Owsley County, Kentucky - Poorest county in the US

I can see why people have a problem with you. I also find it suspect that a university professor would so quickly turn to insults when someone indirectly didn't agree with him, never mind disagreeing. I would figure an entitled youth would report to the dean in no time, and it doesn't seem it would be an isolated incident. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

This clown is not a university professor, and never was. (At least not in the field of economics.) He's simply a fraud and an insecure internet bully. When he's afraid that he's looking foolish in a discussion, he lets his impetuousness and obnoxiousness write checks that his brain can't cash.

But you seem genuinely interested in discussing this issue and seem to be, as far as I know, interested in reasoned discussions of taxation and other topical issues. So if you're genuinely interested in a FairTax discussion, I'd be happy to try make a few observations later. But I might prefer to do so in another thread, since that's not the subject of this thread.

Speaking of which, for anyone who didn't take a couple of minutes to glance over it, the Kevin Williamson article is, as Ex-NYer noted, a very sad read -- but a good one nevertheless. If you didn't take a moment to click on the link and read it, here it is again:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...n-d-williamson

Some liberals might notice that the article was published in a conservative online magazine and reflexively decide not to read it for that reason alone. I've always thought that sort of habit -- while common -- is unfortunate, and that it's smart to read viewpoints offered by the better commentators from journals on both sides of the ideological divide.

I've read a few of Williamson's pieces, and think he writes some pretty good stuff.

Ah, Cap'n NotBright. The only one being embarrassed is you. Your ignorance and refusal to learn only expand your stupidity. Your over-the-top rants indicate childhood psychoses that need desperately to be addressed.

I don't want to burst your neurotic little bubble, but I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. I'm here to be entertained. You are entertaining. That's why I tell people to read the thread where you think you proved I'm a liar and a fraud. A fair review of that thread proves the opposite.

You're delusional, Cap'n NotBright. Funny for us, tragic for you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Not actually a refutation, just a long-winded insult.

Not actually a refutation, just a long-winded insult. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Well, insults are the only things in Ex-Professor COG's toolbox.

He doesn't do "refutations" very well, does he?

, and that it's smart to read viewpoints offered by the better commentators from journals on both sides of the ideological divide.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

COG was a professor? Wonder who corrupted more minds COG or JD.

wonder which one is telling the truth?

I can see why people have a problem with you. I also find it suspect that a university professor would so quickly turn to insults when someone indirectly didn't agree with him, never mind disagreeing. I would figure an entitled youth would report to the dean in no time, and it doesn't seem it would be an isolated incident.

To qualify my ignorance, I took one college level economics course and got a personal letter from the professor for getting an A. I guess the guy was a big deal and only gave so many A's. So I don't know shit, yet my mind is not cluttered with all the advanced mumbo-jumbo which is designed to do two things: sell MBAs and create 'advanced' systems that keep investors from asking too many questions.

So I had to look up the definition of a progressive tax, just to check. And I can see how, with fairtax, a wealthy man could achieve the opposite of a progressive tax by keeping new purchases down and thus paying less taxes. That is what I saw as potentially regressive. But if the proper definition of a regressive tax is where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases, then I can see where fairtax.org is not regressive despite the possibilities for the higher income folks.

My implication that IRS employees remain employed was not an endorsement of the current system but a reaction to fairtax.org's assertion that the IRS will no longer be needed. I don't think a change that puts 100,000 persons out of work with an unproven claim that there will be plenty of work elsewhere is wise. I don't believe the retailers who will start collecting the fairtax will do so honestly, cause they will suffer too as the wealthy find ways to not purchase new goods and thus avoid the tax. That's what the wealthy do, they find ways for others to incur the expense. As for the IRS, I'm sure there is waste and fluff but to put them all out of work would be an expense fairtax has to account for to get my support.

In contrast, I actually suggested new duties for those men, to get out in the field and enforce the proper use of welfare funds. I'm not sure I understand why the idea of following the funds to make sure they're spent right isn't seen as a potential solution. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

So, basically you are a Odinglebarry?... right?

So, basically you are a Odinglebarry?... right? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Jeez, I've never been called that, I had to look it up.
When I've been registered to vote, it was conservative, though I'd vote libertarian. Voting is a waste of time though.

I do not like nor much mind Obama. At least he smoked. But Biden is a scary shithead to have a heartbeat away from the presidency. I see no sense blaming Obama for so many issues, the root of which are usually well in the past. I could go on but you asked a short question. No, but it would vary by issue most likely.

I can see why people have a problem with you. I also find it suspect that a university professor would so quickly turn to insults when someone indirectly didn't agree with him, never mind disagreeing. I would figure an entitled youth would report to the dean in no time, and it doesn't seem it would be an isolated incident.

