I used the term liberal on purpose. Most Democrats are centrists or moderate conservatives. Most liberals, which means folks like Sanders, Kucinich, Wiener, etc. are fighting tooth and nail against loopholes, particularly corporate tax loopholes. As a more obvious example, I'm a liberal and I'm against tax loopholes. I suspect the other American liberals on TFP would agree with me on this, particularly in the wake of finding out about GE.

Many of the most damaging loopholes are the direct result of crony capitalism, which is a conservative phenomenon whether you like it or not.

Obama is the one who should be embarrassed. He goes to a church for twenty years with a spiritual advisor, and Obama denounces the man rather than stand with him. Obama allows millions to be insulted by Biden and Reid with their comments about Obama being one of theose "clean" black who does not speak in that "negro" dialect. Obama stopped young black children from school choice in DC. It is Obama's administration that fires people who happen to be black before getting the whole story. Obama even threw his grandmother under the bus.

I don't assume Trump is racist simply because he asks to see Obama's birth certificate. Obama let the issue get out of control, it is his fault.

---------- Post added at 10:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

Then we fight for the same cause. True Tea Party people fight for this cause. You should become one of the Tea Party "crazies". Like I wrote Kucinich would make a better President than Obama - and I have not ruled out the possibility of voting for Kucinich - I will always know what to expect from him. I am also war weary, so if he wants to bring our troops home and fix the tax code...something for me to think about.

We fight for some of the same causes, sure. That's why I find folks like Ron Paul so frustrating. He and I agree on basic civil liberties, non intervention, Israel, the Federal Reserve, boarder protections, the US response to terrorism, and some election law, but at the same time he's a young earth Creationist, whom I consider my arch nemesis in life, he has no clue about environmental protections, he doesn't understand progressive taxation, he's a selective Constitutionalist, he's in favor of free trade and against fair trade, etc. Coming together with characters like that is just as dangerous for him as it is for me because in furthering each other on stuff we have in common, we risk providing the other momentum on things we strongly disagree on. If libertarians and liberals came together on ending the wars, for example, who's to say that doesn't give liberals the momentum necessary to enact sweeping environmental legislation that goes against your libertarian principles? Or who's to say libertarians gain enough momentum to really take a strong shot at Social Security? American politics is weird enough that those aren't outlandish predictions.

If all else fails, I could bring myself as a liberal to work with libertarians on things we agree on, but I'd much rather convince you with facts and logical arguments that my position is objectively correct. I'm sure you understand.

right, ace.
the birther thing is entirely racist but the fault is obama's.
funny stuff.

boneless conservative/partisan personal and intellectual servility---you know, draped over partisan talking points like a boneless chicken breast---that's always a talking point. always fresh. in fostering it, there's been no real change in strategy from the right.

You would think that this would set a precedent, meaning that all future presidents should release their longform birth certificate to the public before taking office.

I have never been 100% in agreement with a candidate I have supported. I generally side with those where I agree on a few of the most important issues that a politician can have an impact on. When it comes to religious issues I tend not to factor that in because a politician is not going to influence anyone's religious beliefs.

I don't understand the appeal of a progressive tax code in a culture where people have the freedom to go from one income class to another. In a caste system I get it. But a progressive tax system hurts those who start poor and want to work their way out of poverty. At each threshold, that higher marginal tax rate is extremely unfair and can stifle a persons progress.

Regarding free and fair trade, I need more detail to understand what your issues are. My initial feeling is that the consumer decides what is fair. If people or nations are selling products made from slave labor, I would agree with laws to stop the sale of those products in this country. Outside of that I am uncomfortable with government trying to decide what is fair and what is not.

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

It is not racist. Obama had the ability to take the issue off of the table when it first came up.

What fuels the "Obama is different than us sentiment", has a lot to do with many things that are a bit odd regarding his past behavior. People have questions that have never been addressed directly. Like the birth certificate why not just put these questions to rest?


