Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
1. You misunderstood me. I was saying you could come up with a really long list of exceptions to consumption tax without being more complicated than our current labyrinthine tax code.
2. I'm not arguing in favor of progressive taxes. Again, I was just pointing out that there is plenty of room for a consumption tax to get really complicated without being more complicated than the mess we have now.
And no, if you want to make a consumption tax regressive, you don't have to make it complicated. You can exempt the first $X of purchases, where $X is some "living wage" line according to some politician's favored theory. You now have a progressive tax. Perhaps not progressive enough to wage effective class warfare, which means the Democrats will hate it. But the good news is, Republicans will hate that it doesn't have enough loopholes for their monied cronies to avoid paying any taxes at all. So maybe I'm in favor of it after all. I'm in favor of almost anything that those clowns in Washington are all unified in hating. And since everybody would be helping to carry the load of the government they ask for, the big winners in this system are the upper middle class, who are currently getting screwed from both ends of the income spectrum.
Ever hear of angie's list? It has been around for a decade or two and largely takes the difficult out of the equation.
I was kind of thinking the same thing. Except instead of yellow pages, I was thinking angie's list. They do some subscription thing to make money but screen reviews and only allow customers of whatever services to make them. I think they are limited to home improvement type stuff though.
Don't you think there is a difference between someone who can afford booze and drugs who can hold a job and someone who drinks to the point they cannot? Isn't there a difference between someone who buys a bag of weed and someone who buys groceries?
Just because we do the same things doesn't mean we are equally doing them. When you know when to stop, when you don't do it beyond your means, you do not end up losing your means, you are not the same. But that really doesn't matter because other choices play a bigger role. Choices like being a single mom or having 10 trophies (kids) or screwing up jobs so you are stuck with shit jobs and low pay.
But hey, did you know that two income families making minimum wage is not considered in poverty? Divorce them and both will be.
Such a thing is completely unheard of!
Sears tried something like this years ago. Except it mostly dealt with connecting contractors to customers who purchased the products sold for installation. They ran into a lot of legal problems. Some areas considered them to be contractors themselves so they needed to be licensed and bonded. Some areas considered them liable for disputes that popped up. They got a handle on it but not before some headaches. Amazon will find this out too.
I'm going to guess that it has a lot to do with nutrition too. But in the US, there is quite a few people who are considered in poverty who are there by choice. I don't mean they choose to be in poverty but choices they make places and keeps them there.
I'm sorry but what was your point?
Its not like they did anything different than what was already happening. They just did it better. And in my neck of the woods, the vast majority of natives simply blended into society. They were not killed for the land.
I dislike the IRS as much as anyone, but I think taxing income is a lot simpler to make progressive than trying to categorize all the different kinds of products available would be.
Have you seen our tax code? When I took Federal Income Taxation in law school, I had to get a copy of the tax code, and it was about six inches thick. (I don't remember, or care, if or how much it was annotated.) That's a mighty long list of exceptions to consumption tax.
But consumption taxes will never take on, because the tax code is really about control. If I grant tax favors for certain preferred behaviors, I can exercise a phenomenal amount of control over what you do. If I'm a power-grubbing statist anywhere on the purple spectrum, that's much better than merely influencing what you buy.
I'm trying to come up with a good argument that taxing production is more easily made progressive than taxing consumption, but now I'm not sure that's right.
That's because it isn't right. If someone's spending a million bucks a year, they get taxed on a million bucks a year. If they're earning a million bucks a year and living like a monk, then the funds they've earned aren't out there competing with yours for goods and services. A miser is an ideal neighbor.
I gather from news reports that they not only rammed the gate but security cars when less than lethal attempts to subdue them were being tried. But otherwise i agree with you with the exception of reasonable. Any other way needs to be reasonable enough to not cause extreme risk to someone's life. When that is present, lethal force is warranted whether it is obvious or not.
Saving and investing is precisely the behavior that we should encourage.
I think it's fine for private individuals to shout "Dont go to this business because they don't like gays". I DON'T think it's OK to use the force of government to force a private individual in to a business contract for any reason.