To qualify my ignorance, I took one college level economics course and got a personal letter from the professor for getting an A. I guess the guy was a big deal and only gave so many A's. So I don't know shit, yet my mind is not cluttered with all the advanced mumbo-jumbo which is designed to do two things: sell MBAs and create 'advanced' systems that keep investors from asking too many questions.

So I had to look up the definition of a progressive tax, just to check. And I can see how, with fairtax, a wealthy man could achieve the opposite of a progressive tax by keeping new purchases down and thus paying less taxes. That is what I saw as potentially regressive. But if the proper definition of a regressive tax is where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases, then I can see where fairtax.org is not regressive despite the possibilities for the higher income folks.

My implication that IRS employees remain employed was not an endorsement of the current system but a reaction to fairtax.org's assertion that the IRS will no longer be needed. I don't think a change that puts 100,000 persons out of work with an unproven claim that there will be plenty of work elsewhere is wise. I don't believe the retailers who will start collecting the fairtax will do so honestly, cause they will suffer too as the wealthy find ways to not purchase new goods and thus avoid the tax. That's what the wealthy do, they find ways for others to incur the expense. As for the IRS, I'm sure there is waste and fluff but to put them all out of work would be an expense fairtax has to account for to get my support.

In contrast, I actually suggested new duties for those men, to get out in the field and enforce the proper use of welfare funds. I'm not sure I understand why the idea of following the funds to make sure they're spent right isn't seen as a potential solution. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Jeez, I've never been called that, I had to look it up.
When I've been registered to vote, it was conservative, though I'd vote libertarian. Voting is a waste of time though.

I do not like nor much mind Obama. At least he smoked. But Biden is a scary shithead to have a heartbeat away from the presidency. I see no sense blaming Obama for so many issues, the root of which are usually well in the past. I could go on but you asked a short question. No, but it would vary by issue most likely. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

IDK but maybe i do... sometimes but not always.. good answer... 2016... yah!

"Fair" is one of those very ill defined terms. Nowhere more so than in tax reform.

What makes a tax "fair"? It always seems that anyone who screams for a "Fair tax" plan has already sat down and determined that it would save THEM money. They might hide it in great rhetoric, but fundamentally most favor any tax reform that pushes their tax burden onto someone else.

The tax code is a cruel joke. That is a given. But just like health care, change is not always in the positive direction. Anyone who wants to propose a tax plan should first have to air the fundamental philosophical principles underlying it. Let's discuss and examine the principles first--assessing the plan afterwards would then be fairly easy. But generally people don't care to do that because that's where the lies and cheating is usually concealed. Not just in tax code, but in most contentious issues. If I get to set the ground rules and assumptions I can let my opponent crunch the numbers but I'll win every time.

IDK but maybe i do... sometimes but not always.. good answer... 2016... yah! Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Along the lines of this thread, I say if people are on the public tit, they should be required to suck it properly.

I'm for socialized medicine, I don't see any value in insurance. Reform health care, abandon insurance.

I can see the merits of capitalism, but seeing how it has developed has me convinced it has to evolve.

Not sure where that puts me but the red vs. blue debate is tedious.

A fair tax in the Professor COG's mind isn't really a matter of his taxes, I'm sure he doesn't pay too much. A "fair" tax is simply one that validates his worldview and cons idiots into thinking he is smart.

Along the lines of this thread, I say if people are on the public tit, they should be required to suck it properly.

I'm for socialized medicine, I don't see any value in insurance. Reform health care, abandon insurance.
Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I do like the idea of requirements placed on those receiving public benefits other than retirement age social security..(disability benefits are another matter all together...yeah my kid has ADD get him a $700 a month please)...many are double dippers ...working or scamming off the books and getting sit on your ass benefits

as far as health insurance is concerned...its all terrible...but as bad as it is... government run would be worse.....there is no easy answer given that humans want to live

I do like the idea of requirements placed on those receiving public benefits other than retirement age social security..(disability benefits are another matter all together...yeah my kid has ADD get him a $700 a month please)...many are double dippers ...working or scamming off the books and getting sit on your ass benefits

as far as health insurance is concerned...its all terrible...but as bad as it is... government run would be worse.....there is no easy answer given that humans want to live Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Only a very small percentage meet that old stereotype of double dipping. Most need the money very badly, and even the ones who make a little off the books are getting rich but just getting by.

Only a very small percentage meet that old stereotype of double dipping. Most need the money very badly, and even the ones who make a little off the books are getting rich but just getting by. Originally Posted by BJerk

Fuck that half-assed mediocrity. At best. First let's identify the percent. We got to know to have any chance of suspecting your second point. Then it's still wrong. Or is it not rape if he doesn't cum?