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
BTW- (0.00 / 0)
He got zeros because he's a troll coming on here to spout conservative viewpoints.  If you think that's fair, then feel free to go over to michiganconservative.com, tell them why we need our troops to leave Iraq, and then get uppity when they don't want to have a debate about the issue.

You conservatives spent the past 3 years questioning my patriotism to this country and my resolve to fight terrorism, despite my being a two-time war vet.  So don't come here and ask me to act civilized while you spout your lies.

I'm half-tempted to troll rate you for abusing the ratings system, but I'll let it go.

[ Parent ]
While the title is Michigan Liberal (0.00 / 0)
Regardless of one's political orientation people should feel free to post here. I think there is nothing wrong with us ignoring comments if they are rude, but fair debate is reasonable and good as it brings people together and we can appreciate differences in viewpoints without insulting. I hope that people who are conservative do read what we have to say and comment if they disagree, it is a necessary part of the policy process. If conservatives fail to respect your viewpoints that is unfortunate (though not reflective of everyone on the right) and I hope that we can take the higher ground. I think zeros should be devoted to rudeness or being inconsiderate not because we disagree with someone's point of view which is protected under the 1st Amendment.

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Free speech doesn't exist here. (4.00 / 1)
This is a private forum.  It's privatly owned (by Matt) and therefore not subject to 1st Ammendment protection.

Like it says on dailykos:

Daily Kos is owned by kos. The servers are his. He pays the bandwidth charges. He makes the rules; we are here as his guests. If he decides tomorrow that anyone not posting in iambic pentameter will be banned, your options are either to brush up on your poetry skills or find/start another forum.
 

Fair debate is one thing, but using MichiganLiberal as a forum for right-winged viewpoints is another.  If we use it for debate, where does it end?  Should we let righties come on here and start telling us why America needs to be in Iraq?  Hell no!

Besides, as far as being rude goes, Liberation has felt the need to lend an insult in each of his posts.  If a rightie is going to come on here and start insulting people for not seeing his viewpoint, he can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.  I'm not going to start being nice to these people just because we won an election.

[ Parent ]
Scratch the title of the last comment. (0.00 / 0)
It sounded wrong as hell.  But my point is that while the Government cannot punish people for their opinions, it doesn't mean they get the right to promote right-winged viewpoints on a liberal blog.
[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
You're right, Matt, the owner of this blog, has the right to restrict whomever he pleases.  If Matt banned me, I would not attempt to circumvent the ban (I would make it known elsewhere).

"You can't handle the truth."
[ Parent ]
But by the same token... (0.00 / 0)
At the same time though, isn't it very UNliberal to close debate. Did LiberalLucy not post the definition of liberal as including open-minded? I am not saying it should be a forum for right-wing points of view, nor am I condoning any rude comments, but I am not willing to pigeonhole myself and say that every one of my views is "traditional liberal" (whatever that means even). For example, Democrats now are commonly refered to as fiscal CONSERVATIVES, should we shun that line of debate? The Democratic Party is a big broad umbrella, we accept many people with many different viewpoints, while often that may be our undoing, would you rather see us become like the Republicans where good candidates are nearly thrown out (Lincoln Chaffee, Joe Schwarz) because they dont fit certain litmus tests?

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Fits the mold (0.00 / 0)
I know what you mean!  Like the Dems did to Joe Lieberman.

Dems/Conservatives; they're all alike in many ways!

[ Parent ]
wrong on 2 counts (0.00 / 0)
First of all, the Dems didn't "do" anything to Joe Lieberman.  CT had a primary and Lieberman lost.  Are you suggesting that we should not have primaries, because that results in someone losing?

Second, the "Dems/Conservatives" pairing is fundamentally wrong.  One is a political party, the other is a philosophy or ideology.  Some Dems are fiscally conservative, as was mentioned in the previous comment.

[ Parent ]
Stand corrected! (0.00 / 0)
I stand corrected on the terminology; I missed that so thank you!
Change the word to Republicans as meant and the statement stands!

No, I was not and would not suggest the elimination of primaries as you said.  Listen to the point instead of looking for an argument for argument's sake?

The statement made was this: "would you rather see us become like the Republicans where good candidates are nearly thrown out *not supported by the party* (Lincoln Chaffee, Joe Schwarz) because they don't fit certain litmus tests?"

Was J. Lieberman not thrown out (not supported by the party that had him as a darling so recent) because he didn't fit a certain litmus tests on the war?  Regardless of the individual issue that is the same principle some Republicans use to not like those candidates mentioned, right?  I believe you're wrong; the Dems did do something by not supporting their incumbent candidate in the primary as customary!  Don't we judge all candidates on a litmus test of issues?  What you're saying is if you agree with the opinion it's not a litmus test?  Otherwise!

[ Parent ]
Not interested (0.00 / 0)
in looking for an argument for "argument's sake" ... just pointing out that your point about Lieberman is wrong.  Having a big umbrella doesn't mean that citizens have to swallow whatever the incumbents say.  We have the right to choose whatever candidate we feel best represents our positions.  The Democrats of CT did not feel that Lieberman best represented their positions on issues, and many of those issues were unrelated to the war. 

I think dwishinsky's 'litmus test' point is better suited to people like you & I, where we shouldn't be "thrown out" or censored out of the Democratic Party due to having an unpopular opinion on a particular issue.  It really doesn't apply well to an elected official who no longer shares the values of his constituents.  In the case of Lieberman, the CT Dems who voted in the primary apparently think he does not share their values. 

