hmm
 

Post Ipsa Loquator.

Again.

For Club
 

A Fafblog FAQ
 

• Q: Which of the following is treason?
  1. Not wishing the President a happy birthday even when he is clearly wearing a party hat and a "Kiss The Birthday Boy" shirt
  2. Questioning the progress, purpose, or justification of the Iraq war
  3. Providing material aid to a hostile enemy of the United States
  4. Telling America "Hey America yo mama's so fat by the time she bends over it's Daylight Savings Time."
  
  Answer: All of them are treason but number four is the worst treason of all on account of America is real sensitive about the fatness of its mama.
  
  Q: I'm at a formal dinner party when the President shows up half-naked and stinking of rum. Can I tell him he is inappropriately attired without committing treason?
  A: No. By embarassing the Commander-in-Chief you're providing aid and comfort to our enemies such as Osama bin Laden and Al Franken.
  Q: What if it's the Vice-President in a muu-muu reeking of ether?
  A: No. By embarassing the Vice-President you are a heartbeat away from providing aid and comfort to our enemies.
  Q: What about the President Pro Tempore of the Senate? Nobody cares about the stupid ol President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
  A: No, that's three heartbeats away from treason which is still dangerously naughty.
  Q: The Secretary of Agriculture naked and smeared in monkey dung?
  A: No. By embarassing the Secretary of Agriculture you are providing aid and comfort to the enemies of agriculture, like potato blight and Dutch Elm disease. Are you on the side of Dutch Elm disease?
  Q: Assistant to the postmaster general wearing a suit of old condoms and whale blubber?
  A: Now you're being silly. Where would the assistant to the postmaster general get a hold of whale blubber?
  
  Q: Oh no, I've accidentally committed treason! What do I do!
  A: Don't worry there is still time to make up for it! America's very forgiving an there's always another second chance to cheer up your country after you've gotten it down. Here's a few examples:
  
  
  Calling America an illegal occupier --> three God Bless Americas, two public denunciations of Ted Kennedy as an Islamist sympathizer
  
  Voting against tort reform --> four America the Beautifuls, three strident blog posts on Why We Must Win
  
  Selling nuclear technology to North Korea --> four National Anthems, one delicious chocolate ice cream cake especially for the President
  
  Leaking a CIA agent's identity to Robert Novak --> one fifteen minute segment plugging White House policy on the Sunday morning talk show of your choice
  
  Leaking a CIA agent's identity to Robert Novak to get back at her treasonous husband --> Totally not treason! Buy yourself a taco.

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_...70213550100400

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I don't equate a consumption tax with a flat tax. A flat tax can easily be made more progressive by exempting a certain level of income. In fact, in the 1970's Milton Friedman proposed, and Richard Nixon ordered a study on a flat tax that acutally went negative (people earning below a subsistence level received a tranfer payment) as an alternative to the existing tax and welfare systems. I think one of the lesser-known tragedies of the Nixon Presidency was that this idea was not more aggressively studied and pursued.

However, I am afraid I fail to see how you can institute a consumption tax that would be progressive and still be workable. Sure, you can exempt spending on certain items, but you have to draw a line somewhere. You could also impose different rates, e.g., a 5% rate on clothing but a 20% rate on imported cars costing greater than $45,000. However, these types of systems rapidly become unworkable if you get too many exemptions or different rates. And they all fail to tax accretions to wealth that go unspent.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I'm afraid I don't buy the connection between an income tax and an incentive to spend. What's more, except with respect to a very small portion of the middle class, I don't believe that a consumption tax is an incentive to save.

I make a lot of money (well, at least I did before I went into solo practice), and I save(d) as much as I could. But I still bought a new washer and dryer when the old one went on the fritz, and I still put gas in the car, and occasionally took the kids to the movies or Great America. Quite frankly, I couldn't save more no matter what the tax base is.

And as for Bill Gates, he's going to buy the art, take the European vacation, go to the opera, and he will still save millions. Changing to a consumption tax won't affect his spending patterns any more than it will mine.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

If you are actually advocating eliminating the corporate income tax and shifting to a consumption tax, then you can definitely forget. The rates would be so high that Britney Spears would have to do her shopping at Wal-Mart out of necessity rather than choice.

Friends 4ever
 

As long as we're still friends, Hank.

BORING ALERT: NET WORTH TEAM MEMBERS SHOULD SCROLL
 

There was a time when consumption taxes made up a large part of government revenue. That time effectively ended with the Deal and, more importantly, World War II.

Burger, is your proposal that we return to a government that looks and operates as it did in the 30s? Many conservatives have long argued for drying up revenue and letting expenses follow. It strikes me that your proposal, with revenues coming in on the back end but heavily deferred by exempting savings on the front end, is a set up for such a shift in spending.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Perhaps. But I thought she was suggesting a tax system of x% times (income minus savings).


I draw this conclusino from her statement that "I am really suggestingt a tax system of x% times (income minus savings)."

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Presumably you so much more money in that time that you can pay the additional income taxes and still have more than enough money to pay your accountant.

Yawwwnnnn
 

If you're going to write one of those states-rights beefs about unfunded federal mandates, have the decency also to acknowledge the states-rights beef about the federal government supplanting (hi bilmore!) state class-actions.

For Club
 

why for me?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Ah. So your hope is to choke off consumer spending (2/3 of the US economy) and expand investment capital and, if that capital goes overseas, we'll just export to them and make up the jobs that we lost through reduced consumer spending that way?

Great idea. Well worth the insane complexities you propose.

Everyone knows the US savings rate is too low. But any remedy to that needs to be -- and only needs to be -- incremental. A savings rate can also be too high, especially in a well developed economy that has sophisticated capital markets. I.e., Japan, 1990s to present. Proposing drastic, disruptive change is always risky -- and you are doing it to obtain a reward that not necessarily a good thing.

Reading your posts, one would think there is a capital shortage in the American economy. That the reason companies are not building infrastructure and developing capacity is because people are not investing enough money, and because they don't have access to inexpensive financing. None of that is true, nor is there a shortage of productive capacity.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I almost said "(yes, after taxes)" in that post but figured it was obvious.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

You do "subtle" here at your own peril.