Agreed, in past during more superstitious/religious times, religion was widely used to promote wars. Today it's still used but not as much, except in the more backwards countries and 'backwoods' areas even in the USA.
I don't disagree with your main point. My only point was that it would be a mistake to exempt food and clothing. With the use of rebates, the poor would still pay no net tax at the end of the year. This would be true whether or not you got rid of the income tax at the same time.onthebottom said:Although you may have missed that I think the consumption tax could replace the income tax....you take home what you make and you only pay taxes on what you consume... if food and clothing were exempted the truly poor would pay no tax. There would also be a huge incentive to save.
OTB
WoodPeckr said:But Unions do more good works than religions....:cool
themexi said:And they have just as many fucking retards that will parrot whatever slogans they're told to in spite of any fact![]()
This is one of the reasons I favor a consumption tax, another is that it would remove the need for tax accountants....someone said:I don't disagree with your main point. My only point was that it would be a mistake to exempt food and clothing. With the use of rebates, the poor would still pay no net tax at the end of the year. This would be true whether or not you got rid of the income tax at the same time.
BTW, if you want to get rid of income tax completely, the easiest way would be to just make all savings tax deductable. When you get right down to it, consumption is equal to income minus savings (C = Y – C) . Assuming people don’t store money in mattresses, they either spend their income, save it or pay taxes with it. By allowing people to deduct all savings from income, before they pay tax, you basically end up just taxing there consumption without the hassle of collecting it at the retail level. Moreover, this method would have the advantage of allowing you to tax consumption with any degree of progressivity you want. If you don’t want the poor to pay any tax, just make the first $X exempt.
The only big advantage of taxing consumption at the retail level directly would be to get people who don’t declare all their income (leading under calculating of consumption once they subtract savings)
Mrbig1949 said:The Mexi who doesn`t seem to know that we don`t really call them retards any more although we could have a show of hands to use it just in your case.
And this makes them different from the millions of mindnumbed lemmings who daily parrot what Mullah Limbaugh serves them up to swallow?....themexi said:And they have just as many fucking retards that will parrot whatever slogans they're told to in spite of any fact
Really, why bother, perhaps one in a hundred posts has any real content....themexi said:Wow professor.... that's one of your more origional ones.... it's only the 2nd time I've heard it from you you limp dicked lying unorigional fuck......
I'll get back to your regual verbal assr@ping session later.....
I know you're looking forward to it because you wouldn't keep coming back for more if you didn't so lube up sunshine... I'm bringing the gauntlet this time
![]()
onthebottom said:Really, why bother, perhaps one in a hundred posts has any real content....
He's Pekkkr light.
OTB
However misguided Pekkkr is at least he has a social conscience whereas Big does not. Like most big labour mouthpieces he will lie routinely and has lost all touch with the difference between right and wrong.onthebottom said:Really, why bother, perhaps one in a hundred posts has any real content....
He's Pekkkr light.
OTB
Marx didn't say a thing about unions except that they could be "schools for socialism."clubber said:Now according to Marx unions are suppose to lead to the Communist revolutions that were suppose to sweep the world. Now that would have been war by Union. Good think Marx was wrong about just about everything. I do wonder where workers rights and wages would be today if Unions had not existed?
So Union's then do not change things through strikes? Are you saying that striking unions in Marx view do absolutely nothing. He has written tons over time on unions and their need is society, as has Engels. Just a quick google on Marx and unions and you will have proof. There is a lot of reading on it. More than I would care to do. Yet Marx and Engels both have some good thoughts in among all the other stuff. It is often a good idea to do a google on a subject before replying and perhaps you won't make themexi seem so correct about you.Mrbig1949 said:Marx didn't say a thing about unions except that they could be "schools for socialism."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/07/unions.htmMrbig1949 said:Marx didn't say a thing about unions except that they could be "schools for socialism."