As far as your statement -- "Listen to the point instead of looking for an argument for argument's sake?" ... you really shouldn't make assumptions that someone who disagrees with you isn't "listening to your point". 

[ Parent ]
This is why you get called a loon... (4.00 / 1)
Joe Lieberman wasn't thrown out of the Democratic Party.  He lost a primary election, and became an independent all on his own.  Incumbents, by the way, are usually expected to win, but it's not to throw one out of the party by choosing someone else.

On the other hand, John Truscott back in 2004 said that William Milliken's Republican Party no longer existed ... thus, he can call himself a Republican, but he's not really one.

So, on one hand, you have a candidate who lost because he offered unpopular support for an unpopular war launched by an unpopular president.  On the other, you have a respected former governor dismissed by a prominent Republican as not having a place in his own party.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
No, not unliberal.... (0.00 / 0)
Like I said before, where does the debate end?  Do we start allowing people like Jamie Hope(less) come on here and start telling us why the war in Iraq is the greatest thing since sliced bread?  No!

I'm not about to be nice to the trolls.  The only reason both their asses haven't been booted is because Matt is a swell guy.

I'm not saying a debate shouldn't exist.  I have no problem debating conservatives on neutral blogs (and I do).  I am saying it shouldn't exist in a place that's meant to promote liberal ideas.  Otherwise we get stuck debating them all day instead of promoting ideas of our own.  The ability to debate in the mainstream is poisoned because the conservatives get to use their microphone without interuption while we don't.  It's what they did throughout the 1990's up until 2003 and they're doing it now.  It's the only reason why they were allowed to get away with questioning your patriotism during the buildup to the Iraq war.

I'm not about to let history repeat itself.

[ Parent ]
Patriotism (0.00 / 0)
djtyg,

SOME "conservatives" (who may not deserve the title if what you say is true) may have questioned your patriotism or resolve, but I have not.

I say this.  Any person/conservative that makes the argument that a Democrat or liberal is not patriotic merely because of their opposition to the war, party identification, or liberalism, is both wrong and being unpatriotic and unnecessarily divisive in making such a statement.  Period.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
The poor paying (0.00 / 0)
With the FairTax the poor, and everyone else, get their tax money back in advance of those purchases every month up to the poverty level!  Therefore they are in effect not taxed like you said!

The taxes we all pay simply inflate the cost of what we're paid to do a job and that inflates the cost of everything to everyone including the poor!  And at a huge administrative price!  The prebate would mean nothing percentage wise to the wealthy so they pay nearly the max. percentage.  The poor pay zero.  Remember the FairTax includes S.S.

On a long term view (not one paycheck) we decide to provide work/services based on the NET benefit we get not our meaningless Gross wage number.

Would you care if your employer increased your paycheck by a million dollars but then the government took that same million away. NO, you still get the same net check right?  But the employers cost just went up by a million!

The cost of operations would also go down for non-profits as prices drop (by whatever) and they are not subject to the FairTax on purchases.  And we have more money in our pockets pre-tax to donate!

I certainly never said a VAT makes a country better!  I'm against a VAT.  If the consumer pays the full VAT in the end why have the administrative waste of embedding it into the business process?  The FairTax takes the good aspects of a VAT and discards the bad aspects!

Could your arguments be false ultimately?  Worth a look~!

[ Parent ]
EIC (4.00 / 1)
By the way, it dawns on me to point out those loving the progressivity and success of the EIC.  It was a Nixon political idea, and signed by Ford in 75.  Maybe Republicans aren't all that bad after all?

"You can't handle the truth."
Nixon also signed the Environmental Protection Act... (4.00 / 2)
Which created an agency that Tom DeLay called an American Gestapo.

It's a very different Republican Party we see today.

Among the Trees

[ Parent ]
National Sales Tax (0.00 / 0)
If you don't like the FairTax as written, what would you change about it if you could to make it work?  What if you doubled the pre-bate thus making it even more progressive? What if you tripled it?  A wholesale dismissal of it is not being intellectually honest.

You want to be intellectually honest don't you?

Russell

...? (4.00 / 3)
Fair... Tax?

I think I just swallowed an Ashlee Simpson CD.  Excuse me.

Straw-mans have no place in an intellectually honest conversation.  At any rate: how it would work?  To never make it out of committee.

Works for me.

-- Signature! --

[ Parent ]
Yes it is...... (4.00 / 1)
Wow.  I never thought I'd live to see the day where we'd have a freakin' troll-swarm on our tiny liberal blog!

But fuck it, here goes the "debate" that you're all tempted to have.

1.  The "FairTax", is completely Orwellian in term, being that it's completely UNFAIR to Americans, as the sales tax affects poorer people more than rich people.  The taxes that would be eliminated under the UnFairTax would be things like capital gains taxes, the estate tax, and taxes on corporations.  All of these tax eliminations wouldn't benefit average working Americans in the least.

2.  The ridiculous sales tax (29% including state sales tax) would punish people for buying goods and services and result in people buying only the minimum amount of things needed to survive (i.e., food and shelter).  It would cripple the spending power of the American people, which is the most essential part of our economy.

3.  Having the UnFairTax would cause a deficit in our State's budget because of pressure to reduce the state sales tax to keep the tax burden off of the working class.  The State and local governments would also have to compensate for that gap by raising state income taxes and local property taxes.  We already have this now in America as a result of Bush's tax cuts.  It's called the "middle-class squeeze."  So not only would we be paying an unnecesarily high sales tax, we'd still be paying income and property taxes.

