Mike Huckabee
RighteousReason 14 Sep 2008
What is evolution anyway?
Organisms have differential reproductive success in their environment based on their genetics. So if your genes better equip you for your environment then you will have higher reproductive success, which means you will pass on your genes to the next generation and spread them further through the gene pool than others with lower reproductive success, and thus evolution occurs as organisms with less effective genes soon die out.
What is the fair tax?
It is essentially a way to completely eliminate taxing businesses and income (not to mention the IRS) by shifting the tax burden into a national sales tax.
Nations with lower tax burdens on businesses increase the differential economic success of a business in that nation relative to the same business in a nation with a higher tax burden, which means a nation with a lower tax burden on businesses will have more businesses that will grow faster and employ more people for higher salaries than in a nation with a higher tax burden on businesses.
So while Huckabee may not know much about Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel (why exactly would he need to?), he understands those basic principles of evolution that have any importance, and demonstrates that understanding through his actions, which is all that really matters anyway (and is more than can be said for the vast majority of his detractors who claim to believe in evolution).
(If you are really pedantic you could probably come up with many disagreements with the wording of this explanation, but it is entirely true in essence)
Edited by Savage, 14 September 2008 - 02:42 AM.
niner 14 Sep 2008
Just a couple questions: 1) How do you prevent the burden from a national sales tax from falling primarily on the less well-off, who spend a higher percentage of their net income on goods?What is the fair tax?
It is essentially a way to completely eliminate taxing businesses and income (not to mention the IRS) by shifting the tax burden into a national sales tax.
Nations with lower tax burdens on businesses increase the differential economic success of a business in that nation relative to the same business in a nation with a higher tax burden, which means a nation with a lower tax burden on businesses will have more businesses that will grow faster and employ more people for higher salaries than in a nation with a higher tax burden on businesses.
2) Is there any developed nation in existence that uses a national sales tax to the exclusion of other forms of taxation? If so, how well does it work?
3) It's been my experience that small business has a lot of opportunities to avoid or otherwise dodge taxes, while salaried persons have little or no opportunity to avoid tax. I haven't done a study of comparative taxation, but after a long period of business-friendly rule in the US, is our tax climate really unfriendly to business? How does it compare to other developed nations? My impression is that at the federal level, taxes on business in the US are relatively low, compared to taxes on employees.
He needs to because we live in a technologically complex world, and if he doesn't even believe the fundamental tenets of science, how can he make intelligent decisions on the many technological policy issues he would need to address as president? How can he keep from being scammed by clever parties that want to feather their own nests to the detriment to the country? One example: Energy policy.So while Huckabee may not know much about Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel (why exactly would he need to?)
RighteousReason 14 Sep 2008
1) Groceries and I guess other basics are not taxed under fair tax.Just a couple questions: 1) How do you prevent the burden from a national sales tax from falling primarily on the less well-off, who spend a higher percentage of their net income on goods?What is the fair tax?
It is essentially a way to completely eliminate taxing businesses and income (not to mention the IRS) by shifting the tax burden into a national sales tax.
Nations with lower tax burdens on businesses increase the differential economic success of a business in that nation relative to the same business in a nation with a higher tax burden, which means a nation with a lower tax burden on businesses will have more businesses that will grow faster and employ more people for higher salaries than in a nation with a higher tax burden on businesses.
2) Is there any developed nation in existence that uses a national sales tax to the exclusion of other forms of taxation? If so, how well does it work?
3) It's been my experience that small business has a lot of opportunities to avoid or otherwise dodge taxes, while salaried persons have little or no opportunity to avoid tax. I haven't done a study of comparative taxation, but after a long period of business-friendly rule in the US, is our tax climate really unfriendly to business? How does it compare to other developed nations? My impression is that at the federal level, taxes on business in the US are relatively low, compared to taxes on employees.He needs to because we live in a technologically complex world, and if he doesn't even believe the fundamental tenets of science, how can he make intelligent decisions on the many technological policy issues he would need to address as president? How can he keep from being scammed by clever parties that want to feather their own nests to the detriment to the country? One example: Energy policy.So while Huckabee may not know much about Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel (why exactly would he need to?)
