Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Border Fence, The UN and.......

ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
National Retail Sales Tax.

Why are you for\against the National Retail Sales Tax, The UN and the Border Fence.

I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:22:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm for the UN, largely because UN peacekeeping missions have been found to be more efficient than U.S. forces, and the UN isn't as ineffective as people think. I'm against the border fence, because (1) immigration benefits the economy and (2) the border fence is environmentally destructive.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 3:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm for the UN, largely because UN peacekeeping missions have been found to be more efficient than U.S. forces, and the UN isn't as ineffective as people think. I'm against the border fence, because (1) immigration benefits the economy and (2) the border fence is environmentally destructive.

National Retail Sales Tax?

Also how do you say that the UN is more efficient then we think?
Illegal immigrants don't benefit the economy. They steal our jobs! (I hate Trump as president BTW, so don't go thinking I'm a supporter.)
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 3:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 3:27:20 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/7/2015 3:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm for the UN, largely because UN peacekeeping missions have been found to be more efficient than U.S. forces, and the UN isn't as ineffective as people think. I'm against the border fence, because (1) immigration benefits the economy and (2) the border fence is environmentally destructive.

National Retail Sales Tax?

I don't have an educated opinion on the issue.


Also how do you say that the UN is more efficient then we think?

UN peacekeepers have been found to be very effective. According to a study by James Dobbins of the RAND corporation, UN peacekeeping efforts have been found to have a success rate of -- on average -- 7/8 of their missions, as opposed to the US, which is successful in 4/8 peacekeeping efforts [1. http://www.rand.org...].

Illegal immigrants don't benefit the economy. They steal our jobs! (I hate Trump as president BTW, so don't go thinking I'm a supporter.)

That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:00:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At : : At 9/7/2015 3:27:20 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/7/2015 3:22:54 PM, tejretics wrote:
I'm for the UN, largely because UN peacekeeping missions have been found to be more efficient than U.S. forces, and the UN isn't as ineffective as people think. I'm against the border fence, because (1) immigration benefits the economy and (2) the border fence is environmentally destructive.

National Retail Sales Tax?

I don't have an educated opinion on the issue.


Also how do you say that the UN is more efficient then we think?

UN peacekeepers have been found to be very effective. According to a study by James Dobbins of the RAND corporation, UN peacekeeping efforts have been found to have a success rate of -- on average -- 7/8 of their missions, as opposed to the US, which is successful in 4/8 peacekeeping efforts [1. http://www.rand.org...].
I'm going to look into this.

Illegal immigrants don't benefit the economy. They steal our jobs! (I hate Trump as president BTW, so don't go thinking I'm a supporter.)

That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].

Chill. This ain't a debate. Better call Trump and tell him he's wrong.
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:14:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

Why are you for\against the National Retail Sales Tax, The UN and the Border Fence.

I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.

Con UN
Con Boarder Fense
I support a sales tax, but not an increasement of the tax.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:39:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 4:14:44 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

Why are you for\against the National Retail Sales Tax, The UN and the Border Fence.

I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.

Con UN
Con Boarder Fense
I support a sales tax, but not an increasement of the tax.

La-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-La-La-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-Lannan!-Lannan!-Lanman!! I meant why?
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:48:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 4:39:53 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
At 9/7/2015 4:14:44 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

Why are you for\against the National Retail Sales Tax, The UN and the Border Fence.

I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.

Con UN
Con Boarder Fense
I support a sales tax, but not an increasement of the tax.

La-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-La-La-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-Lannan!-Lannan!-Lanman!! I meant why?

I disagree with the UN's breach of national sovergnty, their ineffiecency, there are other things, but I don't have time to go in depth.
I'm against Illegal immigration, but a boarder fense is to costly and inefficient.
Increasing the sales tax would hurt the poor.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 4:58:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm pro- put this in the politics section.
I'm con- let's constantly fill up the DDO section with drivel or things that can easily be posted elsewhere
My work here is, finally, done.
ClashnBoom
Posts: 886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 5:11:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 4:58:59 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'm pro- put this in the politics section.
I'm con- let's constantly fill up the DDO section with drivel or things that can easily be posted elsewhere

Starting with this post. This thread doesn't need KJs. (Though the Con pun was petty good.)
I will change my sig weekly. Week 4.

