REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Tax policy as stealth legislation

POSTED BY: SERGEANTX
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 20:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2552
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, May 3, 2009 6:57 PM

SERGEANTX


The US constitution sought to limit overreaching government with strict boundaries protecting individual freedom and privacy. Considering that it was written over two hundred years ago, it's done a pretty remarkable job keeping the authoritarians and fascists in check. But in that time, inventive techniques have developed to circumvent the founders limited-government intentions.

One of these has long been a pet peeve of mine, but more and more I'm seeing it as a fundamentally loophole in our current structure of checks and balances. Increasingly, manipulation of the tax code is becoming a favored tool of those who seek to bend society to their will.

It comes from both directions. More overtly, we've all seen the various forms of the "sin" tax. Those who can't lord it over their neighbors with straightforward laws encourage politicians to levy targeted taxes against the would-be criminals. It's pretty easy to get a politician to go for something that will raise more revenue for the state (and increase his or her own power in the process) - especially when the targets are minorities and not organized politically. While proposing a law that smokers, for example, be rounded up sent to prison, would be considered wrong, we're perfectly willing to levy targeted taxes that punish them exclusively. (So, what happens if they don't pay their "fines"?)

That's the stick. On the other side, we have the carrot. "Tax incentives". At a wider level it comes in the form of tax breaks "encouraging" people act in some desired fashion. We give breaks to people who go into debt, have more kids, buy stuff the government thinks we ought to, etc... Of course, one way to look at it is that we're punishing those who don't play along. But why be negative, right?

Then there's the stealth version of bribing public officials. Corporations love this scam because they can shop around from state to state, city to city, looking for governments and officials for sale. Again, while we'd raise hell if a politician took bribes to look the other way while business robbed the public coffers, we're perfectly willing to back tax breaks and public improvements for specific business interests in exchange for their bribes. The "bribes" may come in the form of more jobs for (some) community members, but at its core, it's still bribery. It's people with money avoiding equal treatment under the law in exchange for various financial considerations.

I think we've all become so used to this crap, we don't realize how antithetical it is to basic principles of equal protection and egalitarian government. The law should apply equally to everyone. It's no different with the tax code. Taxes may be necessary, but they should be used for their intended purpose - to finance the operations of government. Not to manipulate society and promote government approved lifestyles.

Now, I realize that, especially with the tax incentives, this isn't something that we can't expect states and cities to eliminate unilaterally. It's a vicious game where the first to quit will be the first to lose. I think this is one case where federal action is needed - something on the order of a constitutional amendment - to prohibit the use of the tax code to effect differential treatment (positive or negative) of individuals or minorities.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 2:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I'm surprised.

Not that you think this is going on, but that you'd call it stealth legislation.

Many of the biggest social engineering tax changes - from home mortgage deduction to EITC - were touted as being designed to produce a sociatal effect, be it increased home ownership or redistribution of wealth(maybe called something else, though). And these changes, and pretty much any change to the tax code, have to be legislated (At the Federal level anyway). They can't just be decreed by the President.

Stuff like local property tax breaks for businesses relocating to an area are even less stealth. They're ballyhooed in ads plastered all over trade magazines and at trade conventions.

The stealth part is what the President (or Governor/Mayor/City Council et.al.) can do to change the focus of tax administration and enforcement. For example, Pres. Obama will shortly be calling for both changes in how corporation's overseas profits and expensed are handled in tax computation.
http://wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1667686
To do this he has to propose and have passed legislation to change the tax code. However, he is also proposing 800 new IRS agents to concentrate on corporate taxes, which will no doubt have a chilling effect on corporate accountants who will be less willing to make aggressive decisions on some of the more unclear, but probably legal, areas of tax law.

The other stealth possibility is the influence committee chairmen have on IRS focus. The Treasury chair, for example, can wonder in committee whether the IRS is doing enough to make sure everyone eligible for EITC gets it. He can go so far as to threaten IRS budget cuts if the percentage of EITC recipients doesn't increase.

Some 'tax legislation' isn't as well known, I agree. IRS is one of the biggest collectors of unpaid child support, by snatching it out of the non-paying parent's tax refund.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 4:05 AM

SERGEANTX


Well, by "stealth" I didn't necessarily mean legislation that's pushed through in secret. Perhaps "camouflaged legislation" would be a better term. My point wasn't that these tax laws are secret, but that their net effect is often equivalent to laws that we wouldn't even consider. Most people would balk at a law that outlawed smoking outright and made smokers criminals subject to a fine or jail time, but they'll support taxes that target the very same people. The net effect is no different. Likewise, we wouldn't stand for a law mandating that all residents of town send a check to Wal-Mart as inducement for them build a big box store in town. But that's essentially what goes on with these "incentive packages" that they negotiate for.