2) dunno. fair tax is different from other forms of national sales tax though. read the books by Neal Boortz.
3) Really... how so? The US has one of the highest businesses tax levels in the developed world. (Obama wants to raise taxes on business- ie. decrease differential economic success of US business vs. other countries)
4) I don't think evolution is at all related to, say, Net Neutrality, military defense research, nuclear power, or whatever technological issues.
RighteousReason 14 Sep 2008
Edited by Savage, 14 September 2008 - 04:20 AM.
Cyberbrain 14 Sep 2008
If you wanted a fair taxes, you should have supported Ron Paul.
niner 14 Sep 2008
If someone has a million dollar income, but they only spend $50K, and save the rest, they pay no tax on $950,000.00; that doesn't seem quite right. I suppose the answer is that eventually if they buy something, they will be taxed on the money, but if they invest it, they earn a return on that money for many years, also tax free, until it is ultimately spent, which it may never be. I think this tax plan is popular with the right for the usual reason; it provides a free ride for the wealthy to the detriment of the middle class.1) Groceries and I guess other basics are not taxed under fair tax.Just a couple questions: 1) How do you prevent the burden from a national sales tax from falling primarily on the less well-off, who spend a higher percentage of their net income on goods?What is the fair tax?
It is essentially a way to completely eliminate taxing businesses and income (not to mention the IRS) by shifting the tax burden into a national sales tax.
Nations with lower tax burdens on businesses increase the differential economic success of a business in that nation relative to the same business in a nation with a higher tax burden, which means a nation with a lower tax burden on businesses will have more businesses that will grow faster and employ more people for higher salaries than in a nation with a higher tax burden on businesses.
2) Is there any developed nation in existence that uses a national sales tax to the exclusion of other forms of taxation? If so, how well does it work?
3) It's been my experience that small business has a lot of opportunities to avoid or otherwise dodge taxes, while salaried persons have little or no opportunity to avoid tax. I haven't done a study of comparative taxation, but after a long period of business-friendly rule in the US, is our tax climate really unfriendly to business? How does it compare to other developed nations? My impression is that at the federal level, taxes on business in the US are relatively low, compared to taxes on employees.He needs to because we live in a technologically complex world, and if he doesn't even believe the fundamental tenets of science, how can he make intelligent decisions on the many technological policy issues he would need to address as president? How can he keep from being scammed by clever parties that want to feather their own nests to the detriment to the country? One example: Energy policy.So while Huckabee may not know much about Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel (why exactly would he need to?)
If Boortz isn't talking about other countries, maybe that's because the scheme doesn't work. From a bit of poking around on the net, I think the answer is no; there are no developed countries that rely solely on a national sales tax to the exclusion of other forms of taxation. Nearly every developed country in the world not only has corporate and personal taxes, but ALSO a substantial national sales tax. Since most businesses buy things, the national sales tax will impact them in purchasing raw materials, and also by causing their goods to be priced higher to the final consumer. The usual implementation of the national sales tax is as a Value Added Tax, so that goods are not double taxed. Still, there will be negative impacts on businesses from a VAT.2) dunno. fair tax is different from other forms of national sales tax though. read the books by Neal Boortz.
A typical way is for the business to buy stuff, like a large SUV, which engenders a huge deduction. Businesses can buy things that are really for the benefit of the owner, and claim they are for "the business". Businesses can pay out income as salary and dividends so as to show little profit, and pay little tax.3) Really... how so? The US has one of the highest businesses tax levels in the developed world. (Obama wants to raise taxes on business- ie. decrease differential economic success of US business vs. other countries)
Science is science. If you are ruled by religious beliefs, you are more likely to pick advisers for their religious beliefs instead of their technical acumen. If you fundamentally don't understand science, you are more likely to be mislead.4) I don't think evolution is at all related to, say, Net Neutrality, military defense research, nuclear power, or whatever technological issues.