4.  When government spending goes up, what's to stop them from raising the sales tax even more?  Whose to stop them from making it 50%?  That's the problem of making the national sales tax the only national tax-it places all of our eggs in one basket.  At least now if we need to balance the budget under the system of progressive taxation, we need only do it on the rich who can afford it and leave the middle and lower classes alone.

5.  Conservatives hate progressive taxation now, so why would we trust them to do prebate?  It's a b.s. lie that gets sold to raise the sales tax.  Conservatives even eliminated the EITC for millions of Americans already!  Like Jack Nicholson said: "Sell crazy somewhere else.  We're all stocked up here."

6.  Conservatives have been wrong on just about everything in the past 6 years, and taxes are no exception.  With all the talk about how Bush's tax cuts have helped the economy, the truth is that income has been redistributed upward to the richest of Americans, while everyone else has faced lower wages and benefits.  Knowing that the right can't seem to get anything right, why should we start trusting them now?  Relax, guys.  The left is running things again and we promise you can enjoy the newfound economic prosperity that is to come.  In the meantime-stop fixing shit that ain't broken!  But please, keep telling people conservatives want a 23% NST.  Liberals enjoy the support!

[ Parent ]
Who's really Orwellian here? (0.00 / 0)
Screw the conservatives!  Your right, the FairTax does affect the poor more than the rich.  Unfortunately it's the opposite way than you describe! The FairTax is the ONLY tax proposal that truly removes the full (visible and hidden) tax cost of the poor.

Explain where in the current system the increased prices we pay are removed to the poor or anyone for that matter?
Even if we pay zero in direct income taxes we pay 15.3% in S.S. taxes and whatever percentage you want to use in hidden embedded taxes.  That could put a lot of food on my table!!!

You make so many un-true statements but believe their so!

Your first statement above shows your lack of economic understanding and the poor suffer because of it!

Reads some non-fictional books!
I don't want to trust the conservatives to do the prebate I hope we can trust the Liberals to do so though! You as the exception of course!

[ Parent ]
Nice tactic.... (0.00 / 0)
When all else fails, change the subject so that you attack the opponent.  Throw in ad hominem attacks so they feel the need to defend themselves, taking you off the defensive.

Nice try, not working.  But please, continue to tell the American people why you think they should be paying nearly 30 cents on the dollar for any items they buy (save food, of course).  I'm sure they'd love to hear it.  Please do it a lot during 2008.  Do that as well with school vouchers, and your opposition to the minimum wage.  We love the votes.  Thanks!

[ Parent ]
Can't see the forest through the trees? (0.00 / 0)
You made the point for me.  You seem to be blind to recognize the embedded tax cost you are already paying.  Instead you treat the 30% as a new tax beyond what your're paying now.

You make incorrect assumptions on other views of mine just because you don't see the benefits of this policy.  That's smart!  Calling people conservative if you don't agree with them as though you determine our liberal stances.  I on the other hand support the FairTax because I see it as more, and accurately progressive in taxation.  I see it truly removing the tax burden that our poor and middle class are forced to bear now even as we supposedly try to help them with the other hand.  You seem to be willing to let that stand at their peril? 

[ Parent ]
I call you a right-winger (0.00 / 0)
Because you are.  You make an account an hour after this post is made just to debate a view of the tax code that is only supported by right-wingers, then you insult everyone else who doesn't agree with you.  You're a troll, pure and simple.

Besides, anyone who remembers the Clinton administration knows that with the progressive tax system we created 22 million jobs in 8 years.  Your claim that it costs us American jobs is a lie.  Stop lying and crawl back to the free republic or whereever it is you're from.

[ Parent ]
My apologies! (0.00 / 0)
If I read correctly, the references to unneeded "Zingers" in responses pertains to me!  If I have been incorrect in my interpretation of the postings (which, despite my impression, is possible) then I owe, and make apologies to all!  My interpretation was as follows: by reading all the posts I see I have only returned fire to those already making unneeded "zinger's" and "false accusations" first!  As far as I can see I have always started with civil discussion as truly having an interest in good policy to create jobs and be fair.

The false accusation's like above are not founded or fair.  This is the only account I have created or ever used, period!  The FairTax idea is not only supported by right-wingers (I for one of many, and a Democrat from OK was the first cosponsor of HR25 this month!)  So who's throwing insults here?  They're an unfortunate, and bad response to someone doing exactly what they accuse others of doing because it doesn't pass their litmus test!

The statement tying the progressive tax code is at the exclusion of any other factors over that time frame to explain that success (could it have been more successful with the FairTax?). I support a true progressive code but don't believe this is as you see it.  If that doesn't pass your litmus test it also doesn't make me a right-winger!

Again, my apologies if due!

[ Parent ]
Try a different tack (0.00 / 0)
Liberation, try going point by point in the immediately above response you re replying to without adding in the "read some non-fictional books" "your lack of economic understanding", etc. I see several weaknesses in that five pointed response, but I'd like both sides to be civil.  I know neither side intends this, but the more precision and less peronal you are, the better the response.

And yes, one could devise a "FairTax" (its just name) that would be even more progressive by souping up the pre-bate.  At a high enough level, it would be almost identical to Friedman's full "negative income tax" (I like to think of the FairTax really as a "negative sales tax") and the idea could become very tempting to the modern left.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Kudos. (4.00 / 1)
When I read "Fair" and "Tax" smashed together into one feel-good word, it makes me cock my eyebrow and raises a red flag.