I don't think the tax code should be used as a tool to manipulate people or twist arms that we otherwise couldn't through more direct legislation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 6:25 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, by "stealth" I didn't necessarily mean legislation that's pushed through in secret. Perhaps "camouflaged legislation" would be a better term. My point wasn't that these tax laws are secret, but that their net effect is often equivalent to laws that we wouldn't even consider. Most people would balk at a law that outlawed smoking outright and made smokers criminals subject to a fine or jail time, but they'll support taxes that target the very same people. The net effect is no different. Likewise, we wouldn't stand for a law mandating that all residents of town send a check to Wal-Mart as inducement for them build a big box store in town. But that's essentially what goes on with these "incentive packages" that they negotiate for.

I don't think the tax code should be used as a tool to manipulate people or twist arms that we otherwise couldn't through more direct legislation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock


But on the otherhand, with your example of smoking...

In the case of a universal healthcare system, with the adverse health effects of smoking, and the increased costs involved, such a surcharge might balance equal contribution vs personal choice.


But only if that money taxed went directly into healthcare.




" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 6:32 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But on the otherhand, with your example of smoking...

In the case of a universal healthcare system, with the adverse health effects of smoking, and the increased costs involved, such a surcharge might balance equal contribution vs personal choice.


Sure. That's one of the biggest drawbacks of programs like government healthcare. They get us all invested in each other's personal choices. In general, that's bad mojo for freedom.

Quote:
But only if that money taxed went directly into healthcare.


Which is always something of a shell game. Even money that does go directly to the agency in question alleviates the need for money from the general fund. It all ends up in the same pool at some level.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 7:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Many of the biggest social engineering tax changes - from home mortgage deduction to EITC - were touted as being designed to produce a sociatal effect...


Not to mention giving tax breaks for marriage and for having kids.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 9:49 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Here's a crazy idea.

Why not lower the Corp Tax rate , which is the 2nd highest in the WORLD, behind Japan, and attract MORE business tax revenue?

I know it' a bit off the main topic, but as long as we're talking about foolish tax policy.....

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 10:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's a crazy idea.

Why not lower the Corp Tax rate , which is the 2nd highest in the WORLD, behind Japan, and attract MORE business tax revenue?

I know it' a bit off the main topic, but as long as we're talking about foolish tax policy.....

Indeed, it's very adroit that you'd brush on Reaganomics in a discussion about stupid tax policy...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:17 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's a crazy idea.

Why not lower the Corp Tax rate , which is the 2nd highest in the WORLD, behind Japan, and attract MORE business tax revenue?

I know it' a bit off the main topic, but as long as we're talking about foolish tax policy.....


You know, I'll agree to that proposal, just as long as you ACTUALLY COLLECT THE DAMN MONEY ONCE IN A WHILE! As it stands, there are over 15,000 companies "registered" as being headquartered at one single address in the Caymans - and it's not some corporate skyscraper, it's a HOUSE. Ugland House. Home to some 15,521 international corporations. All of them use this address to help avoid the U.S. corporate taxes.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
In the case of a universal healthcare system, with the adverse health effects of smoking, and the increased costs involved, such a surcharge might balance equal contribution vs personal choice.

Bullshit.

http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2009/apr/08/studies-show-health-car
e-costs-of-not-smoking/news/

I want a surcharge on NON smokers, as the fact is, they cost MORE money, quite a bit more, if you want the ugly truth of it.

Speaking of ugly, the attempt to ROB me, by theft with violence as threat, that being extortion - to date has cost SCHIP more than $10,000.00 USD in funding it might have otherwise gotten, far more than they will ever collect from the tax bump even if I live to be a hundred.

I consider such things to be a direct and intentional act of violence against me and will retaliate to the limit I can possibly get away with, and for a fact, I will never, EVER allow that lie to go unspoken again without ripping someone a new one for it.

For the record, consider this; it's generally an unwise policy to violate the non-aggression principle in a continuous, ongoing fashion against folk who will retaliate accordingly - SCHIP will never see one whit of benefit from me and in fact will suffer any hindrance I can manage until their gunpoint robbery stops, or they shovel the dirt over me.

Question: What's the difference between a highwayman and a toll booth ?

