Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Jifpop09 and Wylted Fairtax debate PM

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:31:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not applied to income. It replaces an income tax as well as a corporate tax, social security tax etc. Similar models to the fairtax are already being used in some pretty large scale economies. Florida and Texas just to name 2. It actually works great in those areas.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 2:38:31 AM

Posted By Jifpop09:

As I said, this has potential on a local level and for certain taxes, but this will never work federally like they want it to do. Consumption taxes, while having their benefits, simply don't produce enough revenue to sustain our current programs.

The rich ussually pay substantially less as far as consumption, unless you factor in assets, which is still edgy. Ignoring the millions of sticky manouvers corporations will employ, they will pay far less then their current share. Overburdning the lower and middle class, and decentivinzing growth by taxing buisinesses as they rise in sales.

It is preferable to have shareholders take equity, rather then royalties. Same applies here. More you grow, the more you consume, the more your taxed. the effect is either reversed or serves a negative outcome. I would actually love to debate this

Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

I don't like to disregard views that go against either the status quo or status qou reforms, but I think we established a basic economic truism here, Taxing consumption for everything is an unbelievably bad idea, esspecially when both parties are intensely focused on stimulating small business. Can we mark this off as a truism?
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 2:46:43 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

"As I said, this has potential on a local level and for certain taxes, but this will never work federally like they want it to do. Consumption taxes, while having their benefits, simply don't produce enough revenue to sustain our current programs."

I think you're underestimating the size of the economies I mentioned. Florida and Texas are some of the largest economies in the world. Other than that. This particular consumption tax is estimated by several economists to produce an equal or superior revenue. If you think about it.the tax gives us a larger pool of money to tax. We'll be able to tax black market money illegals and now that America would be a tax haven about a trillion dollars a year in new money would enter our economy.

"The rich ussually pay substantially less as far as consumption, unless you factor in assets, which is still edgy. Ignoring the millions of sticky manouvers corporations will employ, they will pay far less then their current share. Overburdning the lower and middle class, and decentivinzing growth by taxing buisinesses as they rise in sales."

Corporations wouldn't pay any money in this plan. It's a myth that corporations pay taxes anyway. They just pass the entire cost of taxes to shareholders, customers and employees.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 2:49:34 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

"I don't like to disregard views that go against either the status quo or status qou reforms, but I think we established a basic economic truism here, Taxing consumption for everything is an unbelievably bad idea, esspecially when both parties are intensely focused on stimulating small business. Can we mark this off as a truism?"

I agree. However I view the fairtax as a lesser of 2 evils thing. It's a bipartisan plan that keeps tax revenue the same while stimulating the economy.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:04:04 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

I think you're underestimating the size of the economies I mentioned. Florida and Texas are some of the largest economies in the world. Other than that. This particular consumption tax is estimated by several economists to produce an equal or superior revenue. If you think about it.the tax gives us a larger pool of money to tax. We'll be able to tax black market money illegals and now that America would be a tax haven about a trillion dollars a year in new money would enter our economy.

As for Florida and Texas, they only use consumption taxes on the sales tax . Like I said, it can be used on a few specific things, but this wont work for the federal income or corporate tax. Yes, when you think about it, we do have a longer pool to tax, but the rich don't really spend as much in consumption including assets. Setting flat rates at progressive levels produces a lot more income without directly hitting the economy.

Corporations wouldn't pay any money in this plan. It's a myth that corporations pay taxes anyway. They just pass the entire cost of taxes to shareholders, customers and employees.

The 40% corporate tax does produce us money though. Which is better then getting nothing. Yes, loopholes exist, but this would only create several more. I read the fairtax plan though, and it does want a corporate consumption tax.

I agree. However I view the fairtax as a lesser of 2 evils thing. It's a bipartisan plan that keeps tax revenue the same while stimulating the economy.

Once again, I must argue the exact opposite. Ignoring the many ways corporations and individuals could just flood liquid capital over seas to buy assets, this will still produce much less revenue, We rely on the 1% for many of our programs, and this plan doesn't shy away from the fact that the poor and middle class would be paying more compared to the rich.

As for the lesser of two evils, I would argue the opposite. The whole point of the last post was to show that taxing growth is detrimental to economies overall. On a macro and micro scale. I don't think my equity analogy convinced you, but I hhope you'll sleep on it. Both systems apply a flat rate in some sort of way, and in doing so , businesses can sufficiently grow within certain parameters.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:06:08 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

Actually, if you don't mind, I would like to put this into a forum post.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:12:19 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

Fine by me, but I'm the only one on this entire site that actually understands the fairtax

Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:18:33 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

"Once again, I must argue the exact opposite. Ignoring the many ways corporations and individuals could just flood liquid capital over seas to buy assets, this will still produce much less revenue, We rely on the 1% for many of our programs, and this plan doesn't shy away from the fact that the poor and middle class would be paying more compared to the rich."

