True Conservative Tax Scheme

[dairygirl4u2c]

i assert that, instead of flat taxes proposed by so called "conservatives", that conservatives should beleive everyone be required to pay a flat fee for their taxes. everyone pays the same amount. this way, the rich do not have to pay more just cause a flat percentage means more coming from a higher wage.

flat percentage is arbitrary. flat fee is not. the money saved by the rich will create jobs etc etc. and the poor can jsut smell of elderberries it up if it means more taxes from them.

this is the true conservative ideology.

thoughts?

Edited October 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Adrestia]

is this to replace income taxes? federal? state? local?

what amount do you propose to charge?

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409079' date='Oct 25 2007, 10:43 AM']this is the true conservative ideology.[/quote]

Punishing the poor for being poor has never been "the true conservative ideology". Flat tax seems like a good idea to me.

[S][N]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1409152' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:38 PM']Punishing the poor for being poor has never been "the true conservative ideology". Flat tax seems like a good idea to me.[/quote]

Don't need to be, they find other ways to keep the poor, poor.

Edited October 25, 2007 by S][N

[dairygirl4u2c]

we're not punishing the poor for being poor. we are simply being fair. if the poor have to smell of elderberries it up, so be it.

people who say "flat tax" are liberals masquarading as conservatives.
might i add, liberalism is a sin.

note, the sarcasm.

[Winchester]

I find it hilarious that at the highest level of the parties that there is any distinction between conservative and liberal. They're all rich, and they all intend to stay that way. Rare is the person on either side who truly cares about the poor or working classes. Neither of those groups gets people the money to fund the popularity contests that get them into office.

I spent several years working under a supposed democrat. No new contract, no raise, but plenty of disrespect and attempted budget cuts.

They have different favored tactics, of course. Liberals seem to think the government can run businesses better. This is called fascism. Conservatives think businesses will monitor themselves, leading to a healthy life for all. This is called insane. But what if we combined the ideologies? Insanity and fascism?

This is called Nazi Germany.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409265' date='Oct 25 2007, 04:59 PM']might i add, liberalism is a sin.

note, the sarcasm.[/quote]Sarcasm aside, it is important to note that the terms are not interchangeable, though politically liberal people are often morally and philosophically liberal in the US.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think you need a turkey for your picture icon. then after thanksgiving, santa claus would be nice.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1415183' date='Nov 5 2007, 11:33 PM']i think you need a turkey for your picture icon. then after thanksgiving, santa claus would be nice.[/quote]
It's my mom's birthday month, so I've put up a current picture.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409079' date='Oct 25 2007, 09:43 AM']i assert that, instead of flat taxes proposed by so called "conservatives", that conservatives should beleive everyone be required to pay a flat fee for their taxes. everyone pays the same amount. this way, the rich do not have to pay more just cause a flat percentage means more coming from a higher wage.

flat percentage is arbitrary. flat fee is not. the money saved by the rich will create jobs etc etc. and the poor can jsut smell of elderberries it up if it means more taxes from them.

this is the true conservative ideology.

thoughts?[/quote]
Bah! A conservative answer to taxation would be as such:
1.) Federal and State peacetime spending (some wars were necessary, and may be in the future, so no Iraq baiting please) shall not exceed 8% of their respective GDP, leaving a total ceiling of 16% for State and Federal spending.

2.) Federal taxation shall rely solely upon excise taxes and import tariffs.

3.) State taxation shall allow the above methods as well as property, sales, and tolls.

4.) Neither State nor Federal subsidize or collect from one another, nor collect from or subsidize to local government.

In essence, it really doesn't matter where and how the taxes are levied, it is the spending that is devouring our nation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

where are the conservatives arguing for the flat tax. i want to turn the tables on them, and show them for the liberals they really are. dem thur crazy liberalz.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, there are arguments that "conservatives" could make. such as, even if they have to pay more, the rich, that's only because they proprotionally have more of our resources and wealth.
of course, if they start making those arguments, they starting sounding like the liberals they are. i can see it now.
plus, many of those same arguments form the basis to justify taxing the rich more even as a percentage. (more arguments i'd think would be needed)

[Winchester]

So taxation is the sole issue that determines whether one is a liberal or conservative?

What's your day job? News reporter or talk show host?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1417100' date='Nov 10 2007, 04:48 PM']So taxation is the sole issue that determines whether one is a liberal or conservative?

What's your day job? News reporter or talk show host?[/quote]
Professional opinion pollster would be my guess.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1417100' date='Nov 10 2007, 04:48 PM']So taxation is the sole issue that determines whether one is a liberal or conservative?

What's your day job? News reporter or talk show host?[/quote]

not at all. it's just easier to talk in terms of cons and lib.
i can appreciate your apprehensiion, as i used to attack people who talked the way i am. now, i only attack people when it's clear they actually think the world exists in those black and white terms.
be warned, while it's okay to make clear these labels do not reflect reality, it shouldn't be used as a form of not addressing the arguments at hand. not tht this applies to you, just saying.

[dairygirl4u2c]

can some people who consider themselves conservatives tell me why they are not replying to this thread?
do you think you're not so so conservative as to require a flat fee? do you agree that the flat fee is more conservative, or do you think it's just anotehr form of conservatism? even if you are not hardcore conservative, do you support the flat fee, why and why not.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1419741' date='Nov 15 2007, 10:22 AM']can some people who consider themselves conservatives tell me why they are not replying to this thread?
do you think you're not so so conservative as to require a flat fee? do you agree that the flat fee is more conservative, or do you think it's just anotehr form of conservatism? even if you are not hardcore conservative, do you support the flat fee, why and why not.[/quote]
A flat fee direct tax is superior to a linear income tax, which is in turn superior to a progressive income tax. The reasoning behind this is that more people would be directly affected by abusive spending by the government, while inferior tax structures hide the damage done to the public. This in turn would prevent abusive spending from occurring, as politicians prefer re-election to the alternative.

Of course, a direct tax is terribly unpopular because people want their wasteful government programs and not pay for them, which is why I am not very hopeful about the sustainability of the US in the next twenty years, or less.

Even so, any direct tax is simply too easy and too tempting to abuse and modify into a progressive income tax, and we are back to step one.

Reversing the spending cancer is the essential key. I'm afraid that its now terminal, short of direct Divine intervention.

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting. cool. i didn't think anyone actually espouse the view. it does have merit though which you point out, ie hidden abuse with our current structure would be less rampant.

[Dismas]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1420055' date='Nov 15 2007, 09:07 PM']interesting. cool. i didn't think anyone actually espouse the view. it does have merit though which you point out, ie hidden abuse with our current structure would be less rampant.[/quote]

And I sincerely believe that the cost of hidden abuse causes far more damage to the poor of the nation and society than the same amount of abuse overtly shouldered by the poor. After all, the rich can simply raise prices to offset their costs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

interesting. good point.
i think some states need to have the freedom to try out various tax schemes. i'm sure there's studies on this in comparative countries.
cause i'm not sure what hte practical effects would be with each system. it's easy to theorize this way and that.