Ben Carson’s Marxist Tax Plan

[drbrumley]

He is such a coward.

ACW's idea is a flat tax that isn't flat.

My idea is a no taxes, but you already knew that. But since that will not happen, I will advocate for more loopholes , deductions and whatever to lessen the tax burden on people. Including you ACW.

 

[exminister]

don't see any solutions from the Libertarian who started the thread. How about you, are you complacent with our country's current corrupt tax collecting bureaucracy?

I have been trying to get to tedcruz site but it's very slow.

I am here trying to objectively look at these plans.

Not sure how independent tax foundation is but here's their conclusion on the plans. Plans are one thing. Getting them thru Congress is another.

Conclusion
Dr. Ben Carson’s tax plan would replace our current income tax system with a modified Hall-Rabushka Flat Tax, a type of consumption tax. Moving to a pure consumption tax would significantly reduce the cost of capital. These changes in the incentives to work and invest would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run. On a static basis, the plan would raise taxes on a number of taxpayers, compared to current law, due to the elimination of most credits and deductions. On a dynamic basis, taxpayers in all income groups would see at least a small increase in after-tax incomes. The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $5.6 trillion on a static basis and over $2.5 trillion on a dynamic basis.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-dr-ben-carson-s-tax-plan

Conclusion
Senator Cruz’s tax plan would significantly alter the federal tax code. It would completely repeal the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes and enact a 10 percent income tax and a 16 percent “business transfer tax” or value-added tax. These changes to the tax code would increase the incentives to work and invest and would greatly increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, leading to higher incomes for taxpayers at all income levels. The plan would also be a large tax cut, which would increase the federal government’s deficit by over $3.6 trillion on a static basis. Accounting for the growth caused by the plan, federal revenues would decline by $768 billion over the next decade.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He is such a coward.

ACW's idea is a flat tax that isn't flat.

My idea is a no taxes, but you already knew that. But since that will not happen, I will advocate for more loopholes , deductions and whatever to lessen the tax burden on people. Including you ACW.

I didn't think up the Ted Cruz tax plan. Thanks for thinking that I did.

"No taxes". Has there ever been a country on the face of the earth that didn't tax?

You're confused (as usual) drbrumley. You're for taxation, you just want the private sector to do all of it.

Private police and fire depts. (if want the police to respond to the rapist breaking into your house, you must first show that you can pay the private tax for such services. The same goes for your house burning down and fire dept. response).

Private highways, etc. etc. etc.

I've studied you Libertarians, I know how you think.

Prove me wrong.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I have been trying to get to tedcruz site but it's very slow.

He's got quite the following. People are dying to hear the truth after 8 years of nothing but lies.

I am here trying to objectively look at these plans.

Ted Cruz objectively presents his plan. He has nothing to hide.

Not sure how independent tax foundation is but here's their conclusion on the plans. Plans are one thing. Getting them thru Congress is another.

That's why it's so important to elect a conservative congress that will work with a President Ted Cruz to get the major changes that this country so desperately needs.

 

[drbrumley]

I didn't think up the Ted Cruz tax plan. Thanks for thinking that I did.

No kidding Sherlock! I know you didn't think of it, that's too smart for the likes of you. You did say you like Cruz's plan and support it, so by that measure, you in fact SUPPORT a fair tax that isn't fair.

"No taxes". Has there ever been a country on the face of the earth that didn't tax?

Why yes, read your bible.

You're confused (as usual) drbrumley. You're for taxation, you just want the private sector to do all of it.

:rotfl: Spoken like someone who can't even define taxation.

Private police and fire depts. (if want the police to respond to the rapist breaking into your house, you must first show that you can pay the private tax for such services. The same goes for your house burning down and fire dept. response).

:rotfl: Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what volunteerism is.

Private highways, etc. etc. etc.

Blah, blah, blah.

I've studied you Libertarians, I know how you think.

Prove me wrong.

:rotfl: Already been done hundreds of times.

