TexasCHLforum.com

tacticool wrote:The advantages to a national sales tax replacing the individual income tax are less opportunity to cheat, reduced paperwork for individuals, no exemptions for illegal aliens and others working off the books, less opportunity to cheat, and everyone pays their fair share no matter how many kids, wives, homes, or other loopholes they claim.

I've been touting this for years.

Our current system is a tax on productivity, not wealth. If a billionaire just sits on their money without investment, they can pay zero taxes for as long as they want. They only owe something if they choose to be productive with their money. The current system discourages productivity.

A sales tax would (slightly) discourage consumption. Economists might be scared of that in the short term, but it'd be a nice change. First, those who consume the most pay the most. You can ride out your fortune and hide. Second, you could still make such a tax progressive if you want by declaring luxury rates for certain classifications of good and keeping basic staples tax free. Third, Americans (at the individual and family level) would benefit in the long term if our system discouraged (if it actually did) consumption and encouraged savings.

We need to remove all impediments to productivity.

I thought about using a reductio ad absurdum argument on the healthcare topic.

Given:
- Sandra Fluke wants us to pay for her contraception.
- Liberals agree that we should, and view contraception as preventative healthcare (to avoid the *disease* of pregnancy and/or to reduce the future burdensome healthcare costs to society that additional humans would bring).
- Preventative healthcare is the new "smarter" healthcare. In fact, it's being forced on doctors over sick care.

Then:
Why doesn't the government (read: Sandra Fluke - hahaha! just kidding! - read: actual taxpayers) pay for my gym membership? Is there any better form of preventative health than working out? Can I have a *free* nutritionist and personal trainer? That would help.

Think of all the poor people who DON'T have access to nutritionists and personal trainers. Some of them can't afford health clubs! For the sake of public health, isn't this a real priority? Not only am I entitled to this, it's my RIGHT!

---

The only reason I haven't been making this argument to show the folly in the liberal position of the healthcare debate is because I'm afraid they would think it's a great idea and pass more bloated, parasitic legislation.

glockstero wrote:A vote for anyone but Romney is a wasted vote unless you want obama to win.

I disagree because of a caveat: this is not true in a winner-take-all electoral college state (every state except Maine and Nebraska) that will be won convincingly by either side.

I wasn't advocating voting for Johnson. . . I was just agreeing that - in their own words - the Libertarians are simultaneously more conservative than Republicans and more liberal than Democrats.

Still, if you live in Oklahoma, California, Alaska, probably Texas. . .you can vote for whomever you want without it being "a vote for Obama".

In Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virgina, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana, New Hampshire, and several other states, this is decidedly NOT the case. In up-for-grabs states and proportional states (Maine and Nebraska), a vote for anybody but Romney IS a vote for Obama.

Similarly, I love to remind my liberal acquaintances in Texas that they contributed exactly nothing to Obama's win in November, 2008. They didn't play a role at all as far as voting goes. Their voices were not heard. In fact, the representation of their vote cast ballots for the Republican in the race. Sure it's sour grapes, but they taste sweet to me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tbrown wrote:

P.S.: Stop the condescending statements.

Good advice. Romney's supporters would have won over a lot more conservatives if they followed this strategy.

Romney supporters are conservatives and the only fellow conservatives I know who are not going to vote for him are few in number. I don't consider Ron Paul supporters conservatives; they tend to be Libertarians who cannot be classified as conservatives or liberals because the Libertarian Party Platform is both ultraconservative and ultraliberal, depending upon the issue.

Chas.

Exactly. Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President, said he thinks he can "come at Romney from the right and at Obama from the left".