Fun fact of the week
Clumsy alien Jar Jar Binks was introduced in The Phantom Menace for comic relief, but he was initially a two-faced mercenary who was to betray Qui-Gon Jinn, a Jedi Master played by Liam Neeson.

Joke of the week:
Nerd 1: "Why can't you trust atoms?"
Nerd 2: : "Cause they make everything up!"
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 7:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].

You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 12:49:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/8/2015 7:56:17 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].

You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.

m8, wanna deb8 this?
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 12:53:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 12:49:06 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/8/2015 7:56:17 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].

You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.

m8, wanna deb8 this?

Lol. I've seen your open border stat spam with Roy. No thanks. ;)
Besides, I'm still on the fence about this topic...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 12:55:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 12:53:17 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 9/9/2015 12:49:06 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/8/2015 7:56:17 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
That's a weak argument. Turn it -- research has found that immigration *increases* job opportunities. As demand for immigrant services increases, so does the variety of services offered. For every one immigrant, more than one job can be created due to the increased demand for goods and service [2. http://people.virginia.edu...]. Peri argues that increasing immigration would generate "growth, innovation, and labor market efficiency and flexibility," generating a "substantial economic stimulus." [3. http://intereconomics.eu...]. Foreign students often produce work on a faster rate, so immigration helps academic progress [4. http://faculty.som.yale.edu...]. Low-skilled immigrants have higher labor mobility which smooths out local economic fluctuation. There are many other benefits. This debate covers many of them [5. http://www.debate.org...]. You could do with reading all these studies as well [6. http://www.debate.org...].

You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.

m8, wanna deb8 this?

Lol. I've seen your open border stat spam with Roy. No thanks. ;)

I only spammed to break the record (well, and if people want they can read our source spam too if they want to be informed).

Besides, I'm still on the [border] fence about this topic...

That's why you should deb8 me on it :P

We wouldn't debate open borders or fences, but we could debate something like this: [http://www.debate.org...]
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:02:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.

m8, wanna deb8 this?

Lol. I've seen your open border stat spam with Roy. No thanks. ;)

I only spammed to break the record (well, and if people want they can read our source spam too if they want to be informed).

Besides, I'm still on the [border] fence about this topic...

That's why you should deb8 me on it :P

We wouldn't debate open borders or fences, but we could debate something like this: [http://www.debate.org...]

Yeah. I was hoping you'd catch that pun ;)
I'd consider it.

That debate... Yeah... I was getting rekt to be honest. Saying that now probably sounds like I was chickening out on the debate. but if you see my activity, you'd know that I pretty much deactivated after that...

But still, his arguments have kinda changed my perspective, as well as discussion with friends and research. Plus, the resolution was wordy, unclear, and pretty much awful. Maybe sometime, though, it's a topic I'd like to debate at some point... That's why I'm reading JMK/16k vs Roy about open border. It's a gr8 deb8.. u should check it out. :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:02:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I only spammed to break the record (well, and if people want they can read our source spam too if they want to be informed).

What was the record, btw?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:07:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:02:19 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
You're right, it can be a weak argument. But it can also be a relatively strong one. Consider this: "All the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants." [http://www.theatlantic.com...]
The entire article is a good read. I just wanted to point that out. It was quite surprising to me when I read it. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, I know you're quite intelligent.

m8, wanna deb8 this?

Lol. I've seen your open border stat spam with Roy. No thanks. ;)

I only spammed to break the record (well, and if people want they can read our source spam too if they want to be informed).

Besides, I'm still on the [border] fence about this topic...

That's why you should deb8 me on it :P

We wouldn't debate open borders or fences, but we could debate something like this: [http://www.debate.org...]

Yeah. I was hoping you'd catch that pun ;)
I'd consider it.

That debate... Yeah... I was getting rekt to be honest. Saying that now probably sounds like I was chickening out on the debate. but if you see my activity, you'd know that I pretty much deactivated after that...

