When People's Republic of China resumes shipping to the Land of the Free then maybe your Jeep will c

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
:ontheloo: I had to look up FairTax and settled on this.....
https://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/
I find it reads to be just more taxes.:computerrage:
Not more taxes....or you didn't read it. FairTax dispenses with the Federal Income Tax and all taxes for that matter.

The root of the concept is this: Involuntary taxation is theft. And the obvious knee-jerk rebuttal is: "No one wants to pay taxes", but in Americans in particular want to buy new things....and will pay often exorbitant prices to get the latest gadget (iPhone anyone?). Under FairTax, you only pay taxes IF YOU WANT TO BUY NEW ITEMS and is therefore voluntary. Used items are not taxed and staples like food/gas have voucher programs (though this could be simplified further by simply not taxing them at all).

FairTax is a national sales tax...of about 23%. What people who haven't researched don't realize is that the goods you already buy have ~30% take already baked in between taxing the raw material, companies that produce the good, the labor required to make it, shipping, marketing, etc. You'd actually like see a drop in the cost of most goods.

It all but eliminates a few career fields though...CPAs and IRS workers mostly, since audits would be extremely simple affairs where an IRS employee would only need to check that tax was charged for a new item.

The more important aspect is that FairTax changes the consumer's mindset and our economy from a disposable/consumerist mindset to one that values well made, long lasting products b/c they have lasting, inherent value on the used market. It encourages companies to get away from the planned obsolescence model of design and design quality products.

B/c of the tax structure, corporations are incentivized to bring the majority of offshored production jobs back to the US. A service economy is only good for high paid service sectors like medical and legal and the vast majority of the population do not work in those fields.

Lastly, it's not like a "Flat" tax which is still involuntary so ethically untenable and which is inherently still unfair b/c while the percentage may be the same....the amounts are not and under flat tax programs, you're penalizing someone for being more successful than someone else simply b/c they brought in more income.
 
Last edited:

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
BTW, the link provided https://www.factcheck.org/2007/05/unspinning-the-fairtax/ is just an attempt at diversion b/c the other thing the FairTax does is shrinks government and forces, We, The People, to have a very frank discussion about the proper role of government as well as what services from limited government should be provided by a balanced budget paid for through projected tax revenue....something "FactCheck.org" (a notoriously biased, leftist rag no less) conveniently leaves out. Why? B/c both left and right want LARGER, MORE POWERFUL government....not to have that power given to the people as it is their main way to control.
 

Gee-pah

Well-Known Member
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
798
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
Agree...to an extent.

The real problem is that government picks winners and losers in the market place. If we had a free market with government engaged in its appropriate role, then it does no good for a corporation to lobby government for preferential treatment and that money is put into making the best product at the best value to the consumer and competition is based on merit.
I hear ya Sean and also support free markets as well, or maybe I should say far freer markets than is the status quo.

Whenever capitalism can run an industry it should with as little government involvement as possible. This of course doesn't mean that companies with naturally decreasing average costs, like power companies (i.e. utilities) shouldn't be granted a regulated monopoly: they should, as having 15 different company's power poles on the road makes no sense---I'm sure you agree.

As for most other companies, government should only regulate where the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. There is too much regulation, but by no means is some anything but necessary.

I would like to see extreme limits placed on what any entity, people, companies, and other well endowed groups can give campaigns. Politicians might then be better incentivized for making decisions that benefit the most people the most amount.

Know Sean that by no means to I have anything conflicting to say though to our shared desire for less regulation.

Peace.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
I hear ya Sean and also support free markets as well, or maybe I should say far freer markets than is the status quo.

Whenever capitalism can run an industry it should with as little government involvement as possible. This of course doesn't mean that companies with naturally decreasing average costs, like power companies (i.e. utilities) shouldn't be granted a regulated monopoly: they should, as having 15 different company's power poles on the road makes no sense---I'm sure you agree.

As for most other companies, government should only regulate where the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. There is too much regulation, but by no means is some anything but necessary.

I would like to see extreme limits placed on what any entity, people, companies, and other well endowed groups can give campaigns. Politicians might then be better incentivized for making decisions that benefit the most people the most amount.