Edited by niner, 14 September 2008 - 05:09 AM.
wanderer 14 Sep 2008
Money is the lifeblood of an economy. It, representing a unit of human production, is what makes the world go round. A super-efficient, transparent government, devoid of corruption, might be able to utilize taxes to generate a net benefit for its citizens' investment, but I know of no governments like this. Instead, even in countries with relatively clean (when compared with dictatorships), democratic governments, we get incredibly wasteful spending. In the US, the parasitic system is set up to encourage wastefulness by allocating funds based on how much certain parties spend (as opposed to how much certain projects require). If NASA, for example, is granted $1 Billion in the current budget, but this year it only requires $600 Million, it can expect its funding to decrease drastically the next time around. Therefore, in the context of this example, NASA will be pressured to WASTE $400 Million NOW, so that it might retain its current level of funding to fuel future endeavors (no pun intended). You don't have to dig deep to see this.
To state my opinion directly: Every dollar that the government (especially on the federal level) takes out of the economy via taxes is a dollar nearly wasted. Every unit of a society's vitality lost to taxation is essentially squandered.
Real economic growth will not result from increasing taxation or from combining all the various taxes into one, new, easy-to-understand tax. It will come with decreased taxation. This will require a smaller government. This will require government doing merely what the public gives it a mandate for. A solution easily stated, but most difficult to implement, particularly in the US.
The US is a very big, very diverse country. You don't have to go any further than this forum to see evidence of this. Some people want bigger government, more programs, more taxation, some people want the opposite. Some people want full-blown communism, some people are die-hard libertarians. In fact, there are a host of issues that we have incompatible opinions on. The federal government needs to shrink, the states need to swell, and Americans need to stop being lazy and start voting with their feet.
Ah, but we're getting off-topic, aren't we? Huckabee? Yeah, I like him. We need more people like him (and Ron Paul, for that matter) in government. I'm certainly in the minority, but I would love to have a government full of people with his character, decency, and commitment to public-service, even if their opinions on the issues are the polar opposite of mine (instead of a government full of lying, manipulative, overtly self-serving jerks who say they agree with me).
***************************************************************
As far as evolution goes, I'm not sure that much about Darwinian evolution is really up for debate. The problem is that people on both sides of the issue (an issue people need to realize has more than 2 sides), seem to actually have no idea what the original Darwinian evolution is. It amounts to gradual change over long periods of time due to 'nature' selecting positive traits and discarding negative traits. Most creationists I know would have no problem accepting this version of evolution. This sort of evolution might be considered a 'tenet' of science.
However, when you deviate from this beautiful, logical, common-sense theory of gradual change over time, you begin to lose people. Due to a conspicuous lack of inter-species links in the fossil records (at least what we have currently come across), some scientists are proposing that every once in a while, due to unknown factors, a species might undergo super-fast evolution. If this is true, that would explain the lack of fish-monkey bones. However, for what are obvious reasons to most, many people have a hard time accepting this sort of crafted-to-support-one's-argument evolution.
I would suggest that only things observable, measurable, and testable can qualify for the status of 'tenet'. This leaves out anything more than basic Darwinian evolution.
If you step back a bit from the emotional arguments on this topic in which your ego is invested, I think you will find that the issue is next to meaningless. It is perfectly possible to contribute to, even revolutionize, ANY of the sciences, regardless of whether or not one accepts the more extreme versions of evolutionary theory. In fact, I think a a good case could be made that those who are able to accept the more extreme versions lack certain scientific aptitudes and are thus LESS likely to be able to contribute meaningfully to science.
