Flat tax support, arguments for or against it?

[NineSpine]

One has nothing to do with the other. You cannot just say "oh the Civil War", you have to logically connect dots. Give it a shot.

You don't understand how the Civil War was a constitutional crisis hinging on states believing their rights were being infringed by the federal government? Really? You need that explained to you? You need me to explain to you how states seceding over fears of the federal government usurping their "right" to own slaves is related to the state/federal divide?

- - - Updated - - -

Inflation spike for WW1, Deflation spike after WW1, and deflation spike after FDRs new deal. Further inflation spike around WW2 and Korea. Inflation spike around Vietnam and Carter. So, don't go to war I guess is your point. Your chart shows basically no inflation around the crash of 1929. How is this proving your point?

Be honest, have you ever taken an American history class, or read a book on it? FDR wasn't even in office until 1933, when that deflation spike was already towards the bottom.

[BannedForViews]

You don't think a civil war is the sign that the nation, as it is, is collapsing? Because it's basically the definition of a civil war.

Explain how the Civil War refutes the ideas that I have put forth, or GTFO.

[Endus]

Do I really have to explain to you how the 10th Amendment to you?

Not really, since it doesn't support your case. Particularly since the Constitution delegates pretty broad and sweeping powers to the federal government, through such clauses as the general welfare clause.

Inflation spike for WW1, Deflation spike after WW1, and deflation spike after FDRs new deal. Further inflation spike around WW2 and Korea. Inflation spike around Vietnam and Carter. So, don't go to war I guess is your point. Your chart shows basically no inflation around the crash of 1929. How is this proving your point?

Waffling between high rates of inflation and high rates of deflation create an unstable and unreliable economy, prone to crashes, as culminated in the Great Depression (which was the biggest, but certainly not the only depression in that era).

We haven't seen that kind of waffling since 1950, because of modern economic policies which prevent it, to foster economic stability.

Why am I explaining basic principles?

I commented to the other guy about poverty. It isn't a real term, it is a moving target, and I said starving to death. You said they LITERALLY starved to death. Your chart does not prove your claim.

Poverty doesn't become a myth because you get angry about being wrong about stuff. It's very real, no matter how angry you might be about that.

[Orbitus]

Ok lets take the ever popular second amendment. How is that a bad thing. You can own a firearm but you dont have to, I dont see a downside.

Most 2nd amendment advocates like the NRA, are advocating for unrestricted access to guns. Hell they don't even want people on the terrorist watch list to have their guns taken away or the ones that have been convicted of domestic violence.

[BannedForViews]

You don't understand how the Civil War was a constitutional crisis hinging on states believing their rights were being infringed by the federal government? Really? You need that explained to you? You need me to explain to you how states seceding over fears of the federal government usurping their "right" to own slaves is related to the state/federal divide?

No I see that quite clearly. What you haven't proven is how it refutes my position.

"That's a very smart form of government... in the late 18th century. It fell apart and had to be cobbled back together for a reason. The U.S. government was intended to evolve with the times, not chain itself to archaic systems." This is your claim. You haven't argued why it was smart then but is no longer smart, or why it is archaic in nature.

[NineSpine]

Explain how the Civil War refutes the ideas that I have put forth, or GTFO.

The Civil War was caused by states wanting to continue with slavery, an institution which was becoming very problematic for the federal government. Not only was it causing the country to divide very strongly economically, with the South's industrial growth totally stunted by its reliance on slaves, but the federal government was seeing increasing problems arising between northern abolitionists and the southern states. It was untenable to have a country that was half slave states and half non-slave states. Northern states were being forced to recognize the authority of the south to have slaves, which caused all kinds of legal problems with escaped slaves coming to the North, or southerners capturing northern blacks that were in the south for some reason, and putting them into slavery.

This was a problem caused by allowing the country to drift too far apart in how different states were managed.

- - - Updated - - -

No I see that quite clearly. What you haven't proven is how it refutes my position.