Know Sean that by no means to I have anything conflicting to say though to our shared desire for less regulation.

Peace.

Agreed. Corporate "personhood" is an absolute travesty.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid

pablo_max3045

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
502
Reaction score
446
Location
Germany (ex-pat)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon
Occupation
Engineering project manager
The pricing of pharmaceutical is a DIRECT result of our current and past executive branch failing to use EXISTING anti-trust law (Sherman-Clayton and Robinson-Patman in particular) to protect the consumer and enforce consumer protection laws that disallow disparate pricing (not to mention carving out special "exemptions" to keep competition out of the medical industry).
Exactly so.
The problem with healthcare and medicine costs in the US exist for the simple reason that it is allowed to exist.
The basic principle of capitalism is that the market will control the price of goods and services based on what the market will bear.
Is that baseball cap too at 30 bucks too expensive? As a result, folks don't buy it.
It is not a perfect system, but it generally works well enough and no one has invented anything better.

However, this does not work with with medical care. With medical it quickly goes from "what the market will bear" to extortion. If you have to chose between death and paying 15k a month of the pills you need to keep you alive, that is not really a choice. You have to pay, or what is more likely the case go into debt.
Last year my own father was faced with a similar choice. Pay over 150k for a caner treatment, which the insurance company decided they would not pay as it was not a better than 50% chance of success or death. My father had decided for death because he did not want to use up to much of their savings and make things harder on my mother.
In the end, we ended up fly him to India where we got the treatment, including the flight and hotel for my mother for about 12k. Unfortunately, the cancer spread too much in the meantime and he did not make it.
It really chaps my ass that in the most productive, successful and richest country the world has ever produced, Americans are faced with these decisions every day.
 

pablo_max3045

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Messages
502
Reaction score
446
Location
Germany (ex-pat)
Vehicle(s)
2019 Rubicon
Occupation
Engineering project manager
Lobbying should be eliminated.
This and term limits. There should be no carrier politicians. When they are allowed to stay in power as long as they can hold it, everything they do is aimed at doing whatever they must to stay in office. At that point, the electorate is no longer the party being served.
 

Drveovru

Well-Known Member
First Name
Corey
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
107
Location
Fort Smith Arkansas
Vehicle(s)
2018 jlu sport
Exactly so.
The problem with healthcare and medicine costs in the US exist for the simple reason that it is allowed to exist.
The basic principle of capitalism is that the market will control the price of goods and services based on what the market will bear.
Is that baseball cap too at 30 bucks too expensive? As a result, folks don't buy it.
It is not a perfect system, but it generally works well enough and no one has invented anything better.

However, this does not work with with medical care. With medical it quickly goes from "what the market will bear" to extortion. If you have to chose between death and paying 15k a month of the pills you need to keep you alive, that is not really a choice. You have to pay, or what is more likely the case go into debt.
Last year my own father was faced with a similar choice. Pay over 150k for a caner treatment, which the insurance company decided they would not pay as it was not a better than 50% chance of success or death. My father had decided for death because he did not want to use up to much of their savings and make things harder on my mother.
In the end, we ended up fly him to India where we got the treatment, including the flight and hotel for my mother for about 12k. Unfortunately, the cancer spread too much in the meantime and he did not make it.
It really chaps my ass that in the most productive, successful and richest country the world has ever produced, Americans are faced with these decisions every day.
My brother, I hear you loud and clear. it’s rare that I find someone with the same belief about the health care market. The typical supply and demand curve won’t work in health care , sick people do not seek out the best deal like you do when buying new tires. They seek out immediate life saving health.