But still, his arguments have kinda changed my perspective, as well as discussion with friends and research. Plus, the resolution was wordy, unclear, and pretty much awful. Maybe sometime, though, it's a topic I'd like to debate at some point... That's why I'm reading JMK/16k vs Roy about open border. It's a gr8 deb8.. u should check it out. :P

Two good books are:

Let them in: The Case for Open Borders (Jason Riley)
The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal (Mark Krikorin)

They pretty much give you a point-counterpoint. I read both this weekend. The other book (The Immigration Solution) is kinda meh because it doesn't stat spam like the other two, but it is more fun to read because they use anecdotal evidence more and tell it like a story.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:07:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

I oppose this because it is an unprecedented expansion of congressional power that will imminently depress the economy and will be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes, and it will regressively tax poor people while not contributing to making the uber-rich individuals and companies that should be paying more, pay more.

Basically, it's one of the most monumentally stupid ideas any politician has ever come up with.

I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.

I don't care about border fences. The construction of it will create some construction jobs, but in reality it would be a profound waste of tax money that could be better spent on other things.

People talk about "building a fence" as if that will stem the flow of illegal immigration. This is naive thinking, and illegal immigration actually serves an indispensable function in the US economy. But, for "hurr-durr" Republicans, they think that the fence will be enough... lol so naive.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:29:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:07:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

I oppose this because it is an unprecedented expansion of congressional power that will imminently depress the economy and will be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes, and it will regressively tax poor people while not contributing to making the uber-rich individuals and companies that should be paying more, pay more.

Basically, it's one of the most monumentally stupid ideas any politician has ever come up with.

This actually isn't true. If we transitioned our entire tax system to some type of consumption-based taxation (e.g. the X tax), our economy would be much better off. A flat consumption tax = terrible because it is regressive (though... even then, the "regressive" VAT taxes in europe are still better than income taxes according to most research), and a fair tax on top of our current system would also be terribad.

I think you should look into the progressive consumption. Here are its distributional effects:
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

X tax on growth:
http://eml.berkeley.edu...
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

It is interesting that a flat VAT tax does the best... but if the distributional effects worry you, check out the X tax. It gets rid of the regressive objection.


I'm pro on the UN and Border Fence cause as inefficient as the UN is its still better than nothing and the Border Fence is a good idea if people don't become racist because of illegal immigrants.

I don't care about border fences. The construction of it will create some construction jobs, but in reality it would be a profound waste of tax money that could be better spent on other things.

Border fence = cancer


People talk about "building a fence" as if that will stem the flow of illegal immigration. This is naive thinking, and illegal immigration actually serves an indispensable function in the US economy. But, for "hurr-durr" Republicans, they think that the fence will be enough... lol so naive.

You would be proud of the debate I am in with Roy right now :D
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:39:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:29:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:07:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

I oppose this because it is an unprecedented expansion of congressional power that will imminently depress the economy and will be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes, and it will regressively tax poor people while not contributing to making the uber-rich individuals and companies that should be paying more, pay more.

Basically, it's one of the most monumentally stupid ideas any politician has ever come up with.

This actually isn't true. If we transitioned our entire tax system to some type of consumption-based taxation (e.g. the X tax), our economy would be much better off. A flat consumption tax = terrible because it is regressive (though... even then, the "regressive" VAT taxes in europe are still better than income taxes according to most research), and a fair tax on top of our current system would also be terribad.

I think you should look into the progressive consumption. Here are its distributional effects:
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

X tax on growth:
http://eml.berkeley.edu...
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

It is interesting that a flat VAT tax does the best... but if the distributional effects worry you, check out the X tax. It gets rid of the regressive objection.

If you can agree that no groceries, clothes, furniture, school supplies, cars, household appliances, consumer electronics used for education, or anything else that middle class families use will be subject to a national sales tax, then I'm going to be more willing to be more willing to talk. But, you won't agree to that because it would defeat the tax entirely.

The studies out there (which I'm familiar with) don't talk about the kind of VAT tax that would not hurt the poor and middle class, and they don't consider a tremendous amount if information that they should have.

Basically, without saying this outrightly... what you're citing isn't even respectable literature. It's garbage with a political agenda. At some point, we'll have to talk about why that's the case. But suffice to say I am not persuaded, and I have not seen a compelling study that disproves what I've said.