I understand your point of view. All conservatives are the same to you. that is why I suggest that conservatives should stop trying to work with the left. If people like Boehner, who are willing to compromise, are considered just as crazy as those who won't compromise - there is no reason to support people like Boehner. I want the Tea Party to totally take control of the Republican Party, control Congress and win the WH. Give us a super majority and see what happens! To hell with trying to compromise or work with people like you.

---------- Post added at 03:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------

No. Just those who "pal around with terrorists". Or, people who are married to people who haven't been proud of the country until the country was willing to elect their spouse. Or, those who give media people tingly feeling down their legs to the point where they won't do their job. Just a select few.

So the criteria is based on gut feelings? Gut feelings are hardly reliable. This is a system set up for failure. It's too easy to circumvent.

actually, ace, i don't think all conservatives are the same.
most that i know personally are lovely people. complicated.
none of them works the way you do.

for example none of them defends donald fucking trump, none of them defends the birthers, and none of them is fooled the way you seemingly are by birther evasions of their own racist and mc-carthyite agenda into imagining that they are not, in fact, racists.

but the clip i posted makes these basic arguments more eloquently and passionately than i can. so watch that.


most conservatives i know are capable of being critical of conservatism.
you seem not to be like that.
must be obama's fault.

Every politician running for President is going to have some "gut" feeling type issue they have to deal with. For example Trump - it is going to be taxes. Also, Trump is a Vietnam era person, who did not serve. He is going to have to address that as well as every Vietnam era person who did not serve. Most people deal with their issues up front. Another example was Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. Or, for certain Southerners they have often had to address past positions on civil rights. Giuliani and Gingrich have infidelity and divorce issues. Bush had the National guard issues. Romney has an issue with his religion. Everyone has something that at a "gut" level raises questions, it is not new and won't stop. Again, it is not all about Obama. Obama is not some kind of unique victim. People have "gut" level questions, I have them - by not addressing them it make me and others more uncomfortable.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

I have read what you have written about about conservatives. The above does not reconcile with what you have presented in the past.

Try reading what I have written. Trump is an unattractive candidate to me. I am not a "birther".

You're missing my point. I'm not suggesting that we aren't influenced by gut reactions. I'm suggesting that it's poor policy to expect the office of the president to act or respond in certain ways based on intuition. Intuition is important and has its function in everyday life, but in this case, you're suggesting it as the sole criteria as to whether we should have the elected president prove he or she was born in America.

It's trivial and subjective and ultimately useless.

This isn't about character or about marital/religious choices. This is about whether the president is legally qualified to hold that office. Why not just call it the Gut Feeling Clause of the office of the president by making it mandatory that they publicly submit all required documents proving they qualify to hold the position?

Poor policy would be ignoring issues of importance regardless of the basis.

I am not saying the "birther" issue is important relative to Obama is in fact President and we have real problems but it is clear that Obama thought it important enough to not only release the birth certificate but to hold a press conference about it. Your issue is not with me, but actually is with Obama as President. I thought he should have addressed the issue as a candidate. However, voters made it clear that they did not care.

If true, why has the media spent so much time on the issue? Please explain that to me. There are all kinds of people who hold all kinds of weird thoughts and ideas and they get no media coverage because virtually nobody takes them seriously. One of the most credible news shows used to be Meet the Press in my opinion, I don't even watch anymore after the new Speaker of the House is met with a series of questions about Obama's birth - save that for the tabloids.

Again, the issue is bigger than his birth place. People have questions about his core beliefs regarding this country, about who he is and what influenced his belief system and behaviors. It is very much about character - just like many won't support a person who cheated on his wife, some won't support individual who they think don't believe this country is exceptional. We all know we are flawed, but that is different than what some believe Obama has thought about this country.

{added} To clarify I have no expectation that Obama or anyone has to do anything to make me feel comfortable. It is always a choice not an obligation.

like baratunde said in the clip i posted earlier, we have all been debased by this birther horseshit.

all it has done is show why the republicans need to change direction.
they really could not have a more loathesome spokesmodel than donald trump.
gringrich is about to launch that moronic american exceptionalist thing.

the far right is a liability.

