<p>
</p>
<p>I think liberals criticize the Fair Tax because it ends up being regressive. Poor and middle-class people spend a larger percentage of their income, so they end up spending a larger percentage of their money in taxes.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the most fair tax is the estate tax.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re talking about political radicals. Seems to me like you want to naively believe that the left has none, or that they don’t matter. I’m not sure how you can honestly advocate this belief. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Someone made a post calling out right-wingers for being crazy. I pointed out that the left has its own radicals as well. That’s all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rich man was already taxed for what he accumulated…there is no reason that the government needs to take half of the remainder that he wants to give to his children as well. Poor people don’t really factor into this tax at all unless you want to advocate radical redistribution of wealth which I think is a fringe view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe that the Fair Tax calls for a rebate for people making under a certain amount to compensate for the unequal effect that the tax has on poorer people who are forced to spend more of their money.</p>
<h2>His children do not earn his inheritance by virtue of being born to a rich man. ~ Silent_Kit</h2>
<p>Nor has the government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe that. I’ve acknowledged the opposite several times in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the fact that children don’t earn their inheritances makes this tax plenty fair. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, so the repeal of the estate tax is a policy which benefits only the wealthy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’d agree that we need a government to, at the bare minimum, run a justice system. I think that the estate tax is a pretty fair way to fund the government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It isn’t the government’s business to tell people who they can and can’t give their legal possessions too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. To make it fair, we should have been taking half of poor people’s property once they died too. That way the repeal would have benefited everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that the estate tax should be the government’s business. That’s why I’m against its repeal!</p>
<p>edit: i previously said that i was against its appeal. lol. </p>
<p>Also, he government declares certain possessions legal and others illegal. It is in the business of telling people what they can do with their possessions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is fine, but I don’t think the poor leave behind much wealth for their children. Debt, maybe. It’s a good thing that we don’t make children pay off their dead parents’ debts anymore (at least I think we don’t do this).</p>
<h2>Also, he government declares certain possessions legal and others illegal. It is in the business of telling people what they can do with their possessions. ~ Silent_Kit</h2>
<p>So if the government just wanted to take your home, you’d be cool with that?</p>
<p>You seem to think that if the government says they can do it, than it is OK.</p>
<p>At what point do you personally draw the line?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should it be the government’s business? The government already collected tax revenue on everything covered by the estate tax. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, if you bought dinner for a date, you would be OK with a government man taking half of your date’s meal for himself? Or, if you buy your kid a car, you’d be fine if the government took off the tires, rims, stereo, and GPS system? That’s essentially what the estate tax does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s what the estate tax does. I think the estate tax is a 50% tax on the wealth past one million dollars (or something) that I leave to my children. If I ever made enough money to qualify, I’d be okay with that. : )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a more fair tax to my mind than an income or sales tax. We should provide funds for the government this way. It has a nice side effect of promoting a more meritocratic system, where wealth is earned and not given to you by your parents. It doesn’t create a meritocracy, but is a small step towards one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that the government should have total control of everything. Nowhere did I claim that. I just informed Cuse0507 that the government was already in that business of telling what people can do with possessions. In fact, there probably are a lot of instances where you and he like these rules, and benefit from them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. Where this line is to be drawn is the source of a lot of political debates—‘what freedoms should American citizens have and which ones should they not have?’ But I know that it is somewhere in between the estate tax and the government taking away my house just because.</p>
<p>Um, Cuse0507, you’re in favor of massively cutting taxes (a-la “FairTax”) but opposed to cutting the military budget, and support hugely expensive foreign wars.</p>
<p>So I can safely assume you have no interest at all in reducing the deficit or anything remotely related to fiscal conservatism, right?</p>
<p>I don’t want to hear word one about “financial responsibility” when you’re proposing to dramatically decrease federal revenue in a time of war.</p>
<p>The last president to balance the budget was Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>I’m wrong about the estate tax. [Estate</a> tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States]Estate”>Estate tax in the United States - Wikipedia) The tax is progressive and bracketed. The top bracket (> $500k) pays 35%. on the estate. The new tax bill enacted this change</p>
<p>We should just be Libertarians and be happy</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about the FairTax to be for or against it. I just mentioned it as a Conservative proposal that was as friendly to the poor (with the tax rebate) as it is to the rich.</p>
<p>Anyways, I’m in favor of cutting taxes and cutting spending (welfare, entitlement programs, etc).</p>
<p>You realize that 58% of all federal discretionary spending is spent on the military, right?</p>
<p>Heck, you could shut down the entire National Park Service, saving $2.7 billion… and reduce the deficit by a whopping one tenth of one percent.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, military spending (including veterans’ medical care, etc.) is well over $850 billion.</p>
<p>You can’t cut federal spending in any significant way if you don’t cut the defense budget. Because you’re not willing to even entertain that possibility, your entire position is nonsensical and unworthy of debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think everyone is, in general.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Our military spending as part of our GDP is nothing to write home about. Our total looks so high because our GDP is so high, but defense spending is absolutely necessary for our security. I’d be in favor of limited cuts to defense spending, maybe a bit less than Secretary Gates is recommending, but accompany that with massive cuts in entitlement and welfare programs.</p>
<p>So…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You’d cut Medicare, leaving tens of millions of elderly Americans without access to health care.</p></li>
<li><p>You’d cut Social Security, leaving tens of millions of elderly Americans starving and impoverished.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Here, the conservative wet dream for America is clearly exposed: spend uncountable billions to kill foreigners, not one cent to keep Americans alive.</p>
<p>Pro-life, indeed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Having a navy that’s more powerful than the world’s next 13 largest navies combined is “absolutely necessary for our security?”</p>
<p>Color me unconvinced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, a mind reader. Who knew.</p>
<p>I would raise the Social Security age by five years and cut welfare. Everyone that remained on welfare would have to pass a monthly drug test to get their check. And I love how you think our military doesn’t keep American’s alive; that’s delusion at its finest.</p>