Answer: Perceived legitimacy.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:09 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
You know, I'll agree to that proposal, just as long as you ACTUALLY COLLECT THE DAMN MONEY ONCE IN A WHILE!

Mikey - Chavez had an answer to that, regarding some US Corporations (Exxon Mobil Corp and ConocoPhillips) - he told em to pay up or get out, and when they refused to do either, and laughed in his face, he seized their stuff and nationalised it.

Oh, gee, you didn't think all that hate in his direction had anything to do with his POLITICS, didja ?

Fuck no dude, money, it's always money.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 12:22 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
..., but as long as we're talking about foolish tax policy.....

Indeed, it's very adroit that you'd brush on Reaganomics in a discussion about stupid tax policy...


I realize you're justing getting a dig in on rap, which is nice and all, but...

The point I'm making is not about foolish tax policy. There's plenty of that, but what I'm getting at is whether there's ever a good excuse for monkeying with the tax code to favor, or screw over, specific people or companies. I say it's bullshit. In general we recognize the inequity in "different laws for different people", but no one seems to want to acknowledge that that's exactly what we're doing through our current approach to taxation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, May 4, 2009 11:27 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Here's a crazy idea.

Why not lower the Corp Tax rate , which is the 2nd highest in the WORLD, behind Japan, and attract MORE business tax revenue?

I know it' a bit off the main topic, but as long as we're talking about foolish tax policy.....

Indeed, it's very adroit that you'd brush on Reaganomics in a discussion about stupid tax policy...


Reagan had the right idea, and the economy rebounded because of it. But that's hardly the point here. If a few businesses are being hunted down off shore for trying to save some $$ by avoiding high corp. tax rates, then doesn't it make more sense to lower that tax rate, keep those companies here, ON shore, and also attract new businesses ?

Obama has it bass ackwards, as usual.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 1:36 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


The problem isn't "a few" offshore businesses, Rappy - it's THOUSANDS of them. And the problem isn't that they're simply trying to avoid paying corporate taxes here - they're avoiding paying them ANYWHERE. They tell one country they're paying them here, tell us they're paying them elsewhere, and pay them nowhere.

But that's not even the real point, either. From what I gather, they're able to take DEDUCTIONS on investments they make overseas, and those deductions come out of the corporate taxes they're supposed to pay here. So instead of paying, or in most cases NOT paying, they end up getting PAID by us, the taxpayers. That's the loophole they're trying to close. You can pay your taxes here, or you can stop taking deductions here for money you spend elsewhere - but you can't continue to avoid doing either.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You know, I'll agree to that proposal, just as long as you ACTUALLY COLLECT THE DAMN MONEY ONCE IN A WHILE! As it stands, there are over 15,000 companies "registered" as being headquartered at one single address in the Caymans - and it's not some corporate skyscraper, it's a HOUSE. Ugland House. Home to some 15,521 international corporations. All of them use this address to help avoid the U.S. corporate taxes.


Most of these "corporations" are actually tax shelters for individuals, who incorporate themselves and assign all their individual income to the corporation.

An old tax scam.

One flavor, the 'corporation sole' is discussed here.
http://forums.kiplinger.com/showthread.php?t=2073

The "Dirty Dozen" of tax scams is listed here.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=206370,00.html


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 2:44 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Reagan had the right idea, and the economy rebounded because of it.

Ronnie Raygun didn't hit a single one of his elections promises. He increased government spending. He increased the size of the US government, after running on a platform of "government being the problem". The economic rebound had bugger all to do with his policies.

His economic policies were rightly called voodoo economics, because that was what they were. It all sounds wonderful doesn't it, we'll cut taxes, and the government revenue will increase! Almost too good to be true, because it is, and that's born out by the tax revenues of the period too sparky. As for your point, you parroted Reagan's nonsense about reducing taxes and getting more revenue, and I called you on it. That's the point. Unless you're talking about reducing corporate tax to zero, you're not going to entice many corporations or their creative accountants back from the low to zero tax havens, and that's not going to increase revenue.

Apart from him leaving office two years before the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had little directly to do with him, his moniker as the greatest president evar!! seems to be more the self deluding hype one expects from the far extremes of the political system.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:00 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I realize you're justing getting a dig in on rap, which is nice and all, but...

The point I'm making is not about foolish tax policy. There's plenty of that, but what I'm getting at is whether there's ever a good excuse for monkeying with the tax code to favor, or screw over, specific people or companies. I say it's bullshit. In general we recognize the inequity in "different laws for different people", but no one seems to want to acknowledge that that's exactly what we're doing through our current approach to taxation.