I'll probably just keep myself to responding to small points. So I choose this one. It's estimated that 22 cents of every dollar we spend on merchandise is tax costs passed on to customers. This includes compliance costs. The fairtax is 23 cents on the
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:38:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll probably just keep myself to responding to small points. So I choose this one. It's estimated that 22 cents of every dollar we spend on merchandise is tax costs passed on to customers. This includes compliance costs. The fairtax is 23 cents on the dollar. Once corporations started lowering prices to increase market size prices would flatten out to the original amount. So a black market to buy things overseas won't really exist.

The poor would pay less then they do now. The prebate insures a 0% tax rate for those spending at or below poverty levels. Right now the poor that are exempt from taxes still pay the imbedded 22%.

Obviously the poor would pay less, but so would the rich. The people burdened here are the middle class and small business. This is a sad way to kill the economy. The theory behind their tax, is to lower the flat rates, but have people spend more overall as they spend money.

This only work if the rich and corporates can be proven to consume more or purchase more assets, which they don't. At the end of the day though, it burdens growth in all sectors of the economy, by taxing them as they grow and consume. A libertarian philosophy (Suprised you support one), which will ultimately end in everyone but the rich winning.

The thing that should be debated, is whether we should lower progressive rates or raise them. Its hard to get behind more stimuli restriction. Keynesia has already been established
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:33:09 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

Be weary, the taxes biggest fault is its restriction of growth.

Considering the wide spread popularity of Keynesian economics, growth arguments will lose you votes on both sides of the spectrum. It should also be noted, that if someone alludes to this being a libertarian philosophy, then they will automatically think less of it. No matter how good your arguments are
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:38:04 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

I'm more of an Austrian economics guy myself. I don't have the numbers handy but the rich spend a high percentage of their income. Even if they don't they will eventually die and their kids will spend all their money as heirs tend to do. So the money will all be taxed it's just a matter of time.

Small business isn't burdened by this plan. It helps small businesses. When you overly tax small businesses the business shuts down and a large business comes and steals it's market share. The fairtax prevents big businesses from lobbying congress to raise taxes, that they can easily handle but kills small businesses.

You see Big businesses love Keynesian economics, because typically they can bribe politicians to play games with the tax code that ultimately end up with them making market grabs.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:44:37 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

Be weary, the taxes biggest fault is its restriction of growth."

I don't gather how you arrived at the conclusion that it hurts growth, when companies will flock to America now that it would be the biggest tax haven in the world. When even economists opposed to the fairtax claim it will aid growth. If you eliminate corporate tax, they have more money to expand (aka growth). This whole growth point of yours is something I'm not understanding.

"Considering the wide spread popularity of Keynesian economics, growth arguments will lose you votes on both sides of the spectrum. It should also be noted, that if someone alludes to this being a libertarian philosophy, then they will automatically think less of it. No matter how good your arguments are"

It's a bipartisan plan. Libertarians are just it's loudest proponents. I think something like 33% of Democrats support it 41% of Republicans. When people gather a basic knowledge of the fair tax it's typically in the 75% range as far as support is concerned.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:50:26 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

I'm more of an Austrian economics guy myself. I don't have the numbers handy but the rich spend a high percentage of their income. Even if they don't they will eventually die and their kids will spend all their money as heirs tend to do. So the money will all be taxed it's just a matter of time.

Sorry, but Austrian economics, and the libertarians who invented it, don't understand basic economic theory. Radical individualism is not the answer to helping the economy, and I'm not in the mood to debate each belief in the doctrine. Its is an equivalent of economic anarchism. Summarizing Austrian Economics:

"Don't use fiscal policy, but wait, monetary is bad also.

Small business isn't burdened by this plan. It helps small businesses. When you overly tax small businesses the business shuts down and a large business comes and steals it's market share. The fairtax prevents big businesses from lobbying congress to raise taxes, that they can easily handle but kills small businesses.

Small business isn't taxed much at all under the progressive and flat rate plans. Under a consumption tax, business gets taxed more and more based on the growth of capital and assets. The theory behind both Keynesian and Austrian, not to mention every other school, is to not directly touch economic growth.

Posted by Jifpop09:

You see Big businesses love Keynesian economics, because typically they can bribe politicians to play games with the tax code that ultimately end up with them making market grabs.

Strong Monetary policy is the main tenet of Keynesian economics. Instead of taxing people, we seek to influence markets and companies by incentives and subsidies. Can politicians be bribed? Yes, but that applies to nearly everything.

You would have to bribe half of the house to change subsidie and inflation control. Keynesian is popular for a good reason. It fuels aggregate demand through investment (Established without a doubt), it does not interact with growth through taxes (Which is why its attractive to both sides of the spectrum), and keeps the 50% stimulated.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:54:48 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

"Strong Monetary policy is the main tenet of Keynesian economics. Instead of taxing people, we seek to influence markets and companies by incentives and subsidies."

The fair tax wouldn't eliminate subsidies. It's merely an alternative form of taxation. On another note unrelated to the Fair Tax. Where does that money for subsidies and incentives come from?
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:57:03 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

I don't gather how you arrived at the conclusion that it hurts growth, when companies will flock to America now that it would be the biggest tax haven in the world. When even economists opposed to the fairtax claim it will aid growth. If you eliminate corporate tax, they have more money to expand (aka growth). This whole growth point of yours is something I'm not understanding.

Its really hard trying to explain this to you, so I did some more research, and I'm not wrong here. You are taxing companies as they consume, and consumption grows as your assets and capital does.

The first thing you learn in microeconomics (Reinstating the analogy), is that its better to have shareholders taking equity them royalties. Its the same on a macro scale. The current systems take a flat percentage of your income (Equity), and this system takes progressive royalties (Even worst since they grow)

It's a bipartisan plan. Libertarians are just it's loudest proponents. I think something like 33% of Democrats support it 41% of Republicans. When people gather a basic knowledge of the fair tax it's typically in the 75% rang

This point is subjectively opinionated. Any studies are most likely samples, and I know that no politicians support this.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 3:59:40 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

The fair tax wouldn't eliminate subsidies. It's merely an alternative form of taxation. On another note unrelated to the Fair Tax. Where does that money for subsidies and incentives come from?

The national debt. The belief in Keynesian, is to take out debt to invest in more profitable economic sectors. Every developed nation has a national debt. The US's isn't even the worse. 15 or so countries have debt to GDP ratios far above that of the states, and are debt is 15% above what is healthy.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:00:41 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

Look at it this way. We take out 1,000,000 dollars of debt, and build a highway that will produce 3,000,000 dollars in revenue. All the debt we take out is put into sectors that will produce long term growth.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:01:48 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

You know what? We might as well just copy and paste this into a debate so some people can vote on it. I was planning on copying and pasting this to the forums if you don't mind.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:02:47 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

Most politicians are against it. That is true. I'm assuming the numbers are slightly biased except for the 75% one. Most people never even head of the fairtax. The fact that they probably surveyed a bunch of people already at least vaguely familiar with the fairtax probably biased the results.

It's one of those things that will never be popular with politicians but once informed of and about it will typically be supported by most average people all across the political spectrum. Kind of like that Darfur thing.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:04:01 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

"You know what? We might as well just copy and paste this into a debate so some people can vote on it. I was planning on copying and pasting this to the forums if you don't mind."

We can do either one.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:04:49 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

Most politicians are against it. That is true. I'm assuming the numbers are slightly biased except for the 75% one. Most people never even head of the fairtax. The fact that they probably surveyed a bunch of people already at least vaguely familiar with the fairtax probably biased the results.

It's one of those things that will never be popular with politicians but once informed of and about it will typically be supported by most average people all across the political spectrum. Kind of like that Darfur thing.


Saying people will support it once they hear of it is a subjective opinion. As for the fairtax, it certainly has potential in county or city governments, on certain taxes. It wont work federally though.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:05:25 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:06:39 AM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Wylted

If it works with some of the largest economies in the world such as Florida and Texas, why do you think it won't work for America?
Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:07:21 AM

Wednesday, April 30, 2014 @ 4:09:41 AM
Posted by:
Profile CardJifpop09

If it works with some of the largest economies in the world such as Florida and Texas, why do you think it won't work for America?

Florida: Sales Tax only

Texas: Sales and Use tax.

Specific taxes for lcal markets? Sure,Federal level? Probably not.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:47:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

Wow, say anything slightly libertarian and your on their @ss. Lol!
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:52:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Honestly, my best debates on this site have been over PM. I wouldn't be opposed to a weekly mass PM to the economics forum.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:59:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

This should be good.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:11:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:59:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

This should be good.

It's annoying. I sent this in a PM and he acts completely unaware that this wasn't originally meant for public consumption and then acts like I insulted somebody.