*****************************************************************
All that said to merely make the point that I don't believe electing people like Huckabee will take us back to the dark ages. There is so much alarmism in these forums. It doesn't matter much who gets into government, fellas, they are all part of the system. Even Huckabee, though he seems to be less-so than most. Abortion won't get any easier or freer, but it will never be made completely illegal (not even if Jerry Falwell came back and was elected president). The most that will happen is that the issue will be completely left up to the states with no federal interference. Taxes won't increase too much, but they certainly won't decrease much (because federal spending has to decrease first). Creationism will never be taught as fact in schools, the most you can expect to see is evolution presented as the theory that it is. There is a good reason that the world's best and least religious minds still refer to it as a theory. Science requires it. ... Things are not acceptable the way they currently are in the US, but not a whole lot is going to change, policy-wise, for the next decade or so. And it doesn't matter who gets into office this November.
I've been around long enough that I find the idea that this election is the one to be amusing. This election is the CHANGE election, compared with all previous elections where candidates presented themselves as agents of enforcing the status quo... Give me a break, guys. Do you really believe that? Both of the guys running now present themselves as the candidate who will change things, but both are products of the establishment, both went through their respective parties to get into power. And both of them overwhelmingly vote along party lines. McCain has deviated from his party only about 10% of the time, while Obama has only deviated from his party about 3% of the time. Sure, they may be a bit more independent than the majority of their party-buddies, but they're not meaningful change. Neither of them. And they aren't worth the calories we expend freaking out over them.
If it is change you are afraid of, be not afraid. From the looks of things, the current corrupt duopoly isn't going anywhere.
Edited by wanderer, 14 September 2008 - 06:18 AM.
JonesGuy 14 Sep 2008
It also double-taxes the people who have already saved money which was subject to income taxes (i.e., if they're living off of their savings).
Huckabee's problem is that he endorsed Expelled. This shows how far he's willing to step into something he doesn't understand. It also shows how easy it is to fool him with propaganda.
Edited by QJones, 14 September 2008 - 04:13 PM.
RighteousReason 15 Sep 2008
"I'd like to see us get rid of all taxes on productivity."
Huckabee on Neal Boortz show, live right now.
RighteousReason 15 Sep 2008
Fair tax eliminates income tax. Seriously... I said that in the initial post. Talk about an ignorant critic.It also double-taxes the people who have already saved money which was subject to income taxes (i.e., if they're living off of their savings).
Edited by Savage, 15 September 2008 - 02:29 PM.
RighteousReason 15 Sep 2008
That's an interesting point, though. I wonder if Boortz addressed this in either of the fair tax books.Helloo, barter system. Helllooo smuggling.
EmbraceUnity 15 Sep 2008
niner 16 Sep 2008
Try not to be insulting, Savage, particularly when you're wrong. He's talking about the period of transition from one system of taxation to the other. This would have to be managed somehow. Honestly, this "Fair Tax" thing would never work. In order to be truly fair, it would need so many hacks and loopholes that it would make our present system seem simple. We live in a complex world. Taxation systems are going to reflect that. That Huckabee would fall for a bumper sticker approach like this is another example of why he's not a good choice for president.Fair tax eliminates income tax. Seriously... I said that in the initial post. Talk about an ignorant critic.It also double-taxes the people who have already saved money which was subject to income taxes (i.e., if they're living off of their savings).
niner 16 Sep 2008
Yeah, Bush, Gore, what's the difference? Besides a $3 trillion dollar war that makes us less secure, Katrina, and the mortgage crisis...There is so much alarmism in these forums. It doesn't matter much who gets into government, fellas, they are all part of the system.
OK, it is now apparent that you are not a scientist, since you don't know what a "theory" is. You are using the popular notion of theory, which should be called a "hypothesis". Evolution is not a hypothesis.Creationism will never be taught as fact in schools, the most you can expect to see is evolution presented as the theory that it is. There is a good reason that the world's best and least religious minds still refer to it as a theory.