My question isn't so much as why it's an issue and who's responsible for it; it's more like what do we do about it now that it's an issue?

If it's so important to release the birth certificate, then why not make it mandatory? Why simply base it on whether enough people have an emotional response to it? Is that any way to run a country?

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ----------

It isn't merely a matter of direction; it's a matter of distance too. The Republicans need to keep the high-profile birthers at arm's length. They need to separate the wheat from the chaff. They need to distinguish between American exceptionalism and national pride.

The far right isn't merely a liability; it's an adversary.

The fact that you have bought this bullshit Republican meme hook, line and sinker is all we need to know about your outlook on politics

self-congratulation is a conservative constant. no matter how mediocre the conservative, no matter how reflexive the repetition of the meme of the moment, there's always time to step to the side and congratulate oneself for having been graced with a birther who issued him or her forth into this the best of all possible countries at the best of all possible times in this, the best of all possible worlds.

thanks to the good graces of the birthers who gave birth to the amuricans in amurica who at this the most propitious moment in all of history are at the absolute pinnacle of all human development....


why

faced with such awesome awesomeness, who isn't moved to applause?

each and every exceptionally exceptional american exception is.

it brings a tear to your eye.


pardon me for a moment.

It goes to show that the American Dream isn't the only story within American mythology—which is, of course, rife with irony.

Speak for yourself. To suggest the "birther" issue is different than an issue like those who believed Bush was responsible for giving the order to blow up the World Trade Center or responsible for blowing up the levies in New Orleans illustrates a very narrow view of these kinds of issues.

News flash, we have a President that some people don't like. Wow, must be racism. Is that the logic in play?

Trump has not even declared. Many including me, don't believe he is serious. If he does run, there is no real chance he gets the nomination in my opinion. So, on what basis are you saying Trump is a "spokesmodel"? What Trump has is a style that is effective and works in the sound-bite world of the media, but he is superficial. Trump has a handful lines that will get the average Joe to stand up and cheer. And I repeat, it is the liberal media that is tripping all over themselves to put Trump in the lime-light. I have watched Hard Ball on MSNBC the last few days - almost 100% coverage on Trump.

People can analyze Trump and discuss his strengths and weaknesses without saying they endorse him - why does that have to be said here?

Morons vote. Are going to take the position that everyone who votes for Gingrich is a moron? There is no doubt in my mind that in a race between Obama and Gingrich in 2012, Gingrich gets my vote and will win.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

We don't do anything. There is nothing for us to do. The facts are available, everyone has access to the same information. The only person who can do something, is Obama. He did. He could have ignored the issue, but he did not for the reasons he gave. There will always be people who are "birthers". There will always be people who don't believe we landed on the moon. There are people who believe Elvis is alive. So what. What are you going to do about it - there is nothing you can do.

Because it is not important by the time a person is running for President. Usually, by the time a person is running for President there is no question about their citizenship. It is interesting because McCain was actually foreign born. And there are many ways a foreign born US citizen can be eligible to be President.

Will you ever believe that in the minds of many who are considered "birthers", the issue is bigger than where he was born? Also, when you look at polls depending on how the question is asked big percentages, simply say they don't know and if asked a follow-up would say it doesn't matter and they accept Obama as the legitimate President.

During the past few weeks nothing has changed as a result of all this birther noise? I find it odd that Obama will address the birther issue but won't answer questions about Libya. Or on any topic, will only answer questions in controlled settings or with friendly interviewers. He promise to be the most transparent President in history, I have a problem with that lie. Obama is the President, not Trump - Obama should be able to control the agenda if he was a stronger leader.

What serious Republican is on the birther band-wagon? Be specific, what/who are you talking about? I bet you can't do it, other than Trump - and he is not serious in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

Dude, I have been post here for a few years - and now you get wise to my outlook???