Thanks for your thorough points on it, dj.

-- Signature! --

[ Parent ]
Interesting (4.00 / 1)
That is a VeryReasonable Response. I think doing that SortOf LooksCool. Hah

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Always worth questioning for sure (0.00 / 0)
I 'felt' the same way when I first heard it.  It's always legitimate to question but my feelings don't shape the outcome whether it's true or not.  The more you understand how it works and the possible benefits compared to the flaws, waste and unfairness in the current system the more you should like it.  Not to mention the jobs, jobs and jobs!
[ Parent ]
Everybody calls their reform something (0.00 / 0)
You're right to question word play in our spin society.

But remember, everyone calls their reform something.  MCRI.  One United Michigan.  The K-16 Guarantee (guarantees what?). And to some extent, its all spin.  At another level, it means very little.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
points (0.00 / 0)
Response to:

1)  Whether the term is fair (no pun intended) or not doesn't change the policy analysis of whether its good or not. Yes, it eliminates all those business taxes.  Whether eliminating them or not benefits workers and consumers or doesn't is an empirical and theoretical question your point doesn't address.  If it caused huge economic growth, it could help anyone (sort of a trickle down, I know).  If the current tax system does nothing more than "pass on" those taxes to consumers (and laborers by reducing labor rates), then repealing them may be a "wash".  If the current tax system depresses growth by making American industry less competitive, then it may be a gain (one thing the FairTax really does is act as a "tariff" on imported goods and a subsidy on exports (or equalization).  In a global economy, the FT may be the most competitive hypothetical system.

2)  29% is ridiculous.  But less so than the 30 plus percent we already pay that would be repealed by the FT.  You're not adding a new tax on top of those, you're replacing it with something that is arguably "revenue-neutral" (stealing a Granholm favority there) but more efficient so as to generate a net-savings.

3) What if the States also adopted FairTaxes and abolished the SBT, etc.  The Michigan estimate is that 10% would replace the 6% sales tax, SBT, personal property business-investment tax, and income tax.  If state's didn't adopt it or a hodgepodge did after the feds, then the different states would act as experimentation nodes to see exactly how competitive the FT is versus non-FT.  Indeed, the FairTax movement might better "start" with a state than the federal government (from a purely federalist perspective, I'd recommend that, and experience would help in the uncertainty issue, as well as prove or disprove its effectiveness with lower stakes).

4)  You're absolutely right about government spending.  Let's cap spending growth at the same time.  I'd note, that's also a problem for any tax system.

5&6) Ad homimen fallacy.  You assert (without evidence) that "conservatives" "hate progressive taxation", hence, these people are conservatives, hence we should never trust them.  Even if true, it has no bearing on the ideas.  I can understand why, but do not condone, Liberation's own resort after this to similar arguments.

I do not necessarily support or oppose FT.  It is a major change.  But it sparks thought and conversation.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Wow, chetly..... (0.00 / 0)
Oh yeah, Liberation was NEVER insulting people before I showed up.  Oh my gosh, I wasn't aware that Liberation would've been such a swell fucking guy had I not thrown some insults in there!  I'm totally sorry.  Next time I'll be as bipartisan as the conservatives want me to be (grab my ankles and shutup while Bush has his way with me).

Yes, conservatives hate progressive taxation, that's why they go for policies like the flat tax and the UnFairTax.  Our sales tax would go up to 29% because we'd have a national sales tax of 23% and an additional state sales tax of 6%.  The fact that you're selling the UnFairTax as "trickle down" proves my point that it will only benefit the richest of Americans.

As for conservatives never getting anything right, I'd start with the GWOT and go from there.  Bush and the Republicans haven't been able to do anything in the past 6 years that wasn't a major shitjob.  Call it an ad-hominem attack if you want, but it won't change the fact that it's the truth.

[ Parent ]
taxation and conservatives (0.00 / 0)
Conservatives don't hate "progessive taxation".

They dislike "ALL TAXATION", and prefer a government to tax at a level necessary to perform the minimum number of services necessary to self-defense (and most conservatives I know are concerned about recent events in this area, and even quite upset at Bush's liberal spending streaks) and domestic peace and rule of law.

Reducing taxation is not the major question of the day - reducing wasteful spending is.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Whatever..... (0.00 / 0)
The conservatives consistently vote for retards who allow Bush to continue his wasteful spending.  In the meantime the budget was balanced under Clinton and we had a surplus due to the progressive tax system and the reduction of Government spending.

I don't remember seeing any Republicans at the anti-war rallies.  And you defended a guy that consistently votes with Bush's wasteful spending policies almost all the time on another thread.

The conservatives who are smart enough to know why Bush is spending like he is know that it's in the hope that the deficit will get so big that it will justify cutting the funds of social programs.  But after 2004, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that voters will put up with that line of thinking (remember private accounts)?

The only hope you guys have left of having anything resembling a movement is by convincing otherwise good Christians into believing that they're being persecuted by "baby-killing liberals".  And a lot of Christians don't even buy that lie anymore.

[ Parent ]
ah (0.00 / 0)
Ah, but you assume that conservatives kept voting for those people you label as "retards".