My objection to Rap was purely and simply against his pushing of the voodoo economics mindset. Nothing more nothing less.

I don't like sin taxes per se. If you tax something like cigarettes in order to fund the extra burden smoking puts on a nationalised health system, I don't see the problem though. I mean health insurance is more expensive for smokers, what's the difference? Except that one is a Sin tax enacted by government and the other enacted by a corporation, but I don't buy that something is good or bad depending on who is doing it.

Now if you're talking about the difference between a flat tax and a progressive tax, that's different. Flat taxes aren't fair, and they're certainly not treating everyone the same. I believe very strongly that taxation should be on disposable income only, that is once the basic costs of living have been accounted for, what ever is left is what is taxable.

If you're charging the same overall percentage of income tax for the rich and poor, then poorer people are going to be paying a much much greater percentage of their disposable income in tax, compared to the rich. How is it fair to expect the poorer members of society to give up all their disposable income, so that the richer members don't have to give up hardly any?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:30 AM

SERGEANTX


The debate over income tax is another one entirely. The concept in unjust on the face of it.

As far as not being able to see the difference between higher taxes and higher insurance rates I'm not sure what to say. Taxes are forced on us an insurance isn't.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:35 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

As far as not being able to see the difference between higher taxes and higher insurance rates I'm not sure what to say. Taxes are forced on us an insurance isn't.


Not true. Most states now require you to have auto insurance if you have a car, so it IS forced on us in exactly the same way "sin taxes" are. If you don't want to pay the "tax" of having to carry insurance, don't own a car or drive one. If you don't want to pay the smoker's tax, don't smoke. But don't try to convince me there's a nickel's worth of difference between the two.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 3:36 AM

SERGEANTX


Two wrongs don't make a right.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:00 AM

SERGEANTX


ok... sorry for the glib response.

But the idea that insurance should ever be mandatory in the first place is even more egregious than tax policy abuses, so it's irking to see one used as a defense for the other.

Anyway, we were talking smokers who would have no effect on auto insurance. Health insurance is not (yet) mandatory and is very different from taxes. Insurance companies don't (yet) have armies and police who will shoot you if you don't do as they demand. The failure to recognize that distinction is part of a worldview that is driving us headlong into corporatism and a future where there truly is no difference between corporations and government.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 4:46 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
If you tax something like cigarettes in order to fund the extra burden smoking puts on a nationalised health system

That works only if you're willing to push a known falsehood to accomplish it, again, the ugly truth is that over time, healthier people cost more.

I'm never lettin this go, till either they get surcharged, or I do not.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 5:59 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

But the idea that insurance should ever be mandatory in the first place is even more egregious than tax policy abuses, so it's irking to see one used as a defense for the other.


You've misread me if you think I'm defending either one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:01 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
If you tax something like cigarettes in order to fund the extra burden smoking puts on a nationalised health system

That works only if you're willing to push a known falsehood to accomplish it, again, the ugly truth is that over time, healthier people cost more.

I'm never lettin this go, till either they get surcharged, or I do not.

-F


The late, great Bill Hicks had a bit about that. Something along the lines of "you non-smokers, what a bunch of whiny pussies. I'll tell you something... non-smokers die every single day. It's the smokers they're trying to find a cure for. 'If only he'd been a smoker, we'd have a machine that could help!'"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:10 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
ok... sorry for the glib response.

But the idea that insurance should ever be mandatory in the first place is even more egregious than tax policy abuses, so it's irking to see one used as a defense for the other.


Buying a pack of cigarettes isn't mandatory either. So what is your point? That it's wrong for their to be consequences to ones own actions? Health insurance isn't mandatory, and I never hear anyone lamenting insurance companies charging higher premiums for customers of greater risk. But the word government is some how involved, then it's instantly bad, because it seems at some point the word government was changed to mean bad, and the word corporate became a synonym for, well god the way some go on about private enterprise.

Point is I really don't understand your objection. Buying a pack of cigarettes is no more mandatory than health insurance, you're opting into those charges and I don't believe any country has yet enacted a law where by you'll be arrested for not buying cigarettes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:15 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Point is I really don't understand your objection. Buying a pack of cigarettes is no more mandatory than health insurance, you're opting into those charges and I don't believe any country has yet enacted a law where by you'll be arrested for not buying cigarettes.


I'll try again. Buying health insurance isn't mandatory (yet). Paying taxes is. You really don't see the difference?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:15 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That works only if you're willing to push a known falsehood to accomplish it, again, the ugly truth is that over time, healthier people cost more.