Border fence = cancer

lol

People talk about "building a fence" as if that will stem the flow of illegal immigration. This is naive thinking, and illegal immigration actually serves an indispensable function in the US economy. But, for "hurr-durr" Republicans, they think that the fence will be enough... lol so naive.

You would be proud of the debate I am in with Roy right now :D

Well as long as you're using your brain I'm going to be proud... and if you're opposing a border fence that's fine. I don't really ever see it happening anyway, though. It's a "talking point" and everyone knows that it's the new abortion, in the sense that it's a meaningless political issue that is meant only to divide people over inconsequential nonsense.

Illegal immigration is the foundation of American agriculture, and until that changes the status quo with regard to immigration will not change. That's the "third rail" that no one is going to touch...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:51:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:39:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:29:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:07:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

I oppose this because it is an unprecedented expansion of congressional power that will imminently depress the economy and will be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes, and it will regressively tax poor people while not contributing to making the uber-rich individuals and companies that should be paying more, pay more.

Basically, it's one of the most monumentally stupid ideas any politician has ever come up with.

This actually isn't true. If we transitioned our entire tax system to some type of consumption-based taxation (e.g. the X tax), our economy would be much better off. A flat consumption tax = terrible because it is regressive (though... even then, the "regressive" VAT taxes in europe are still better than income taxes according to most research), and a fair tax on top of our current system would also be terribad.

I think you should look into the progressive consumption. Here are its distributional effects:
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

X tax on growth:
http://eml.berkeley.edu...
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

It is interesting that a flat VAT tax does the best... but if the distributional effects worry you, check out the X tax. It gets rid of the regressive objection.

If you can agree that no groceries, clothes, furniture, school supplies, cars, household appliances, consumer electronics used for education, or anything else that middle class families use will be subject to a national sales tax, then I'm going to be more willing to be more willing to talk. But, you won't agree to that because it would defeat the tax entirely.

Income taxes have the same effect, lol. By taxing income you reduce the ability for middle class households to pay for those items. A progressive consumption tax--which has a flat VAT tax on top of a graduated payroll tax--actually reduces the burden on the poor http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... .

The studies out there (which I'm familiar with) don't talk about the kind of VAT tax that would not hurt the poor and middle class, and they don't consider a tremendous amount if information that they should have.

A VAT tax probably would. It is regressive. I wholeheartedly agree. It would increase growth and probably make them better off in some ways, but the wealthy would benefit much more. A pure VAT tax is probably not the way to go.


Basically, without saying this outrightly... what you're citing isn't even respectable literature. It's garbage with a political agenda. At some point, we'll have to talk about why that's the case. But suffice to say I am not persuaded, and I have not seen a compelling study that disproves what I've said.

lol. His is this (http://eml.berkeley.edu...) garbage? It comes from scholars from the Federal Reserve, Berkley, Boston University, University of Pennsylvania, and even the left-leaning IMF... I am not arguing in favor of a flat VAT tax. I am arguing in favor of a progressive consumption tax, which is totally different. Just because you haven't seen the evidence regarding it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Nothing disproves what you've said on flat consumption taxes, but it simply doesn't apply to progressive consumption taxes.

Take this with a grain of salt (well, at least for the parts where it says it will work), it is a think tank after all. But the description of how an X tax is a *progressive* consumption tax is pretty good (http://www.aei.org...).

Border fence = cancer

lol

People talk about "building a fence" as if that will stem the flow of illegal immigration. This is naive thinking, and illegal immigration actually serves an indispensable function in the US economy. But, for "hurr-durr" Republicans, they think that the fence will be enough... lol so naive.

You would be proud of the debate I am in with Roy right now :D

Well as long as you're using your brain I'm going to be proud... and if you're opposing a border fence that's fine. I don't really ever see it happening anyway, though. It's a "talking point" and everyone knows that it's the new abortion, in the sense that it's a meaningless political issue that is meant only to divide people over inconsequential nonsense.

I went extreme and am arguing for open borders :P


Illegal immigration is the foundation of American agriculture, and until that changes the status quo with regard to immigration will not change. That's the "third rail" that no one is going to touch...