I propose to you that 2006 was less a "liberal wave" than it was a repudiation of current practices by corrupted conservatives.  As Christine points out, many liberals this time around won as "fiscal conservatives."  Whether they turn out to truly be such is a different question, but that move to the center-right, along with solid issue exit-polling, tells me that conservatives did not, en masse, "keep voting for retards", as you label them.  They either didn't show up in usual numbers, or as my own internal rolling-precinct breaks downs suggest, "conservatives" expected proof of conservativism in this election and had a variance of more than 20% in voting for some candidates and not others.  That is, Dick DeVos in particular, and SOME Republican candidates in the US House across the nation, suffered more than others because their message was more devoid of substance than others.

Yes, there was an anti-Republican wave that hurt everyone in the party to some extent, and DeVos probably couldn't have won under any circumstance as a result (although only a modestly better performance and he protects enough Republican State House members to retain that body).

If you think this election was a major endorsement of liberalism, continue on with that thought.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Awww (4.00 / 3)
the trolls don't like the way their comments were rated. Isn't that too bad.

Let's have a pity party.

Everybody ready?

One. Two. Three.

Awwwwww!

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895

Chetly was also (4.00 / 1)
stupid enough to troll rate Matt one time.

Enough said.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895

[ Parent ]
I believe (0.00 / 0)
I believe Matt and I came to some moderate conclusion on that.  And I was very unfamilar with how the rating system worked at that time (to me, it's not intuitive to have low ratings automatically obscure any comment - a better system would merely show the ratings so people could judge the person based on the rating, and let administrators only block comments - - it is to me suggestive of the designers of SoapBlox that they built it this way). Matt is certainly moderate enough not to permanently ban me - I have not acted unpolitely, etc., here, and to ban me despite that would reflect on him and the community here.

But I'd do it again if I thought it was right, just like anybody else here can do it to anybody else here.  I'm not afraid of such things.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
FairTax only works if employers can slash your paycheck (3.62 / 8)
I'm surprised no one mentioned this nasty element of the FairTax program: It only works if your employer can cut your paycheck. As this article states, FairTax proponents don't like to tell people that the cut in prices for goods only occurs if employee wages fall by the same amount. So while most people see the FairTax as a windfall, with their paycheck suddenly going farther, the truth is that, if you're lucky, you won't take home an extra cent thanks to the FairTax. Try selling this concept to most people when you tell them that the trade-off for lower prices is a smaller paycheck.
How about the truth (0.00 / 0)
What makes it a 'nasty element'?  Does you calling it that make it so?  It's an element we should want!!!  You are exactly correct but it's not hidden.  Most people have a hard time understanding that concept and find it confusing yet it's completely true.  Have you heard anyone saying it's not true?

Whatever portion that wages do drop over time is that portion that prices will go down.  Why wouldn't it happen that way.  It's a net wash except for the huge savings passed on to our economy through lower compliance cost that we waste today.  All wage earners pay is raised by the cost of taxes we pay.  Take out those taxes and the pay should go down.  But the prices go down an equal amount if you understand economics 101.

If we could use even half the money that we waste in compliance cost every year to better feed and educate our poor isn't that a better use of funds.  Doesn't the poor deserve the money more than a tax accountant or lawyer!

[ Parent ]
Prices (4.00 / 1)
Whatever portion that wages do drop over time is that portion that prices will go down.  Why wouldn't it happen that way.

See, here's a flaw in the argument. Who really trusts the corporations that set the prices for their goods and services to lower them?

Sure, there wouldn't be the costs of income and corporate taxes which force the prices to be higher. But which sounds more likely to you-- companies say, "Oh, gee, thanks for this new tax system, we're going to lower our prices!" or "Lower prices? Ha! Let's keep them where they are, make a big profit, and use our media skills to blame the government for the 23% price increase!"

And this isn't me just being a corporation-hating liberal. In such a system, there's no incentive for them to dramatically lower prices. The prices might lower some, but I don't trust Adam Smith's invisible hand to make them fall the right amount.

[ Parent ]
Competition (0.00 / 0)
You seem to feel those companies have so much pricing power they could just raise their prices today if they wanted that big profit?  Where is the logic?
Competition is what controls prices in most markets and not 'I want more'.  I don't trust the companies to do it willingly and I would be a fool to expect them to 'willingly'.  But I do see reality that will force them to do so 'un-willingly'.  I don't see that Ford or GM stock hitting new highs from their fat pricing power?
[ Parent ]
The Invisible Hand (0.00 / 0)
The invisible hand which you are currently saying will do all this stuff perfectly does not always work as it should. The argument is this: companies will lower their prices do to their cost structure falling. Yet in many areas with few sellers likely the inflated prices will remain. So they will be inflated care of monopolistic conditions and then also will be inflated care of their capitalizing on the lack of tax expenditure but still having the inflated price. I have trouble believing these prices will fall to the point that the two 23%s equal out. It'd be nice if it did, but I have trouble with that happenign so perfectly.

Also I just think there is quite a leap of faith abandoing a tax system used worldwide. It may have many many problems do not get me wrong, but throwing all of our eggs into a basket the likes of which have not been demonstrated on a western economy such as ours could have huge rammifactions for future generations. Call me conservative here, but to me, I'd rather stick with what we have and let someone else handle this potential burden, because igorning all the problems I have with the FairTax as I've illustrated numerous times, I have an equal amount of trouble scrapping a century old system of funding our government.

check out my blog!

[ Parent ]
Rammifactions is right (0.00 / 0)
I agree you raise some valid concerns.  However, concerns alone should not stop us from seriously evaluating it right?  How about the fact that our current system is killing jobs and has been for a long time by raising those cost artificially.  Yes, the FairTax is not without risk but the current system has risk in being kept also.  And what about the huge rewards our economy could see with a more pro-growth tax policy to compete around the world?  I don't see any economist questioning that part.  Even groups against the FairTax admit it would cause a greater GDP than without it!