The "change" that I'd like to see is from Cowboy Right Wing Ideologue to conventional modern Democrat. In that regard, Obama is very much the "change" candidate. McSame, on the other hand, not so much.Both of the guys running now present themselves as the candidate who will change things, but both are products of the establishment, both went through their respective parties to get into power. And both of them overwhelmingly vote along party lines.
wanderer 16 Sep 2008
OK, it is now apparent that you aren't an independent. That's OK, man, go on and root for your team. Katrina would have been mishandled anyway. The mortgage crisis would have occurred anyway. I even contend that we would have gone to war anyway (though possibly in a different area of the world). If you doubt this, I challenge you to objectively examine the past century. Count all the armed conflicts we've been in, tally all the American deaths (and if you are really brave, tally all casualties), and then, and this is the most important step, find out what percentage of the total your beloved party is responsible for. Rationalize that.Yeah, Bush, Gore, what's the difference? Besides a $3 trillion dollar war that makes us less secure, Katrina, and the mortgage crisis...
I see at least as many problems in the US as you do, and I am content to blame most of them on a corrupt two-party system that serves itself and offers the people little more than the illusion of democracy. However, if you want to indulge in willful partisan obliviousness, I have to point out that your party is responsible for more war, more deaths, and more debt than your hated enemies... not to mention the more than $40 TRILLION the SS Pyramid Scheme is preparing to suck from our already struggling economy.
So yeah, there might be a difference, but it's not going to be in your favor.
OK, it is now apparent that you are not a scientist, since you don't know what a "theory" is. You are using the popular notion of theory, which should be called a "hypothesis". Evolution is not a hypothesis.
You're right. That is actually a very important point, one that I also learned in grade school science. Let's define theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. This is the definition you're looking for. And the popular, or more general, definition is: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Despite the more scientific nature of the former, I assume you can see the obvious connection between the two. I emphasized theory because you characterized evolution as a basic tenet of science, which is tantamount to proclaiming it a law. Gravity is a law. The laws of thermodynamics are... er, laws. Evolution is a theory. Or, more precisely, Darwinian Evolution is a theory.
All other proposed forms of evolution merely qualify as hypotheses. Hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Oh, and my degree is in Political Science (and International Relations), which DOES make me a scientist.
Though I don't really think you can characterize Obama as 'conventional', if that is how you define change, then I guess you won't be disappointed if Obama gets into office... even if that's the only thing he does. In my opinion, however, neither of these characters constitute substantial, meaningful change (although I was cautiously optimistic when Obama first crashed onto the scene).The "change" that I'd like to see is from Cowboy Right Wing Ideologue to conventional modern Democrat. In that regard, Obama is very much the "change" candidate. McSame, on the other hand, not so much.
Regardless, my prediction is that you can expect a really close race all the way down to the finish. This really should be a landslide Democratic year, what with all the troubles we've been dealing with in the US. They should win by 20 points, honestly. But they seem to be splitting independents pretty evenly, perhaps because Obama votes more left and talks middle, and McCain votes more middle and talks right. Anyway, we'll see. And if Obama gets in and makes substantive changes and turns the US into a better place, I assure you I will offer you a humble apology for labeling him as 'part of the establishment'. This is an area where I would LOVE to be proven wrong. Believe me.
If I come across as offensive, forgive me, bud. It's all about the ideas, nothing personal.
And to the OP and anyone else reading through this thread, sorry for getting off-topic (it's all legitimately connected, however). niner and I will get a room if we have anything further to discuss (meaning we'll PM).
niner 17 Sep 2008
You don't really understand the origins of those three things, do you?...Katrina would have been mishandled anyway. The mortgage crisis would have occurred anyway. I even contend that we would have gone to war anyway (though possibly in a different area of the world).Yeah, Bush, Gore, what's the difference? Besides a $3 trillion dollar war that makes us less secure, Katrina, and the mortgage crisis...
Why not include the civil war? It would be equally predictive. You err in assuming that the Democrats are "beloved" to me. I am not particularly taken by them, but the Republicans are an order of magnitude worse. I'm just realistic about the chances of success that a third party has.If you doubt this, I challenge you to objectively examine the past century. Count all the armed conflicts we've been in, tally all the American deaths (and if you are really brave, tally all casualties), and then, and this is the most important step, find out what percentage of the total your beloved party is responsible for. Rationalize that.