"That's a very smart form of government... in the late 18th century. It fell apart and had to be cobbled back together for a reason. The U.S. government was intended to evolve with the times, not chain itself to archaic systems." This is your claim. You haven't argued why it was smart then but is no longer smart, or why it is archaic in nature.

It was smart when the country was founded because the nation was smaller, the economies between the states were not radically different, and communication limitations made it very difficult for the federal government to competently manage things. All of that changed over time.

[BannedForViews]

Not really, since it doesn't support your case. Particularly since the Constitution delegates pretty broad and sweeping powers to the federal government, through such clauses as the general welfare clause.

No it doesn't. Read anything written by Jefferson for proof you are incorrect. You know, the man who wrote the document in question.

Waffling between high rates of inflation and high rates of deflation create an unstable and unreliable economy, prone to crashes, as culminated in the Great Depression (which was the biggest, but certainly not the only depression in that era).

We haven't seen that kind of waffling since 1950, because of modern economic policies which prevent it, to foster economic stability.

Why am I explaining basic principles?

If you can't explain what those policies were, then how can you claim to know they are responsible for anything?

Poverty doesn't become a myth because you get angry about being wrong about stuff. It's very real, no matter how angry you might be about that.

I am not angry about anything. I never said poverty was a myth. You love to put words in my mouth. I said it is a moving target. It is perception. Poverty in India is significantly different than poverty in the US. No one in India would consider anyone in the US to be in poverty. You are deflecting because YOU can't prove your point. You said:

Not from literally starving to death, which was what would've happened prior to the existence of social security.

You have not proven this to be true.

[NineSpine]

No it doesn't. Read anything written by Jefferson for proof you are incorrect. You know, the man who wrote the document in question.

1. James Madison wrote the Constitution.
2. Thomas Jefferson wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention.
3. Thomas Jefferson's name isn't even on the Constitution.
4. You are starting to really embarrass yourself.
5. Thomas Jeffersion did write "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

[Chrysia]

No it doesn't. Read anything written by Jefferson for proof you are incorrect. You know, the man who wrote the document in question.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution was largely a product of Hamilton and Madison, more than Jefferson, though more or less all of the Founding Fathers contributed to some degree.

[NineSpine]

'
I am not angry about anything. I never said poverty was a myth. You love to put words in my mouth. I said it is a moving target. It is perception. Poverty in India is significantly different than poverty in the US. No one in India would consider anyone in the US to be in poverty. You are deflecting because YOU can't prove your point.

India has a very substantial upper class, who would certainly consider a poor American living in the Appalachians to be in poverty. I don't think you know anything about India.

The fact that poverty is nota term with a dictionary definition that has a dollar amount figure in it doesn't really matter. If you have a problem with the poverty metrics being used, by all means, attack those poverty metrics, but you can't just handwave them away and pretend you don't have any responsibility to explain thoroughly what is wrong with them.

[Endus]

No it doesn't. Read anything written by Jefferson for proof you are incorrect. You know, the man who wrote the document in question.

I'm a bit of a fan of Jefferson, and even as a Canadian, I know full well he didn't write the Constitution. Regardless, it wouldn't even matter, since SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you on how those phrases are meant to be interpreted, and they're the ones who are definitively correct.

I am not angry about anything. I never said poverty was a myth. You love to put words in my mouth. I said it is a moving target. It is perception. Poverty in India is significantly different than poverty in the US. No one in India would consider anyone in the US to be in poverty. You are deflecting because YOU can't prove your point. You said:

You have not proven this to be true.

Are you seriously arguing that nobody died from malnutrition in the entire early history of the United States?

[BannedForViews]

It was smart when the country was founded because the nation was smaller, the economies between the states were not radically different, and communication limitations made it very difficult for the federal government to competently manage things. All of that changed over time.