I like to add that the patient is not the customer. The insurance company is the customer. They pay the bill a lot of the time. People with insurance can’t even tell you what a procedure cost. All they know is what their copay or deductible is. How can a market work when you don’t even know what you pay for a procedure . There is no way to control cost in the American healthcare system. It will continue to rise. A single payer system is the best chance we have to control cost. healthcare in American will inevitably collapse at some point because of greed and the unrealistic way we allow it to operate..
 

four low

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
1,784
Location
central New York
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL
Insurance companies are " for Profit ", they have share holders that get divdends. Gambling that insurance premiums will cover losses, and allow a profit.
Problem ; running Sickness and Death under the profit model will not work, that will always be a Deep Pockets scenario that the Federal Government is far better funded to deal with.
Businesses are not altruistic, their purpose is to generate a profit ; they will do whatever they can get away with to generate that profit from all those premiums . By putting "Affordable Health Care" into the hands of For Profit Insurers guaranteed that " coverage" would be a fine- print nightmare, insurers hoping claimants would die while waiting for delay after delay to run them out of time.
Congress has its own superior Health Insurance, this typifies the gap between " we the people" and our " elected" representatives.
No longer a Democracy, but a Kleptocracy.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
Exactly so.
The problem with healthcare and medicine costs in the US exist for the simple reason that it is allowed to exist.
The basic principle of capitalism is that the market will control the price of goods and services based on what the market will bear.
Is that baseball cap too at 30 bucks too expensive? As a result, folks don't buy it.
It is not a perfect system, but it generally works well enough and no one has invented anything better.

However, this does not work with with medical care. With medical it quickly goes from "what the market will bear" to extortion. If you have to chose between death and paying 15k a month of the pills you need to keep you alive, that is not really a choice. You have to pay, or what is more likely the case go into debt.
Last year my own father was faced with a similar choice. Pay over 150k for a caner treatment, which the insurance company decided they would not pay as it was not a better than 50% chance of success or death. My father had decided for death because he did not want to use up to much of their savings and make things harder on my mother.
In the end, we ended up fly him to India where we got the treatment, including the flight and hotel for my mother for about 12k. Unfortunately, the cancer spread too much in the meantime and he did not make it.
It really chaps my ass that in the most productive, successful and richest country the world has ever produced, Americans are faced with these decisions every day.

Are you blaming "capitalism" for that though?
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
My brother, I hear you loud and clear. it’s rare that I find someone with the same belief about the health care market. The typical supply and demand curve won’t work in health care , sick people do not seek out the best deal like you do when buying new tires. They seek out immediate life saving health.

I like to add that the patient is not the customer. The insurance company is the customer. They pay the bill a lot of the time. People with insurance can’t even tell you what a procedure cost. All they know is what their copay or deductible is. How can a market work when you don’t even know what you pay for a procedure . There is no way to control cost in the American healthcare system. It will continue to rise. A single payer system is the best chance we have to control cost. healthcare in American will inevitably collapse at some point because of greed and the unrealistic way we allow it to operate..

I'd argue that the current iteration of "health care" (we really need to delve into the difference between "health care" and "health insurance") is designed to inevitably collapse; leading to single payer and the inherent restrictions on personal liberty that will necessarily come with it.
 

Sean K.

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sean
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
3,833
Location
AZ
Vehicle(s)
JLUR, TJ, 4Runner, Cummins tow rig, 2 Tube Frame Buggies, Lotus SC Elise, Mazda 3, RAV4 Hybrid
Insurance companies are " for Profit ", they have share holders that get divdends. Gambling that insurance premiums will cover losses, and allow a profit.
Problem ; running Sickness and Death under the profit model will not work, that will always be a Deep Pockets scenario that the Federal Government is far better funded to deal with.
Businesses are not altruistic, their purpose is to generate a profit ; they will do whatever they can get away with to generate that profit from all those premiums . By putting "Affordable Health Care" into the hands of For Profit Insurers guaranteed that " coverage" would be a fine- print nightmare, insurers hoping claimants would die while waiting for delay after delay to run them out of time.
Congress has its own superior Health Insurance, this typifies the gap between " we the people" and our " elected" representatives.
No longer a Democracy, but a Kleptocracy.
We were never supposed to be a "Democracy" though. A Constitutional Republic was the form of government under which we were founded....and we've been steadily creeping towards a Democratic Republic (at best) and Democratic Socialism (or worse) in the last 100+ years, especially with the passage of the 17A.
 
Last edited:
Quadratec
 
Top