And anyone who actually reads around here knows I don't support the Republican platform or agenda 100%. There is a chance that I won't even vote Republican in 2012 - I won't vote for Romney, I'll vote Libertarian or another third party. If not for Palin I would not have voted for McCain. I think Boehner compromising with Obama was a mistake - I would have shut the government down. I don't support raising the debt ceiling, but many Republicans will support doing that.

Why not take a few minutes and read or ask questions before going off into fantasy-land.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

As a believer in the American, I say you can think what you want about it, but every day people get up and go to work to accomplish that dream. The American dream has made the world a better place. I say that with great pride. I salute the flag, recite the Pledge and sing the National Anthem. I love this country and don't want to live anywhere else because it is the greatest place to live with the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity..

So I guess all Obama was doing was clearing the stink out of the media, nothing more, nothing less.

As for "serious" Republicans, I agree. It's a non-issue though. Any serious Republican isn't a birther to begin with. Beyond Donald Trump, I'm talking about Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike "I Misspoke" Huckabee. I wouldn't doubt that there are others.

Let's hope the issue is put to rest. Maybe it will allow for more Republicans to get serious for a change. Maybe it will be John Boehner, whose spokesperson was quoted as saying, "This has long been a settled issue. The Speaker's focus is on cutting spending, lowering gas prices, and creating American jobs." Maybe it will be Mitt Romney, who recently tweeted: "What President Obama should really be releasing is a jobs plan."

Indeed. Getting serious means focusing on what matters.

---------- Post added at 06:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

It really depends on what you're talking about. America isn't the freest in all aspects. Every opportunity in this world isn't available in America.

To this point, I've disagreed with you on many things, but never thought you were the guy who would actually believe bullshit like "Obama wasn't proud of his country before he was elected." That's mis-contextualized GOP soundbite bullshit to the highest degree. I was giving you more credit than you apparently deserve

It's less about influencing beliefs and more about a decision-making process. I don't trust a medical doctor who doesn't trust basic science to be objective. I expect him to be dogmatic, which is a good word to describe Ron Paul. Reality doesn't jive well with dogmatic people because rarely are the dogmatic always right.
A progressive tax system isn't punishment, it's about creating a fence in which capitalism can play. Without that fence in place, capitalism leads to further and further inequality until you have an economic caste system. It prevents the caste system, when it works properly and isn't full of loopholes.
The United States has laws which protect workers. We have a minimum wage, we have weekends, we have legal recourse against irresponsible or exploitive employers, and we can even unionize in order to organize and improve worker laws. The same is not true of many of the United States' trading partners. All of the hard work that was done in the United States to create our middle class and to protect our workers goes out the window when we start trading the slavers and exploiters. Part of globalization means exporting workers rights to create an even playing field for everyone. If industrialized nations had strict requirements in order to trade, including basic workers rights, we could help the world be a better place and we'd prevent American companies from moving jobs to dirt-cheap areas where they could exploit people to keep costs down. That's my understanding of fair trade.

ace dear, it's a little baffling that you persist in attempting to erase the obvious racism that animates the birthers. it's less baffling that you do so using false equivalences and weak logic. the motivation, though...that's mysterious.

i would wager that you support the birthers because you see them damaging obama. to that end anything goes. but maybe in this case even someone as utterly partisan as you is discomfited by who this anything-goes approach can get you into bed with.

i would be too were i you. racism is an ugly thing.


as for the equation of the birthers with political opposition to george w bush---that's laughable. not even worth mockery. not worth anything at all.


on the other hand, it's refreshing sort of to read you acknowledging the centrality of pandering to stupid people in the activities of gingrich et al. you'd think that would pose a problem for your own conservatism, cause you to question its appeal and examine how you use it.

That is something his wife said, although not her exact words or mine. Again, I try to explain why some people question who Obama is - when I provide an explanation it is not necessarily my view. If I don't make that clear, I will need to do better.