The differences in state economies has no impact. Currently states are radically different. The Federally government also cannot competently manage things, nor does it, nor does it even have the legal authority to. If they did there would have been Amendments to support their legal authority. You are giving me opinions. In fact I can easily disprove your claim. The Scandinavian countries that people love to put up as paragons of socialism are significantly smaller in usable area and population than many states in the US. They also have very narrow economies. These countries, per the arguments of liberals, are vastly better at providing welfare than the US is, and it is precisely because of their size. You would think liberals would love my ideas because then they could have the havens they always wanted!

The real reason they don't support this is because they know the only way to get the socialism they want is by forcing those who don't want to accept it to do so. To give them no alternative. your argument is not about smaller governments being able to provide adequate governance. Your argument is that it will be harder to ensure that everyone is forced to have the form of governance you want them to have.

[Endus]

The differences in state economies has no impact. Currently states are radically different. The Federally government also cannot competently manage things, nor does it, nor does it even have the legal authority to. If they did there would have been Amendments to support their legal authority. You are giving me opinions. In fact I can easily disprove your claim. The Scandinavian countries that people love to put up as paragons of socialism are significantly smaller in usable area and population than many states in the US. They also have very narrow economies. These countries, per the arguments of liberals, are vastly better at providing welfare than the US is, and it is precisely because of their size. You would think liberals would love my ideas because then they could have the havens they always wanted!

You do realize that a larger population and economic base are advantages in this, not disadvantages, right? They're reasons the USA would have an easier time than those Scandinavian countries, not a harder one.

Economies of scale, and all that.

[BannedForViews]

I'm a bit of a fan of Jefferson, and even as a Canadian, I know full well he didn't write the Constitution. Regardless, it wouldn't even matter, since SCOTUS clearly disagrees with you on how those phrases are meant to be interpreted, and they're the ones who are definitively correct.

You are correct, I wrote falsely. He wrote the Declaration, Madison wrote the Constitution, and Madison Corresponded with Jefferson extensively whilst doing so. The actual point of my statement was about reading such correspondence. I guess you nullify my claim though with your quick whit.

I would avoid using SCOTUS as a barometer though. Their opinion has varied widely based on whom is in the roll. Do you really think that because they say it it is gospel? Also do you really think that their interpretation carries more weight than the actual intent of the author(s)?

Are you seriously arguing that nobody died from malnutrition in the entire early history of the United States?

No I am not. you are claiming that SS was some magical program that stopped people from living in abject poverty and from 'literally starving". I am pointing out this is an absurd claim you should have never made.

[Chrysia]

The differences in state economies has no impact. Currently states are radically different. The Federally government also cannot competently manage things, nor does it, nor does it even have the legal authority to. If they did there would have been Amendments to support their legal authority. You are giving me opinions. In fact I can easily disprove your claim. The Scandinavian countries that people love to put up as paragons of socialism are significantly smaller in usable area and population than many states in the US. They also have very narrow economies. These countries, per the arguments of liberals, are vastly better at providing welfare than the US is, and it is precisely because of their size. You would think liberals would love my ideas because then they could have the havens they always wanted!

The real reason they don't support this is because they know the only way to get the socialism they want is by forcing those who don't want to accept it to do so. To give them no alternative. your argument is not about smaller governments being able to provide adequate governance. Your argument is that it will be harder to ensure that everyone is forced to have the form of governance you want them to have.

You contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. First you state that the difference in state economies has no impact on the degree to which federal power is necessary to manage the state, then go on to say that the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies. Either homogeneous economies are inherently more stable, requiring less maintenance and thus a smaller government, or they aren't.

[BannedForViews]

You do realize that a larger population and economic base are advantages in this, not disadvantages, right? They're reasons the USA would have an easier time than those Scandinavian countries, not a harder one.

Economies of scale, and all that.

No, they are not. You really think monitoring and administering money transfers and health care are easier to do with 350 million people than with 7 million? I don't think you actually know what economies of scale are...

[NineSpine]

The differences in state economies has no impact. Currently states are radically different.