Where is that risk?  Consumption is a more steady base than income is by far.  It takes the same amount in taxes out of our economy.  That bodes well for Schools, police and any other agency that today isn't able to plan more than one year out with secure funding because of wild budget swings.  All accumulated wealth is tax without exception when spent and benefited from (which is when anyone should be taxed)  There is a reason an income tax was prohibited in our original constitution!  An now we are reminded why.  Keeping a process simply due to it longgevity is not a reason in itself?  A good outcome is though!

[ Parent ]
World wide use doesn't make it right or best (0.00 / 0)
Should the very first country that used an income tax not have done so because nobody else did it?  A flawed logic at best.

The reason many places, countries and states, have both income and sales or VAT taxes is to spread the 'appearence' of taxation levels and hide from the public what the politicians really take from us.

Simply the same reason for putting taxation through a business to start with.  It makes people 'feel' like someone else is paying.  WE pay ALL those taxes, either as individual owners (we're all shareholders in industrial America), employees (lower wages) or as the consumer (higher prices).  The more efficient the market the more it's the consumer.  Business do not pay taxes they only collect them.  A fact to come to grips with or we'll continue to loss jobs!

[ Parent ]
Dont put all your eggs into one basket (0.00 / 0)
But should the world's largest economy dive in head first or wait and see if it can work on a smaller scale? You don't paint an entire wall to find out if you like color, you paint a tiny bit.

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Examples (0.00 / 0)
The 5th and 12th largest economies in the world rely mostly on a retail sales tax in some variation for the majority of their revenue and DO NOT have a personal income tax.  They are both STATES in America!

This country did not have a sustained income tax for over 130 years!  This is not new and the reason we have an income tax, and other countries have it is not for economic reasons but for political power and the ability to hide your cost of government.  Based on your stance, I'd say they have succeeded!

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
You're right, they do not always work.  A true statement.  But they do in most and that is what any system is based on with 'accomodations' for those where it doesn't work like a monopolized public good industry like many utilities have been etc.

The statement "Yet in many areas with few sellers likely the inflated prices will remain." is based on what?  What is 'many' relative to the total GDP?  Are you saying the majority of our national economy is not controlled by market forces?  Asking~!

Hopefully you will agree in most, % of GDP wise, market forces that control now will eventually squeeze out those reduced tax costs.  And the corresponding wages will only drop, in general, as those prices go down.  Resulting in little net consumer cost change.  Otherwise those 'big profits' that would result will invite new players into the market.

Some will take more time than others, OK, I'll agree to that!  But it is in our best interest to eventually have these things occur regardless of time.  Better someday than never?  On the opposite, some industries gross wages (not net spendable income after tax) will not fall as fast as others due to term contracts etc...  Much of the the unevenness in who's affected and how is due to the current system picking winners and losers in the tax code and will take time to reverse, but SHOULD be reversed!

[ Parent ]
Of course it's hidden (0.00 / 0)
FairTax advocates don't want to have to argue why you should want your pay to go down. So they gloss over that part and leave the false impression that prices will go down while your salary stays the same.

As for economics 101, the real world isn't an economics class. If having the lowest taxes translated to the lowest prices, then why don't the states with the lowest taxes have prices much cheaper than here in Michigan?

[ Parent ]
Not so hidden topic (0.00 / 0)
I believe you're misinterpreting the situation.  I think most FairTax supporters don't understand themselve how the wage level and priceing is interrelated.  That is why few discuss it.  If they are avoiding it then their not educated properly on the subject!  Besides, nobody should want their pay to go down.  But it's OK to happen if there's an offset in costs and you understand that relationship.  You can't forget the benefit that comes from this in this evaluation.  It's not a zero sum game overall or why do it?  There is a huge savings annually in compliance cost that we waste today.  That value could be put to productive uses in benefiting our society and being a more progressive society.  This, instead of paying attorney's and tax accountants that do nothing for our standard of living but satisfy a requirement only.

Where does 'the lowest taxes' statement come from?  I never said any sort of thing.  The FairTax is not about changing the size of government or the level of taxation.  It's saying if your going to tax people to pay our way, here's a better, simpler, fairer and more efficient way to do so that is positive for our economy not a drag and disincentive to save.  In addition your comparrison between states prices and their tax levels is apple and oranges.  Not the correct comparrison anyway.

[ Parent ]
Simplicity vs. Equity (0.00 / 0)
This is what it comes down to. If you think simplicity and efficiency is most important than the FairTax is for you. It is EXTREMELY simple and thus very efficient. But for equity's sake, it just no matter how you doll it up, is not equitable at all. The wealthy have a huge tax break. You can't deny that. They have a HUGE tax break.

check out my blog!
[ Parent ]
Easy to deny (0.00 / 0)
That is exactly what I would deny!  You have to separate 'appearences' from reality in our current system and as I've said before you must include S.S. in the equation to be fair.  If you do this, you get a different result of the current system than first appearences!

Take someone earning in the first tax bracket of 10% marginally plus they pay 7.65% in S.S. taxes.  Then if you only admit to 1/2 of the claimed 22% embedded tax cost for argument sake (and you know they're spending nearly all of that income) what is this below average family paying?  Nearly 2/3rd's of filers do not itemize deductions and the wealthy have those 66,000 pages to use.  Come on man, seriously look at whether this income tax system is as progressive as you thought?  We've all been brainwashed over the last 94 years for the politicians benefit.

