Replies

Ancient_Geezer to Deuce: Your own sources you rely on, disprove your statements and show your socialist agenda and ingenuousness for what it is. 902

That's how I see it too, as would any rational, honest person.

Deuce: I am interested in the distribution of tax burden. Most people are going to want to know this if this concept ever gets off the ground. Knowing that the tax burden is shifted downward, however much you welcome it, is not a feature likely to gain broad based popular appeal. 899

From what I can tell you have a collectivist groupthink mentality about it wherein you join the corralled group herded into thinking it is okay to sacrifice a portion of the individual's life-and-property rights to the supposed betterment of the group.

"Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary unit. All those in bold are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another. It sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink. Like voting for the lesser of evils always begets evil -- how so many people thinking they're right can be so wrong. Politics, and especially reflected in politics of taxation, suck. Politics suck objectivity out and insert irrationality in. Individual life-and-property rights are primary and must be protected, honored and respected -- not sacrificed." 888

Your effort to “connect the dots for me” to explain why my pov related to taxes is best characterized as a “collectivist groupthink mentality” fails miserably and I think I see why. Your argument requires several unstated but necessary premises (i.e. assumptions) to make any sense. Somehow, in my previous posts, you have failed to recognize that I am challenging these assumptions. You therefore reassert your conclusions as if I’ve accepted your unsupported premises. Now, you have conclude that not only do I have a “collectivist groupthink mentality” but it is “irrational” as well. I am glad you are seeking a rational discussion. At least that imposes on you the clear obligation to actually understand what my pov is before labeling it. To do otherwise would, after all, be irrational.

You seek to enlist government agents to initiate force against certain persons on your behalf

Clearly, we are both doing this. That’s what taxes are all about. This comment does not distinguish your pov from mine.

Taxation is necessary to gain revenue but honest principle, integrity, honoring and protecting individual life-and-property rights are primary.

Agree.

All those [words] in bold, [above], are violated when taxes are imposed greater on one group than another.

Disagree both to the correctness of this statement and to the implication that my preferred tax structure seeks to impose greater taxes on one group than another whereas yours does not.

[Your pov] sacrifices a portion of the individual for the supposed betterment of the group. It is collectivist groupthink.

Completely wrong. [Note: The rest of your diatribe is boilerplate hyperbole much of which I agree with if I ignore your hyperbolic delivery of it.]

Underlying your position are the following two assumptions:

1. a flat tax on the base of retail sales and a zero tax on all other economic activity is appropriate, but a flat tax on retail sales and a much smaller, miniscule tax on financial transactions unfairly disadvantages the latter group.

2. the only way to measure the appropriateness of the tax burden is % of income or % of retail consumption. If either of these percents is flat, no further inquiry is necessary; if they are not, no free market justification is possible.

Before continuing, are you aware that I am challenging the above two assumptions? Do you want to understand why or would you rather manufacture your own explanation so that you can stick your tounge out, put your thumbs in your ears, wiggle your fingers while labeling my challenge “collectivist groupthink mentality?”