You know NOTHING!!!!!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No kidding Sherlock! I know you didn't think of it, that's too smart for the likes of you. You did say you like Cruz's plan and support it, so by that measure, you in fact SUPPORT a fair tax that isn't fair.



Why yes, read your bible.



:rotfl: Spoken like someone who can't even define taxation.



:rotfl: Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what volunteerism is.



Blah, blah, blah.



:rotfl: Already been done hundreds of times.

You know NOTHING!!!!!

And this concludes tonight's presentation of "A very frustrated and confused Libertarian".

 

[drbrumley]

And this concludes tonight's presentation of "A very frustrated and confused Libertarian".

Run along now ACW. Since that is what your good at.

Have a nice evening.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Run along now ACW. Since that is what your good at.

Have a nice evening.

Being that you never proposed a tax plan better than what Ted Cruz showed, I could stick around and watch a Ron Paul video on the finer points of rolling a joint, or I could call it night.

You have a nice evening as well.

aCW..."the Marxist".

 

[drbrumley]

Being that you never proposed a tax plan better than what Ted Cruz showed, I could stick around and watch a Ron Paul video on the finer points of rolling a joint, or I could call it night.

You have a nice evening as well.

aCW..."the Marxist".

I did, you just refuse to deal with it.

 

[fool]

Ben Carson’s Marxist Tax Plan Laurence M. Vance Soak “the rich” while talking about fairness. His tax plan is a flat tax that is, as always, not really flat. Ben says: “My proposal stands alone among all candidates’ plans as a true 14.9 percent flat tax – with no deductions, no tax shelters and no loopholes.” But Ben then says: To protect those rising from poverty, the flat tax applies only to income above 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). For example, a family of four will not pay the 14.9 percent tax on their first $36,375 of income. To treat everyone in America as citizen-owners, those whose income is at or below 150 percent of the FPL will be responsible for a de minimis tax payment annually. In other words, a heavy progressive income tax that Karl Marx would be proud of.

Yep, good ole Ben....fitting right in with the knuckleheads who run Washington. A flat tax that isn't flat and a fair tax that isn't fair. :devil:

So...... It's a flat tax with a standard deduction like we have now?
How is that not a flat tax?

 

[ok doser]

them poor folk will still have to pay taxes on things they purchase, right?

things like food, shelter, clothing?

 

[rocketman]

:rotfl: Spoken like someone who doesn't understand what volunteerism is.

Please...Who is doing all this "volunteerism"? you? me? having police, fire, etc as a volunteer force outside of anyplace but and extremely small town is absurd. Do you also think that NYC, Los Angeles, or Chicago could pull off all volunteer police & fire, road upkeep, traffic signals, et al.? do you really see this as plausible? Nothing is free Doc, and I certainly don't have the time, training, or willingness to volunteer for any of this work outside of what I already have on my plate with a career, family, & home. My taxes are paying for services rendered on these fronts but, I do think that the bureaucracies that govern these agencies & my tax bill for them could shrink dramatically without compromise.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Please...Who is doing all this "volunteerism"? you? me? having police, fire, etc as a volunteer force outside of anyplace but and extremely small town is absurd...

I had mentioned in an earlier post that many Libertarians would like to see police and fire services privatized.

Atheist/Libertarian Walter Block talks about it briefly in this article entitled:

Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter
Schwartz

7. Government (page 46).

"Whatever became of laissez faire capitalism when it applies to
competition for providing safety and protection services?"
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf

If you continue reading this nutcase's article, you'll see him defending NAMBLA/pedophilia (Kid Lib, page 56)

Back to privatization of police services: What rich crook wouldn't want to own his own police dept.?

 

[drbrumley]

I had mentioned in an earlier post that many Libertarians would like to see police and fire services privatized.

