A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

So you hold him responsible for not being able to create enough surplus to pay for the all the annual interest due on the debt accumulated by previous administrations (Reagan, Bush I ...)? Those administrations were the ones responsible for the debt and the interest -- just as Scwubbia is responsible for his.How can you possibly feel that Clinton is responsible for inherited debt and any of the interest on it? Why should someone who ends up with less {personal value} at the end of a year than they started with pay tax at all?Compare this to someone who makes more off of interest in one year than the previous example -- someone who has done squat for the money, but who has benefited directly from the economy that is also a direct result of the US government: why should not a significant proportion of that be due to the US that doesn't just make it possible but that actually earns the money becomes this interest.Further, I'll bet if the same amount of money that was squandered on the Botch tax rebate (with no accountability or any means of tracking whether it was benefiting the US economy or not - or even if it was spent in the US) was given in equal amounts to every tax payer with coupons that could only be spent on american product that there would have been an immediate response in the economy -- because the economy is the MOVEMENT of money, not how much you have.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I agree with your argument, though I wonder if there is also another solution other than a scaled tax. What about a flat tax with a "floor" under which no one pays.For example, we calculate what an average family needs (or individual) for an average year od expenses. Let's say in theory that is 24K a year. We then consider everything above that amount as profit and flat tax that profit. Because we'd tax fewer people, and only on their profit, the flat rate could be higher.Then taking your same example, lets say the tax is 20% on everything over 24K:
The person who made 20K is left with 20K
The person who made 40K is left with 36.8KIn any case, no one could be taxed to a lower than "necessary" amount.

---

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I am generally opposed to a flat tax (in part because the main argument I have seen advanced for it is so stupid); however, a high flat tax rate with a high floor would end up being more or less progressive anyway.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Person a made twice as much as person b and paid twice as much as person b. Sounds fair to me. Anything more is just income redistribution.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

Anything more is just income redistribution.

---

Sounds fair to me.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

I don't and didn't say so. I said that the federal debt grew during Clinton's administration which makes any claims of surplus a lie. Clinton's administration is no more responsible for federal debt than any number of other administrations and much less responsible than dubya. Are you trying to twist my support for flat tax into a tax-the-poor argument? A flat tax is fair to everyone. It's sort of an economic circle of life thing...go watch Lion King, it sort of explains the concept. We encourage people with money to put their money back into the economy by allowing them to make more money. We do not punish them. If the U.S. does not offer a safe and profitable haven for investors then the money will go places where the return is better. Just another effect of a world economy.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

go watch Lion King, it sort of explains the concept.

---

Which concept? That social stability depends on the rightful heir assuming his position as hereditary monarch?

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

A very good point. My idea of a flat tax has a significant income floor before a taxpayer is eligible to be taxed and that does make it a progressive tax after a fashion. To me a flat tax would fulfill two goals:Destroy the multi-billion dollar tax industry that is a result of cryptic tax-law.Focus government tax collection efforts on significant revenue streams.

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

LMAO!Jenna Bush for President!

---

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.
- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research

quote:

---

Destroy the multi-billion dollar tax industry that is a result of cryptic tax-law.

---

Actually, the complications of the tax code are due to the exemptions and deductions that tax payers may or may not be eligible for, according to their situations and complicated eligibility rules.The main way that a flat tax would be "simpler" than a progressive tax is that it would eliminate these deductions and exemptions. However, one can just as easily eliminate the deductions and exemptions in a progressive tax scheme.A progressive income tax with no deductions and no exemptions other than the one for each member of the family (suitably raised to take into account that things like mortgage interest would no longer be deducted) would be almost as simple as the flat tax -- it would require a couple more lines to explain how to calculate the tax according to income, but I can teach a 7 year old how to do it. At any rate, most people could still look up their tax in prepared tables -- which people still due in states where the state tax is a flat rate.Meanwhile, I guarantee that within 10 years all the exemptions and deductions and complications will be added right back into a flat tax scheme, making just as complicated as the current system is.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

No, you will not call conservatives unpatriotic. You will call them racist, hateful, oppressive, Nazis, child abusers, brain washers, primitive, etc. Really? I wouldn't believe this from conservatives or liberals without some sort of proof it's happening. Really? Not even on a mistake? Exactly how are you going to guarantee avoiding that? We already can see a doctor regardless of our ability to pay. It's posted as a right in the emergency room of our local hospital. I can do that in Germany, too, and I still have to pay and possibly go into debt to pay. What Germany offers is much, much cheaper health care and health insurance. Can you reduce the cost of health care so that I'm not paying the cost of my doctor's 9th exotic car and the genuine leather on the stadium seats in the theater he has in his house? I heard that promise from the conservatives, too. I hope that's true, but I see no evidence of it. I've heard more than once, right here on good ol' EVC, that teaching my children my religious beliefs is child abuse, and it is generally liberals who decree that spanking a child, even one time, is child abuse and scars them for life. Really? That will be awesome. I sure hope it's true, but you know, this isn't the first time the democrats have had a majority in congress.******************Listen, if Michael Moore really believes all that stuff and wants to promise that this is what he is for and wants to happen, then I'm sure glad to hear it. More power to him, and if I can help him in those goals, then that's great. But if he's promising that the new congress is going to do all this, I'm afraid I'm doubting Thomas. I'll believe it when I see it.

We could take a big chunk out of the headache for taxpayers by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, which would reduce the IRS code (according to an IRS employee who spoke at 2005's IRS Nationwide Forum in Chicago) by more than eliminating the normal income tax.There's several propositions to do so working their way through congress, some eliminating it only for individuals and some eliminating it for businesses, too.The speaker at that forum said the Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted because a number of people making over $200,000/yr paid no tax in the 1960's. It has been largely ineffective, though, as the number of such people has greatly increased since that time.That would be a start. There are ways the tax code could be simplified, and really, there's some rather effective efforts underway to do so.

I'd like to contest this. During Papa Bush's presidency the budget deficits went like this:1989: minus $152,841
1990: minus $221,229
1991: minus $269,361
1992: minus $290,404Obviously, there is a trend here.Then Clinton took office:1993: minus $255,110
1995: minus $164,007
1997: minus $21,990
1999: PLUS $124,414Again, there is an obvious trend. What we see is that Clinton was not in office long enough to overcome the debt accumulated by his predecessors. Statistically, it seems clear that had he remained in office, he would have achieved a reduction in the federal debt.Bush, of course, has wiped out any possibility of this, and if we gave the job back to Clinton, he would have another 8 year project on his hands just to get out of the hole.Your conclusion was that Clinton was not responsible enough. I suggest that a much more likely scenario is that he just didn't have enough time to do an incredibly difficult job.

quote:

---

and it is generally liberals who decree that spanking a child, even one time, is child abuse and scars them for life.

---

Why do you need to hit children?

Have you ever raised any children?