States are not radically different the way they were then. The North advanced to industrial capitalism, and was edging towards as wage-labor economy. The South was still running a pseudo-feudal society with slavery. The idea that a difference that large is tenable is nonsense. Constitutionally, states have to recognize each other's laws. What happens when a free New York citizen goes to South Carolina, and is captured and forced into slavery? Whose laws get recognized? There's no way to square that circle. It's no different than if one state decided child marriage was legal. Do you force other states to recognize child brides now, since they are Constitutionally required to recognize another state's laws?

Furthermore, with an economy that separated, the federal government can't properly manage the national economy the way it needs to. Trade deals become difficult to pull off because it can't guarantee states will abide by them. Any notion of central banking goes totally down the toilet. Commerce between states becomes impossible to properly regulate, because it is more like managing trade between two countries with totally different economies, but no clear enforcement mechanisms to make them work together.

This isn't a matter of actual debate amongst professionals. This is long-settled in the field of economic history. It isn't something that anyone ever disputes who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about.

The Federally government also cannot competently manage things, nor does it, nor does it even have the legal authority to. If they did there would have been Amendments to support their legal authority.

It's called the commerce clause.

You are giving me opinions. In fact I can easily disprove your claim. The Scandinavian countries that people love to put up as paragons of socialism are significantly smaller in usable area and population than many states in the US. They also have very narrow economies. These countries, per the arguments of liberals, are vastly better at providing welfare than the US is, and it is precisely because of their size. You would think liberals would love my ideas because then they could have the havens they always wanted!

Most federal welfare programs are administered by the state for that very reason. The federal government just controls the pursestrings and has standards for how the programs are administered.

The real reason they don't support this is because they know the only way to get the socialism they want is by forcing those who don't want to accept it to do so. To give them no alternative. your argument is not about smaller governments being able to provide adequate governance. Your argument is that it will be harder to ensure that everyone is forced to have the form of governance you want them to have.

There is no such thing as "smaller" and "larger" governments. The entire economy is a fiction created by government. They can make it work one way, or make it work another way, but it is always 100% a creation of government.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they are not. You really think monitoring and administering money transfers and health care are easier to do with 350 million people than with 7 million? I don't think you actually know what economies of scale are...

That's exactly what economies of scale is: It's cheaper, per person, to do something for a larger number of people than a smaller number of people.

[NineSpine]

You contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. First you state that the difference in state economies has no impact on the degree to which federal power is necessary to manage the state, then go on to say that the economic prosperity of the Scandinavian countries is at least partially based on the homogeneous nature of their economies. Either homogeneous economies are inherently more stable, requiring less maintenance and thus a smaller government, or they aren't.

Burrrrrrrrnnnnnn

[bergmann620]

The only way to implement a 'Flat Tax' that would be even remotely 'fair' would be if we had a social support structure that essentially eliminates poverty before 'income' is considered.

So, say... A flat income tax of 50%, but on the condition that every man, woman, and child in the nation receive ~ $22,000 a year in the form of an 'earned income tax credit'.

Of course, if you wanted to get to something actually interesting to talk about, we could talk about the 'Fair Tax'. It's not nearly as regressive as a true 'flat tax, it would eliminate personal tax filings, it would drive good economic behaviors (like saving money, and buying used), and it would be fantastic for the environment. It would also help us to begin transitioning away from a purely consumption-driven economy.

[NineSpine]

You are correct, I wrote falsely. He wrote the Declaration, Madison wrote the Constitution, and Madison Corresponded with Jefferson extensively whilst doing so. The actual point of my statement was about reading such correspondence. I guess you nullify my claim though with your quick whit.

I would avoid using SCOTUS as a barometer though. Their opinion has varied widely based on whom is in the roll. Do you really think that because they say it it is gospel? Also do you really think that their interpretation carries more weight than the actual intent of the author(s)?

That's how the Constitution works, yeah. What's valid is a SCOTUS ruling, not your opinion of intent.