However, even from my point of view there have been many moments when I have wondered -what the hell did that mean??? - or why in the hell did he do that??? When I ask those questions, not necessarily here, but just based on my asking the question I get labeled in various negative ways - as if name calling will address the concern or make the issue go away.

To give an example, to this day I wonder what the hell does -"...they bitterly cling to their guns and religion..." mean. Who is "they"? Why do I have to be "bitter"? I am not very religious and I don't actually "cling" to my guns. So, was he saying that he is different than me? Is he saying he is superior to me? Is he saying that I am a silly little irrational person? Why doesn't he say it in the light of day? Can you explain it?

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------

I am not sure you understand what this "fence" does. A progressive income tax code help rich people stay rich and poor people stay poor. Rich people do not need income, they have and control wealth. Poor people need income to accumulate assets or wealth. Your progressive income tax systm hurts people trying to improve their lives.

Again, I don't think you understand my point. If an employee is worth $100,000 per year in a free labor market and the employer can get away with paying them $50,000 (including salary and benefits), that is exploitation as I define it. How does an employer get away with that? In the health insurance example - a 50 year-old with medical issues on their employers group plan, is locked into that employer. In some cases even changing to another employer with a group plan, there may be a gap in coverage. So the person can not take the risk and stays. The employer knows it and pays below market.

Another example with pension plans. As an employer I devise a plan that vests in 7 years, so you get close and you have to stay or risk the loss of thousands of dollars in accumulated benefits. Then I have a 15 year milestone, a 25 year mile stone. As an employer I get you locked in to hitting these milestones and I can pay you below market. I can be like your local drug dealer or pimp. I get you locked in and then I own you, figuratively speaking. The sad part is that millions don't even know that they are "owned". It is a mean, dog eat dog world and the false belief that government is or can make it better is a joke

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

I agree some "birthers" are racists.

Some liberals are racist also.

In my life experience it is always better to speak openly and directly address questions and concerns. Although some will always have hateful views, many who have fears and concerns will not have or maintain hateful views. We should never call a person a racist as the initial reaction to questions or concerns regarding cultural differences. What motivates people is often the fear of differences, if the goal is to label people that may be your response, mine is to fix the problem.

I do not support "birthers".

At one point I tried to explain to you how the concept of "shuck'n and jive'n" is racially offensive. You indicated that what I was sharing was not true. I question your credibility on this topic.

No, a REGRESSIVE tax code hurts the poor.

Thanks for the set-up.

That is why I support a flat tax code, one based on consumption. If people spend like a billionaire they should be taxed accordingly. Under a flat tax consumption model if a person spends their money on food, housing, medical and basic necessities we could exclude those items from being taxed.

Tax the underground economy through consumption taxes.
Tax rich people who spend based on their assets rather than income through consumption taxes.
Tax big corporations who spend lavishly in order to lower their real taxable income through consumption taxes.

Are you ready to join the cause? What is the downside to flat consumption taxation?

The downside of a flat consumption tax?

1) it lowers the tax obligation of the top bracket at the expense of the middle class
2) they take away incentives to middle class taxpayers, re: home ownership, retirement planning, etc.
3) revenue projections rely on unsubstantiated ideological (overly optimistic) economic assumptions that they cant support.

The "fair" tax proposal floating around today is similar to a proposal from 5-6 years ago.

Relying on data from Bush's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform, here is what FactCheck.org found on the earlier bill:

There is a reason that every president and every Congress, both D and R, since Teddy Roosevelt have support a progressive tax system, differing only on the rates.

It is fair and it works.

Depends on how the system is structured.

People don't need incentives to own homes. Why should renters (often working poor who can't save enough for a down payment) subsidize middle class home-ownership? Wasn't it government in-part created the real-estate bubble through policy that encouraged high risk mortgages, mortgages often used by everyone but the poor?
Isn't the problem with our current system, the thousands and thousand of loop-holes, special subsidies and favorable treatment of a few at the expense of many?