I'm never lettin this go, till either they get surcharged, or I do not.

-F

Seems to be a little tongue in cheek false logic being portrayed as an unfortunate truth there. Some of the biggest costs to health care systems are diseases caused by smoking, there's no falsehood in that, and it rather denies what you claim.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:17 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

I'll try again. Buying health insurance isn't mandatory (yet). Paying taxes is. You really don't see the difference?

Income taxes are mandatory. Taxes on cigarettes are only payable if you buy cigarettes, which is not mandatory. Cigarette sales tax is in no way mandatory, it's quite easy to avoid paying it (arguably easier than avoiding health insurance) You really don't see the difference?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:20 AM

SERGEANTX


Cit, you seem intent on ignoring the point of the discussion and obfuscating instead. I'm not interested.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:29 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Cit, you seem intent on ignoring the point of the discussion and obfuscating instead. I'm not interested.

I apologise for not letting you frame the debate.

EDIT:
Actually I was pointing out that there are such things as non-mandatory taxes, while you were trying to portray all taxes as the same thing. I'm sorry clarifying what I was talking about upsets you so.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Some of the biggest costs to health care systems are diseases caused by smoking

Show me a cite for that which doesn't use either arbitratry and phonied up statistics, and an actual case breakdown - cause yanno, for all that folks make that statement, they never can seem to actually back it up.

Meanwhile, you might take a look at the rather effective deconstruction of some of the more false arguments as presented here.
http://www.lcolby.com/

That said, hell YES smoking IS harmful, but in the overbearing "Reefer Madness" any-lie-is-truth method of villainising it, many folk in the healthcare industry have destroyed their own case against it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 6:57 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
His economic policies were rightly called voodoo economics, because that was what they were. It all sounds wonderful doesn't it, we'll cut taxes, and the government revenue will increase!


That's exactly what happened, and has happened, every time it's been tried, going back to JFK. Learn a thing or two, comrade.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
His economic policies were rightly called voodoo economics, because that was what they were. It all sounds wonderful doesn't it, we'll cut taxes, and the government revenue will increase!


That's exactly what happened, and has happened, every time it's been tried, going back to JFK. Learn a thing or two, comrade.



What happened to the national debt under Reagan?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 7:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


More revenue came in, as well as more spending. Since spending bills ORIGINATE in the House, which was controlled by the Democrats, they are mostly to blame. Reagan signed the bills to play ball, and get what he wanted, but at a cost. He gave and the Dems took, as they always do, but never gave back.

Standard M.O. for D.C.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:09 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Cit, you seem intent on ignoring the point of the discussion and obfuscating instead. I'm not interested.

I apologise for not letting you frame the debate.

EDIT:
Actually I was pointing out that there are such things as non-mandatory taxes, while you were trying to portray all taxes as the same thing. I'm sorry clarifying what I was talking about upsets you so.


Rejecting a frame is fine. But you don't seem to even get the point.

The point I'm making is that we use taxes to punish (and reward) activities that we can't touch with legitimate law. The question isn't whether smoking is voluntary or not. The question is whether people should be punished for doing it. If so, make it illegal. But don't try to do an end run around basic freedom by using the tax code as a surrogate. THAT's what I'm saying is wrong.

Are you taking the position that using taxes to punish some and reward others is a legitimate use of the power to tax?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 12:54 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

That's exactly what happened, and has happened, every time it's been tried, going back to JFK. Learn a thing or two, comrade.


That's exactly what didn't happen. Learn something for once in your entire life, look up the facts rather than your favorite fascists propaganda, Nazi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 12:56 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Funny, you don't even know what a fascist is, and yet you accuse me of being one.

Wow.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:21 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Some of the biggest costs to health care systems are diseases caused by smoking

Show me a cite for that which doesn't use either arbitratry and phonied up statistics, and an actual case breakdown - cause yanno, for all that folks make that statement, they never can seem to actually back it up.
-F

You'll have to give me some time to dig all that up, while I'm at it you can dig up some actual data to support your claims too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:24 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Funny, you don't even know what a fascist is, and yet you accuse me of being one.

Wow.

Nope, I know exactly what a fascist is, and I've schooled you on that subject more than once (you may remember you ran away from the thread after I did so). The term fascist fits a child murder advocating Authoritarian non-thinker like you to an absolute "T". Proof evident by how here, instead of taking your licks when proven wrong as usual, you start getting insulting, because like most fascists that's all you've got.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Rejecting a frame is fine. But you don't seem to even get the point.