Do you really think the 66,000 or more pages in the IRS code are there to benefit the average or poor person?
Since they're put there by the wealthy would you say yes?

All of those tax breaks for the wealthy disappear.  Everyone agrees invested wealth is good for our economy or even required for our economy to prosper.  And the wealthy, anyone for that matter, doesn't benefit until they spend that wealth!  In the mean time it creates JOBS!

[ Parent ]
Equity claims (0.00 / 0)
Let me ask a straight out question.

Do you understand or agree that only individuals pay taxes?  Y/N

In other words, do you agree that business entities do not bare the burden of taxation?  Y/N

Please Yes or NO ?

[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
No, labor rates could and would probably remain the same and a cut in prices could occur as a result of the lower cost of doing business associated with the business paying less taxes.  There is a valid concern that businesses would try to pocket some of the excess "rent" as it would be called, but market pressure would tenuate against that.  Certainly, industries with larger numbers of competitors would be quicker to come back to a market price, and I'd be more concerned with monopolistic or ogipolistic industries.  A fair reformer in this area would also build in some Congressionally-mandated legal tools to monitor those industries, much as the anti-trust act already does.  A fair reformer might also negotiate some kind of wage reduction prohibition as well, and remember, we already have a minimum wage guaranteeing a floor (what if a permanent "COLA" to the national minimum wage were part of a FairTax "deal" - that would be even more tempting for Dems, although probably cost some Republican votes - - I'm not sure I'd support it either, but I'm tossing it out there).

As I stated, I have concerns about transition to a FairTax from the raw uncertainty it would create, but the idea is very intriguing.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
Link to article (4.00 / 1)
Oh, and remember (0.00 / 0)
The initial post called FairTax people "nutjobs".

One shouldn't be surprised that FairTax people might respond (picking it up via a blog alert, etc.), and be not so polite, although that doesn't excuse any lack of politeness.

"You can't handle the truth."

Actually (4.00 / 1)
we prefer to think of you as Antitax Loons.
[ Parent ]
I stand with "nutjobs" (4.00 / 3)
this is a crazy tax proposal that can't work in the US economy.

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." The Importance of Being Earnest, Act I, Oscar Wilde, 1895
[ Parent ]
I endorse your use of the word nutjob. (4.00 / 3)
[ Parent ]
I also endorse the word "nutjobs". (4.00 / 2)
The conservatives are a funny bunch.  They want you to be nice to them now that you're stomping their movement into the ground.  They're like a boxer who was crotch punching you through the first 5 rounds, so you give them a black eye and they cry foul.  Fuckem.

I don't see any of them over at Redstate bitching that we're still being called Socialists.  Their idea of civilized debate is "let me say whatever I want, but YOU shutup!"

[ Parent ]
Hee (4.00 / 2)
DJ, when did you start using that sig line?  It's priceless!

Sometime when I have some time on my hands, I'll post up a pleading from one of those "Income Taxes Are Unconstitutional" lawsuits.  The last one I saw was handwritten--in crayon.

Loons AND nutjobs.

[ Parent ]
Thanks. (4.00 / 1)
Stephen Colbert said it on Monday regarding the coverage on CSPAN of Pelosi with all the kids.  So I've been using it since yesterday:).
[ Parent ]
When argument fails, attack your opponent (0.00 / 1)
There's an old saying, and your now repeated and continued use of the personal attacks and such words proves the quality of your argument, character, and that the "divisive" political climate everyone claims exists today is caused at least partly by you.  I'll concede there are forces on both sides of the aisle that are divisive, but its not just a "right wing" thing.

So be it, I guess.

"You can't handle the truth."

[ Parent ]
On the other hand (0.00 / 0)
Someone who continues to argue things in stark contrast to facts is a loon, and it's proper to call them one.

Among the Trees
[ Parent ]
The FairTax a net gain. (0.00 / 0)
Let's clarify a few assumptions.

1. The FairTax rate of 29.85% exclusive (sales tax comparable), or 23% inclusive (income tax comparable) is designed and, under best abilities, estimated to be revenue neutral.  That is also the desire, so if the estimates are wrong, high or low, Congress can simply vote majority to change the rate so it equals what we take from our economy today.  No different!  This is purposefully not an easy task however as the rate effects everyone, after poverty level purchases.  It does not pick winners or losers like the current system while keeping the same progressiveness as the previous rate as the Prebate would go up correspondingly.

It is somebody else's battle to change the size or funding of government up or down if they so chose.  The FairTax idea simply says if your going to fund our services here's a better, fairer more efficient way to do it.  It is not about right-wing or left-wing political goals or objectives.

If the FairTax is a REPLACEMENT of current taxes and is adjusted to WHATEVER (giving ultimate leeway here) it needs to be to raise the same revenue then those that claim the rate would need to be much higher to be revenue neutral are admitting those same taxes being replaced are currently taking a much higher amount from our economy then they admit to.  You can't have it both ways.  And the reverse is true of people saying the rate is too high.  I'm in full support of making the rate whatever it needs to be to get the same support we have today!  Be clear about that!  It's about savings in the system that will help our economy compete and the creation of jobs here at home.  I don't care what 'wing' that's called!

Let's keep a civil discourse going forward please.