Atheist/Libertarian Walter Block talks about it briefly in this article entitled:

Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter
Schwartz

7. Government (page 46).

"Whatever became of laissez faire capitalism when it applies to
competition for providing safety and protection services?"
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf

Well since you brought it up,

7. Government
Schwartz’s first criticism concerns government. He says that libertarians are not pro-liberty but anti-state. This is very strange because the state is intrinsically coercive (Spooner, 1966; Hoppe, 1989, 1993; Rothbard, 1973, 1982). It is necessarily and always in violation of the libertarian axioms. So, if you are not aiming at liberty, but instead at being anti-state, you are going to be pro-liberty anyway. Pro-liberty and anti-state are opposite sides of the same coin. Why? The state engages in taxation, and these levies by their very nature are coercive. It doesn’t matter if government provides services in return for these taxes. Suppose I come at you with a gun, and threaten to shoot you unless you give me half of all your money. You’re an argumentative sort, and you say, “But, wait a second, this is a felony! Don’t you realize what you’re doing? You’re committing a crime.” My reply, “Oh, sorry, I forgot. I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll give you some services. Here is a paper clip.” Big deal.

The point is not that the government gives us services. The question is, is it a voluntary trade? It is anything but, as shown by the fact that if you don’t pay your taxes, you go to the hoosegow.

To be fair to the objectivists, they do not favor taxes. They are a very strange kind of government advocate because the state and taxes go together like horse and carriage, love and marriage. How can you have a government without coercive taxes, a redundancy?

 

[drbrumley]

There are two necessary and together sufficient elements in government. One is that it collects taxes, which are coercive by their very nature. Two, the state insists that it and only it has the right to perform the services of government in a given geographical area. Namely it demands a monopoly within a certain territory. But, this too, is coercion. Suppose I am the duly constituted government and Mr. Smith wants to set up another one in competition with mine. He promises not to initiate aggression, only to catch criminals, etc. As a government I put Mr. Smith in jail on account of treason. I am therefore guilty of coercion against an innocent non aggressive Smith, merely for having had the temerity of wanting to compete with me. Even the Randian version of government would put Mr. Smith in jail for daring to compete. We can only conclude that government is intrinsically coercive and that the Randians, in criticizing the libertarian view of the state, are acting incompatibly with their own views of private property rights and non-aggression. Supposedly, they agreed with libertarians on these matters, but when push comes to shove, they jettison this common ground in behalf of statism. Whatever became of laissez faire capitalism when it applies to competition for providing safety and protection services?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

[From Libertarian/atheist Walter Block's article "Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter
Schwartz:

"...We can only conclude that government is intrinsically coercive..."

Yes, he who wields the sword of justice is "intrinsically coercive", and it can't be any other way. How that sword is wielded is another topic.

Romans 13:4

 

[drbrumley]

[From Libertarian/atheist Walter Block's article "Libertarianism vs Objectivism; A Response to Peter
Schwartz:



Yes, he who wields the sword of justice is "intrinsically coercive", and it can't be any other way. How that sword is wielded is another topic.

Romans 13:4

Glad you agree. Here's where our differences are. You are not consistent in your reasoning. You think it is "justice" to use the force of arms to steal from one to give to another. You "cherrypick" scripture for your own socialized agenda. You ought to be opposed, and you are rightfully so.

 

[kmoney]

Two, the state insists that it and only it has the right to perform the services of government in a given geographical area. Namely it demands a monopoly within a certain territory. But, this too, is coercion. Suppose I am the duly constituted government and Mr. Smith wants to set up another one in competition with mine. He promises not to initiate aggression, only to catch criminals, etc.

Catch criminals by what definition?

 

[kmoney]

My idea is a no taxes, but you already knew that. But since that will not happen, I will advocate for more loopholes , deductions and whatever to lessen the tax burden on people. Including you ACW.

Why use loopholes and deductions to lessen the tax burden? Would the lower percentage in Carson's and Cruz's plans not create a lesser burden than what we have now with a higher percentage but lots of loopholes and deductions?

 

[drbrumley]

Why use loopholes and deductions to lessen the tax burden? Would the lower percentage in Carson's and Cruz's plans not create a lesser burden than what we have now with a higher percentage but lots of loopholes and deductions?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. All three tax systems are not fair for sure. Despite the claims of fairness. There is only one fair tax. Can you name it? You pay it every week out of your paycheck.