Actually, I'd argue that it's you that doesn't get the point, as neatly evidenced by this here:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Are you taking the position that using taxes to punish some and reward others is a legitimate use of the power to tax?

It's curious you'd say this. Perhaps my responses did not fit into your preconceived pigeon holes you'd already prepared for this thread? It rather seems that you've been railing against someone saying something quite different to what I was, and got just a little upset when I tried to set you straight. No Sarge, I'm not taking that position, I'm taking the position that you're narrow definitions aren't exactly perfect, and that something can be taxed without it being a sin tax. Smoking costs the NHS alone £2.7 Billion in direct costs ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7654153.stm), and that's probably a low estimate. Why shouldn't the cost of that by deducted as duties on packets of cigarettes, or are you taking the position that there should be no negative consequences for your actions?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:44 AM

SERGEANTX


We've discussed nationalized health care already. It's problematic for exactly this reason.

So, separating out the obvious (not all taxes are sin taxes) and the redundant (nationalized services by nature punish outliers) your response seems to be that you agree with me. Taxes should NOT be used as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. It's odd that you can manage to agree in such a combative fashion.


SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 1:44 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Thanks for showing us all your ignorance, again. It's funny to see you wax moronic.


Fascism -
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums....

Sound familiar ? Ownership over Banks, manufacturing.... sounds like Obama, to a "T".


dhttp://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll233/AURaptor/shockedobama.jpg


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:03 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thanks for showing us all your ignorance, again. It's funny to see you wax moronic.


Fascism -
To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums....

Sound familiar ? Ownership over Banks, manufacturing.... sounds like Obama, to a "T".


A nazi child killer says what?

Also, your quote, without cite as per usual, doesn't mention anything about banks, (which you hero Bush nationalised last I heard). But then, hey making up shit is pretty much your M.O.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:06 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
We've discussed nationalized health care already. It's problematic for exactly this reason.

So, separating out the obvious (not all taxes are sin taxes) and the redundant (nationalized services by nature punish outliers) your response seems to be that you agree with me. Taxes should NOT be used as a carrot and stick to manipulate society. It's odd that you can manage to agree in such a combative fashion.

It's odd it took you several posts to get what I said in pretty much my first sentence to you:
Quote:
I don't like sin taxes per se. If you tax something like cigarettes in order to fund the extra burden smoking puts on a nationalised health system, I don't see the problem though.

Of course a non-nationalised health service by nature punishes everyone except the rich.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:07 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I've never advocated the killing of children, nazi or otherwise.

comrade.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never advocated the killing of children, nazi or otherwise.

comrade.

Lying Nazi child killer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 2:25 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never advocated the killing of children, nazi or otherwise.

comrade.

Lying Nazi child killer.


Lying Nazi children are another matter entirely.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 3:02 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never advocated the killing of children, nazi or otherwise.

comrade.

Lying Nazi child killer.


And certainly never advocated killing lying nazi children. Lying's bad, and children should know better, but I'd never kill them for that.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 3:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I've never advocated the killing of children, nazi or otherwise.


Unless they were still in the womb of a Hamas mother, in which you endorsed it as a 2-for-1 special.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 6, 2009 5:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When Pal women start dressing up their babies in suicide pampers, might be a good idea to go ahead and take care of both of them at once, before they have a chance to kill.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37443#687361

I'd also like to note, that the reason AURaptor is calling me 'comrade' is because in another thread I said the Soviet Union had endemic internal problems that would have caused it's collapse despite Ronnie Ray-gun. Some how Rap's tiny little mind jumped from me saying a communist state was so flawed it would collapse on its own, to me being a communist. Maybe you should try creating insults that make sense.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Fri, November 22, 2024 00:07 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 23:55 - 7478 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 21, 2024 22:03 - 40 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 21, 2024 22:03 - 4787 posts
1000 Asylum-seekers grope, rape, and steal in Cologne, Germany
Thu, November 21, 2024 21:46 - 53 posts
Music II
Thu, November 21, 2024 21:43 - 117 posts
Lying Piece of Shit is going to start WWIII
Thu, November 21, 2024 20:56 - 17 posts
Are we in WWIII yet?
Thu, November 21, 2024 20:31 - 18 posts
More Cope: "Donald Trump Has Not Won a Majority of the Votes Cast for President"
Thu, November 21, 2024 19:40 - 7 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 18:18 - 2 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 21, 2024 18:11 - 267 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:56 - 4749 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL