volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
The element you're missing from your analogy is that the US takes in plenty to pay its debt obligations, so there would be no reason not to pay these regardless of whether it enters into even more borrowing.
In your analogy, your household income would be high enough to pay your obligations on the mortgage and credit card even if you decide not to take out a second mortgage.
The debt ceiling isn't racketeering.
It's merely the recognition that the legislative branch is the one authorized to commit to borrowing on behalf of the population it represents, and the debt ceiling is just the total amount that it's authorized in borrowing.
The FairTax is absolutely not a VAT, though.
The folks who proposed the idea are very critical of VAT schemes like the on in Canada for exactly the reasons you outline, and they emphasize that FairTax is substantially different from a tax like Canada's.
@_L1vY_ @csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The FairTax addresses that concern head on by actively mailing checks to the poor who would be otherwise hit by the regressive nature of sales taxes.
The plan would literally mail checks to poor people as a core part of its operation. That shouldn't be overlooked!
@csgordon@zirk.us
I think it's always noteworthy when someone equates not taking with giving away. It shows really fuzzy accounting, at best.
That someone might keep his own earnings isn't being given anything. They're his.
Yes, we can talk about whether to take away his earnings for good reasons like the funding of government, but it's not a giveaway to not do that.
@csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
The #FairTax plan specifically doesn't require any sort of itemized proof of spending or application for rebates.
In fact, they emphasize that the idea is to get people this money *before* they actually pay the tax, and they refer to the payment as a prebate to highlight that.
@joeinwynnewood @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
It comes across as rather naive to say that the IRS only goes after tax cheats, akin to saying the cops only arrest guilty people.
No, it's no secret that the IRS audits people from all walks of life, and heck, it's easier for them to go after folks who aren't so well off because their finances are easier to audit AND they have less resources with which to fight even erroneous claims against them.
As for redistribution, the FairTax proposal is built around regular payments covering the cost of taxation on necessities, which is the opposite, a redistribution of wealth away from the wealthy to the poor.
Too often I see people failing to mention that core pillar of the plan.
In developed economies with modern financial systems there really is practically no concept of stationary money.
Even money sitting in a bank account isn't actually just sitting there. The account is credited the balance, but the money is being used to fund loans, and such.
Sure, velocity may increase or decrease in response to the economic environment, but even that is a dynamic process that doesn't actually care all that much what a rich person thinks.
But sure, the Laffer Curve looks at tax avoidance, but it's applicable to all forms of taxation, not just sales.
@Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
@Npars01 @Clackable@tldr.nettime.org @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
In theory it may be true that income taxes can be far simpler and cheaper to administer, but in practice we see that as set up, governments tend to choose income tax policies that are far from that ideal.
There's no real point in talking about ideals of either type of tax here since I'm positive governments won't be hitting that mark either way.
@csgordon@zirk.us @Npars01 @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Under the FairTax proposal the wealthy would have to pay a lot more in taxes even as the poor would enjoy the explicit and actively progressive move of the check they would get to help pay for essentials!
The proposal was intentionally designed to help the poor. Whether it's good or not, we should not pretend it is something it's not, and ignore that.
No, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to authorize the minting of money without any requirements that it be associated with any loans.
So it's just outright just factually false that debt is required for the US to make money.
The federal government is free to make all the money at once out of thin air without any debt involved.
Trading goods and services for money is not robbery.
It's exactly the opposite.
Yeah except for the minor detail that Congress did not authorize the minting.
This is the problem with trying to subvert the democratic process.
It is up to Congress to authorize minting of money.
Really, all of these efforts to circumvent the democratic process are dangerous.
As usual NPR is so busy grinding its axes that it is getting the facts completely wrong.
No the Treasury brings in PLENTY of money to pay the US debt. It posts balance sheets daily for the public to read on its website so any of us can see that for ourselves. There is no risk of not being able to pay debts.
Yes, the president might have to make some choices as to where to spend money since Congress never passed legislation to fund all of the programs that congresspeople have been crowing about for the last year, but that's really why we should stop electing such jerks who make big promises that they can't keep.
But it needs to be very clear that the US is not legally at risk of defaulting. The administration threatening that is extremely irresponsible.
volkris
boosted
The new issue of Reason is available online now for subscribers: https://reason.com/issue/march-2023/
You really wouldn't accept $100 bill unless you thought there was debt attached to it?
No, people accept currency based on whether they believe other people will value it for future trade. When the government mints money there absolutely is no debt attached to it, and yet we still trade dollars.
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Everything I've heard from FairTax proponents is that they do not propose any cuts to programs nationally. They aren't getting into the issue of spending restraint. They want to raise the same amount of money, just to do it a more effective, efficient, and fair way.
Today we have a ton of elements of the income tax that try to tax wealthy people more and poor people less. Poor people get everything from the standard deduction through earned income tax credit. So the FairTax plan wants to echo that sort of progressive policy, but just do it in a more effective way.
So the rich guy buying a Ferrari will pay more so that the poor person doesn't have to pay taxes on their food for the week.
@Npars01 @stopgopfox@libretooth.gr You know what else drops consumer spending and increases costs? Not having money in the first place, compliance with income taxes.
Taxes in any form have the effect you're talking about. There's no way around that. So long as government is needing to be funded it will take a bite out of private sector activity.
The FairTax has advantages over income taxes, and that's what it should be compared against. Not no taxes at all, because that's not an optional on the table.
The problem with the administration's spin is that the Treasury has plenty of income to cover its debt obligations, which is is legally required to prioritize.
Default is not legally on the table, period. Such a choice would be flat out unconstitutional.
For the administration to be even suggesting that it would not service debts as they come due represents a real violation of faithful execution of the law, and they need to be called out on it.
Treasury has plenty of money to avoid default, so it must not choose to go that route.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