The Truth on the FairTax (0.00 / 0)
For the real truth on the FairTax please visit fairtaxfraud.com. The fairtax is the biggest ripoff in US history. It puts new TAXES on food, clothes, shelter, and medical care while making billion-dollar inheritances and capital gains for millionaires tax free. It is the most regressive tax in history.
National Sales Tax | 100 comments

Features

Mobile Blog Reader - powered by Notice Orange
RSS
Politics & Elections Library:
- US Senate
- US House
- Executive Branch
- Michigan Senate
- Michigan House
- State Supreme Court
- Michigan Media

Special Sections:
- Technical Politics - Grebner
- Michigan's Fallen

Search
Progressive Blogroll
For MI Bloggers:
 - MI Bloggers Facebook
- MI Bloggers Myspace
- MI Bloggers PartyBuilder
- MI Bloggers Wiki

Statewide:
 - Blogging for Michigan
- Call of the Senate Dems
- [Con]serving Michigan (Michigan LCV)
- DailyKos (Michigan tag)
- Enviro-Mich List Serve archives
- Democratic Underground, Michigan Forum
- Jack Lessenberry
- JenniferGranholm.com
- LeftyBlogs (Michigan)
- MI Eye on Bishop
- Michigan Coalition for Progress
- Michigan Messenger
- MI Idea (Michigan Equality)
- Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan
- Rainbow Mittens
- The Upper Hand (Progress Michigan)

Upper Peninsula:
- Keweenaw Now
- Lift Bridges and Mine Shafts
- Save the Wild UP

Western Michigan:
- Great Lakes Guy
- Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott
- Mostly Sunny with a Chance of Gay
- Public Pulse
- West Michigan Politics
- West Michigan Rising
- Windmillin'

Mid-Michigan:
- Among the Trees
- Blue Chips (CMU College Democrats Blog)
- Christine Barry
- Conservative Media
- Far Left Field
- Graham Davis
- Honest Errors
- ICDP:Dispatch (Isabella County Democratic Party Blog)
- Liberal, Loud and Proud
- Livingston County Democratic Party Blog
- MI Blog
- Mid-Michigan DFA
- Pohlitics
- Random Ramblings of a Somewhat Common Man
- Waffles of Compromise
- YAF Watch

Flint/Bay Area/Thumb:
- Bay County Democratic Party
- Blue November
- East Michigan Blue
- Genesee County Young Democrats
- Greed, Eggs, and Ham
- Jim Stamas Watch
- Meddling Outsider
- Saginaw County Democratic Party Blog
- Stone Soup Musings
- Voice of Mordor

Southeast Michigan:
 - A2Politico
- arblogger
- Arbor Update
- Congressman John Conyers (CD14)
- Mayor Craig Covey
- Councilman Ron Suarez
- Democracy for Metro Detroit
- Detroit Skeptic
- Detroit Uncovered (formerly "Fire Jerry Oliver")
- Grosse Pointe Democrats
- I Wish This Blog Was Louder
- Kicking Ass Ann Arbor (UM College Democrats Blog)
- LJ's Blogorific
- Mark Maynard
- Michigan Progress
- Motor City Liberal
- North Oakland Dems
- Oakland Democratic Politics
- Our Michigan
- Peters for Congress (CD09)
- PhiKapBlog
- Polygon, the Dancing Bear
- Rust Belt Blues
- Third City
- Thunder Down Country
- Trusty Getto
- Unhinged

MI Congressional
District Watch Blogs:
 - Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (CD08)
MI Campaigns:
- ActBlue (MI Congressional Candidates)
- Michigan Round Table for Diversity and Inclusion
- MichUHCAN (Affordable Health Care)
- Politics1 (MI Candidate Listings)
- Senator Carl Levin

MI Democratic Orgs:
- Michigan Democratic Party
- Michigan House Democratic Caucus
- Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus
- MDP Youth Caucus
- Michigan Young Democrats
- Ingham County Democratic Party
- Genesee County Dems Progressive Caucus
- Saginaw Area Democratic Club
- Justice Caucus
- South County Dems (Berrien Co.)
- Western Washtenaw Democrats

MI Progressive Orgs:
- America Votes Michigan coalition
- Michigan Labor organizations
- Michigan Voice coalition

MI Misc.:
- Absolute Michigan
- Center for Michigan
- Citizens Research Council
- Detroit News Politics Blog
- Freep Opinion
- Media Mouse (Grand Rapids Indy Media) Blog
- Michigan Campaign Finance Network
- The Michigan Citizen Blog
- Michigan Interfaith Trust Fund
- Michigan Future (WWJ)
- Michigan Nonprofit Association's blog
- Michigan Prospect
- Michigan Public News Service
- Michigan Radio
- Michigan Secret Court
- MLive.com Blogs
- Political Graveyard
- Red Tape Blog (Government Documents Librarians of Michigan)

National Alternative Media:
- Air America Radio
- BlogTalkRadio
- BuzzFlash
- ePluribus Media
- Indymedia
- New Journalist Program (Center for Independent Media)
- PoliticsTV

National Blogs:
- AFL-CIO Weblog
- BlogPAC
- Daily Kos
- Firedoglake
- From The Roots (DSCC)
- The Gavel (Speaker's Office)
- Huffington Post
- HuffPo: Rich Robinson
- Kicking Ass (DNC)
- MyDD
- My Left Wing
- The Next Hurrah
- Open Left
- The Thicket (NCSL)
- Senate Guru
- Smart Ass (CDA)
- The Stakeholder (DCCC)
- YDA



© Michiganliberal.com, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Powered by: SoapBlox