I know, I know, you can not answer these kinds of questions - just tell me how much of a bad poster I am - been there done that.

Again, depends on how the system is structured. There are always trade-offs, no system is perfect. but, no matter how you look at it our current system is unfair and broken.

I can understand why Washington insiders want to protect special interests, protect the loop-holes. Some of us see the deception. If my interests don't not have a strong lobbying effort compared to others, I get screwed. Poor people are getting screwed. The middle class is getting screwed. This system favors the rich, big corporate interests, and the interests of the powerful in government.

I could give thousands of examples, would you ever acknowledge unfairness? Or, do you want to pretend that Washington is going to end oil and gas subsidies in the tax code - they will just end some and give others and then claim they did something.

Or, how about those sugar subsides in the tax code? Ever calculate how those are unfair to the poor? Didn't think so. Oh, sorry I am changing the subject again - silly me, never mind.

People need incentives to own homes when renting is another option. If the middle class is all renting, ownership moves to the top, with banks and the rich. What do you suppose happens to renters' rights when the majority of home owners are rich or super rich?

What?!?

You are suggesting that if not for the mortgage tax deduction people would not desire to own their homes???

First, did people desire to own their homes before the tax deduction? Before there was even a income tax in this country?

Second, the incentive of home-ownership is intrinsic in being in control of living expenses. You buy a home to own it. Get to a point where you either have fixed and known costs with no mortgage or no rent.

Third, home-ownership is a hedge against inflation. Rents will always go up over time.

Fourth, home-ownership is an investment. People can make money through owning a home. It serves some as a built in nest egg. A home serves as a legacy for your children.

Fifth, home-ownership represents stability and status in a community.

People rarely do things simply because of the tax implications, it is very possible that home-ownership rates would not be measurably different without the special deduction - but I bet homes would be less expensive and thus more affordable to poor and average people. I argue that the mortgage deduction causes people to buy bigger homes and it inflates prices, perhaps to the point of actually off-setting the tax benefit.

Here is something to think about regarding government and unintended consequences that is related to the home ownership issue related to government and unintended consequences.

Making College More Expensive: The Unintended Consequences of Federal Tuition Aid | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

The game is clear, if you qualify for special treatment from government or you are rich, college is not an issue. If a person is middle class and don't quality for special treatment their options are severely and unfairly limited. It is crazy to the point of, in some cases a family would be better off not saving, not preparing for the expenses and not earning a high income when it is time to apply for aid.

Is this the kind of system you favor? I certainly do not.

My son is 14 and entering HS next fall I am facing this issue now, how do you suggest I "play the game" to minimize out of pocket costs? And be honest, it is a game. I have talked to some other parents and my wife and I are relatively ignorant. I thought we just needed to save money and he needed to get good grades. That is certainly naive.

It's been very interesting to see which GOP types have given praise to Obama and which have given all the credit to GWB.

for reasons that now escape me i am watching sort of the flyers-bruins playoff game. it began with some vile self-congratulatory statement that involved the meme "those who hate our way of life."

there was something similar in the fragment of a baseball game i had on momentarily earlier before i came to my senses and flipped it off.

is this some kind of officially sanctioned moment of meathead jingoism at sporting events?

really foul.

No. I wasn't sure you were reading posts, so I said something that didn't make any sense (that people renting would lead to an attack on renters' rights), curious at your response.

I'm curious as to how the GOP is going to respond in the coming months to the death of Bin Laden. Sure, they'll try to blame Obama for doing something wrong, but as it's been pointed out, a lot of independents and undecideds are going to like that a Democrat did militarily what a Republican couldn't. That strange American id, that's obsessed with being protected by a strong leader, appreciates that kind of thing and the GOP just lost its corner on that market.

If you have a model of a "fair" tax proposal that does not lower the tax obligation of the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class or that does is really revenue neutral w/o relying on voodoo economics, please share it with us.

I don't speak for anyone but myself, and I give Obama credit for making sure the the job got done. There were some risks but he did not seem to waiver or hesitate. I like that in leadership.