It wasn't illegal at the time ;DDDDDDDDD

But yeah. I am a fan of immigration. You would like Riley's book "Let them In." He successfully ties FAIRUS, CIS, and other anti immigrant think tanks to white supremacist groups. But his arguments unrelated to that (e.g. good for the economy, security and crime is BS argument, they assimilate fine, etc.) are good. Be warned: it is written in a conservative manner, so the chapter on how opposing amnesty is killing the GOP (well, the way it portrays some liberals) may irk you. But I think you'd like it overall. And the environmental chapter may irk you too, but whatever :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:52:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:51:24 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:39:20 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:29:19 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:07:45 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/7/2015 12:44:02 PM, ClashnBoom wrote:
National Retail Sales Tax.

I oppose this because it is an unprecedented expansion of congressional power that will imminently depress the economy and will be manipulated by politicians for their own purposes, and it will regressively tax poor people while not contributing to making the uber-rich individuals and companies that should be paying more, pay more.

Basically, it's one of the most monumentally stupid ideas any politician has ever come up with.

This actually isn't true. If we transitioned our entire tax system to some type of consumption-based taxation (e.g. the X tax), our economy would be much better off. A flat consumption tax = terrible because it is regressive (though... even then, the "regressive" VAT taxes in europe are still better than income taxes according to most research), and a fair tax on top of our current system would also be terribad.

I think you should look into the progressive consumption. Here are its distributional effects:
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

X tax on growth:
http://eml.berkeley.edu...
https://img.washingtonpost.com...

It is interesting that a flat VAT tax does the best... but if the distributional effects worry you, check out the X tax. It gets rid of the regressive objection.

If you can agree that no groceries, clothes, furniture, school supplies, cars, household appliances, consumer electronics used for education, or anything else that middle class families use will be subject to a national sales tax, then I'm going to be more willing to be more willing to talk. But, you won't agree to that because it would defeat the tax entirely.

Income taxes have the same effect, lol. By taxing income you reduce the ability for middle class households to pay for those items. A progressive consumption tax--which has a flat VAT tax on top of a graduated payroll tax--actually reduces the burden on the poor http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... .

The studies out there (which I'm familiar with) don't talk about the kind of VAT tax that would not hurt the poor and middle class, and they don't consider a tremendous amount if information that they should have.

A VAT tax probably would. It is regressive. I wholeheartedly agree. It would increase growth and probably make them better off in some ways, but the wealthy would benefit much more. A pure VAT tax is probably not the way to go.


Basically, without saying this outrightly... what you're citing isn't even respectable literature. It's garbage with a political agenda. At some point, we'll have to talk about why that's the case. But suffice to say I am not persuaded, and I have not seen a compelling study that disproves what I've said.

lol. How is this (http://eml.berkeley.edu...) garbage? It comes from scholars from the Federal Reserve, Berkley, Boston University, University of Pennsylvania, and even the left-leaning IMF... I am not arguing in favor of a flat VAT tax. I am arguing in favor of a progressive consumption tax, which is totally different. Just because you haven't seen the evidence regarding it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Nothing disproves what you've said on flat consumption taxes, but it simply doesn't apply to progressive consumption taxes.

Take this with a grain of salt (well, at least for the parts where it says it will work), it is a think tank after all. But the description of how an X tax is a *progressive* consumption tax is pretty good (http://www.aei.org...).

Border fence = cancer

lol

People talk about "building a fence" as if that will stem the flow of illegal immigration. This is naive thinking, and illegal immigration actually serves an indispensable function in the US economy. But, for "hurr-durr" Republicans, they think that the fence will be enough... lol so naive.

You would be proud of the debate I am in with Roy right now :D

Well as long as you're using your brain I'm going to be proud... and if you're opposing a border fence that's fine. I don't really ever see it happening anyway, though. It's a "talking point" and everyone knows that it's the new abortion, in the sense that it's a meaningless political issue that is meant only to divide people over inconsequential nonsense.

I went extreme and am arguing for open borders :P


Illegal immigration is the foundation of American agriculture, and until that changes the status quo with regard to immigration will not change. That's the "third rail" that no one is going to touch...