Most the good debaters on this site are liberal. A few good debaters are conservative. I hesitate to call myself a good debater, but I see nobody else equal or better than me that's a libertarian. Obviously I'm stating that I can convey this position better than anybody and not claiming a superior knowledge base than anyone regarding economics. Some parts of the PM were deleted as I requested from you, but you do remember me acknowledging your knowledge of economics was superior to mine?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 5:14:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 5:11:15 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:59:03 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

This should be good.

It's annoying. I sent this in a PM and he acts completely unaware that this wasn't originally meant for public consumption and then acts like I insulted somebody.

I agree, it was a little uncalled for.

Most the good debaters on this site are liberal. A few good debaters are conservative.

Thett, Mikal, and Bluesteel to name a few

I hesitate to call myself a good debater, but I see nobody else equal or better than me that's a libertarian.

Until now, I had no idea you were libertarian.

Obviously I'm stating that I can convey this position better than anybody and not claiming a superior knowledge base than anyone regarding economics. Some parts of the PM were deleted as I requested from you, but you do remember me acknowledging your knowledge of economics was superior to mine?

I actually don't recall you saying that, but I'll take your word for it. You sufficiently defended your points, which differentiates you from the average libertarian (An anomaly)
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:25:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

It's simply true. If anyone calls out the fact that it isn't revenue-neutral or that the actual rate is higher, or that the actual effective tax burden does in fact hit poor people -- things a nonpartisan panel in 2005 under Bush found -- the FairTax supporter would simply respond with "No you don't understand! Trust us!"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:04:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 6:25:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

It's simply true. If anyone calls out the fact that it isn't revenue-neutral or that the actual rate is higher, or that the actual effective tax burden does in fact hit poor people -- things a nonpartisan panel in 2005 under Bush found --

That criticism has improved a lot since your last post. I think your referencing research that is opposed to the fair tax. There is also research that says the opposite of this. Unless you can share specific criticisms of why one set of research is superior to another than this is a card stacking fallacy. Accepting studies and research that support your position and tossing out the ones that don't.

the FairTax supporter would simply respond with "No you don't understand! Trust us!"

Strawman argument.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:06:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 7:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 6:25:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

It's simply true. If anyone calls out the fact that it isn't revenue-neutral or that the actual rate is higher, or that the actual effective tax burden does in fact hit poor people -- things a nonpartisan panel in 2005 under Bush found --

That criticism has improved a lot since your last post. I think your referencing research that is opposed to the fair tax. There is also research that says the opposite of this. Unless you can share specific criticisms of why one set of research is superior to another than this is a card stacking fallacy. Accepting studies and research that support your position and tossing out the ones that don't.

the FairTax supporter would simply respond with "No you don't understand! Trust us!"

Strawman argument.

Sure, there's research "on both sides" -- Dale Jorgensen has written about the Fair Tax and he seems to support it. I haven't read into his research, and I've love for you to cite it, or anything else you know of. The preponderence of evidence I have seen leads me to the conclusion that it is not only wrong, but cruelly wrong.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:18:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 7:06:05 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 7:04:20 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 6:25:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:55:43 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:45:57 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
"I'm the only one on this site who actually understands the FairTax."

Translation: I'm going to pull a typical Austrian school and claim that people who disagree with me only disagree with me because they don't understand the depth of my position, even though there is no depth whatsoever because the FairTax is a massive sham.

very good criticism of the fair tax policy, and convincing. I won't be debating you on this position anytime soon with that deep insight, you have.

It's simply true. If anyone calls out the fact that it isn't revenue-neutral or that the actual rate is higher, or that the actual effective tax burden does in fact hit poor people -- things a nonpartisan panel in 2005 under Bush found --

That criticism has improved a lot since your last post. I think your referencing research that is opposed to the fair tax. There is also research that says the opposite of this. Unless you can share specific criticisms of why one set of research is superior to another than this is a card stacking fallacy. Accepting studies and research that support your position and tossing out the ones that don't.

the FairTax supporter would simply respond with "No you don't understand! Trust us!"

Strawman argument.

Sure, there's research "on both sides" -- Dale Jorgensen has written about the Fair Tax and he seems to support it. I haven't read into his research, and I've love for you to cite it, or anything else you know of. The preponderence of evidence I have seen leads me to the conclusion that it is not only wrong, but cruelly wrong.

I'm actually holding off on going too in depth into this because I'm debating YYW on this. That's actually why Jifpop PMed me about it.

I don't want him anticipating my responses. I'm sure there is a decent chance I'm wrong about this. If I am I hope that my ignorance will be exposed, so I can move past it.