---------- Post added at 03:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

If you or your firm wants to hire me, I'd be more than happy to talk to you and share my more detailed thoughts on the subject. Until then, generally speaking a system can be structured in many ways to exempt taxation on poor people spending money on basic necessities. Can you acknowledge that it is possible to do that? A system can be developed that does not require excessive sales taxes. If given a blank slate as a starting point, the possibilities are endless and in many ways we can improve on our current system. Perhaps, as in the world cliches, it requires thinking outside of the box.

So, for discussion purposes, you cant produce a flat tax proposal that would not lower the tax obligation of the top tax payers at the expense of the middle and at the same time is revenue neutral at the rate proposed.

Ideologues such as yourself say it can be done and we should take in on faith that it will work and be fair.

Pragmatists like me say show me the money.

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't".

I work in steps. You seem to want to go from A to Z without what comes in between. For me, there are some basics we need to acknowledge before moving on. You won't even acknowledge the unfairness in our current tax code. You won't acknowledge that a flat consumption based tax system can be structured in different ways to accomplish different objectives. Again, generally speaking such a system could exempt people under whatever cut-off you want. For example you could cut it at $100,000 in income or consumption. The fundamental principle in my mind when thinking of fairness to poor or middle-class is to tax wealth, wealth based life-styles, exorbitance. What is the fundamental principle in your mind? Do you have one? Have you given it any thought?

Again, you cant or wont produce a "fair" tax proposal that works. I'm not surprised. I have never seen one that works, yet you want me to acknowledge that some unknown variation not yet proposed by an advocate of such a tax can be structured in a fair manner and be revenue neutral. Its not like its a new concept that just sprung to mind last week.

So I ask again...

http://theshot.coffeeratings.com/wp-...commercial.jpg

No, I dont acknowledge the unfairness in a progressive tax system and neither has any US president, D or R. Neither does any industrialized country in the world.

I acknowledge that the current system needs to be reformed and simplified, but in a manner where those with more disposal income continue to pay a higher marginal rate than those living from paycheck to paycheck or the majority in-between, middle class families with two working spouses who enjoy some of life's amenities and hope to save for an emergency or their children's the future at the same time.

---------- Post added at 11:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

As to the fundamental principle in my mind, this is one area where I agree with that iconic free marketeer, Adam Smith:

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

and that iconic Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who would probably be vilified as a socialist today:

"I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."

The point you choose not to address regarding fairness remains.

Wealthy people do not rely on income, they have wealth - progressive income taxation does not address this.

Poor people trying to improve their economic status are faced with marginal income tax rates that are unfair when they reach the cut-off points. For example, using round numbers, if at $20,000 the rate is 0%, but at $25,000 they enter a bracket where they end up with a rate of 5% on the whole amount or a tax of $1,250 - the marginal rate on the additional $5,000 in income is 25%, do you call that fair?

The only people who pay inheritance (or death taxes) taxes, are people who don't plan under our current system. Or in some cases they are people who can not afford the costs to avoid the tax, as in the example of farmers who may hold wealth in land assets but have very little cash flow. Yet another example of unfairness in our tax code.

If you folks can fix the unfairness, why not get it done rather than talking about it constantly. In my view, people in government and the most vocal about taxing the rich probably have not real desire to fix the unfairness.

You're insisting that I should first agree with you that a flat tax is fairer than a progressive tax in order to have a discussion. WTF?

I think a progressive tax is fair.

But I've ask you three times now to show me a flat tax proposal that works -- that does not benefit the top taxpayers at the expense of the middle class and is also revenue neutral -- and we can discuss it.

You cant or you wont, and that is my shortcoming?

ace, that's not how our tax system works. If the rate for 0-$20,000 is 0% and from $20,001-whatever is 5%, then you only get taxed 5% on anything ABOVE $20,000.

This is why it's bullshit when people claim that getting a raise that puts them into a higher tax bracket will result in less take home pay