It wasn't illegal at the time ;DDDDDDDDD

But yeah. I am a fan of immigration. You would like Riley's book "Let them In." He successfully ties FAIRUS, CIS, and other anti immigrant think tanks to white supremacist groups. But his arguments unrelated to that (e.g. good for the economy, security and crime is BS argument, they assimilate fine, etc.) are good. Be warned: it is written in a conservative manner, so the chapter on how opposing amnesty is killing the GOP (well, the way it portrays some liberals) may irk you. But I think you'd like it overall. And the environmental chapter may irk you too, but whatever :P

how*
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 1:57:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:51:24 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Income taxes have the same effect, lol.

Not all income taxes, and I would vastly cut income taxes for all individuals and families who make less than $250,000.00.

By taxing income you reduce the ability for middle class households to pay for those items.

You're assuming too much there. Not all income taxes are created equally, and a VAT does not impact consumption in the same way that an income tax does. Income tax is money that is withheld but never seen, VAT's are incorporated into the price of products. The psychological effects that has on consumers is what would reduce consumption (not to mention hurt the poor) which is what no study has ever successfully refuted, nor can it, because it's just a fact.

I went extreme and am arguing for open borders :P

lol alright then.

It wasn't illegal at the time ;DDDDDDDDD

But yeah. I am a fan of immigration. You would like Riley's book "Let them In." He successfully ties FAIRUS, CIS, and other anti immigrant think tanks to white supremacist groups. But his arguments unrelated to that (e.g. good for the economy, security and crime is BS argument, they assimilate fine, etc.) are good. Be warned: it is written in a conservative manner, so the chapter on how opposing amnesty is killing the GOP (well, the way it portrays some liberals) may irk you. But I think you'd like it overall. And the environmental chapter may irk you too, but whatever :P

I don't generally read books like that anymore, but I'll consider reading a review of it. Thanks though lol.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2015 2:07:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/9/2015 1:57:17 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/9/2015 1:51:24 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Income taxes have the same effect, lol.

Not all income taxes, and I would vastly cut income taxes for all individuals and families who make less than $250,000.00.

I would cut taxes on everyone because I am retarded. Though I would probably reduce marginal taxes less than I would taxes on those under 250k because the short-term consumption effects are huge for cuts on the middle class. But reducing marginal taxes is good for long-term growth. Surprisingly, cutting corporate taxes would probably have beneficial distributional effects (well, that is if you trust the CBO or not. https://www.cbo.gov...). That CBO link is really annoting and breaks a lot If that fails, try this link https://cbo.gov...

By taxing income you reduce the ability for middle class households to pay for those items.

You're assuming too much there. Not all income taxes are created equally, and a VAT does not impact consumption in the same way that an income tax does. Income tax is money that is withheld but never seen, VAT's are incorporated into the price of products. The psychological effects that has on consumers is what would reduce consumption (not to mention hurt the poor) which is what no study has ever successfully refuted, nor can it, because it's just a fact.


cited AEI wrong btw https://www.aei.org...

Dude, I am against flat VAT taxes like you are. We agree! The consumption tax I support is crafted in a way that reduces the burden on the poor while keeping it roughly the same as it is now for the rich.

And Greg Mankiw, Harvard Economist, has a good post as to why consumption taxation is (usually) better than income taxation (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com...). Also, Mankiw supports a progressive consumption tax too, not the flat BS.

I went extreme and am arguing for open borders :P

lol alright then.

Am I cancer D:


It wasn't illegal at the time ;DDDDDDDDD

But yeah. I am a fan of immigration. You would like Riley's book "Let them In." He successfully ties FAIRUS, CIS, and other anti immigrant think tanks to white supremacist groups. But his arguments unrelated to that (e.g. good for the economy, security and crime is BS argument, they assimilate fine, etc.) are good. Be warned: it is written in a conservative manner, so the chapter on how opposing amnesty is killing the GOP (well, the way it portrays some liberals) may irk you. But I think you'd like it overall. And the environmental chapter may irk you too, but whatever :P

I don't generally read books like that anymore, but I'll consider reading a review of it. Thanks though lol.

oh. It is cool
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross