TakeYouToTasker

Utilitarianism is bunk. Devine Leader Utilitarianism is North Korea. Great Job.

Or you make certain purchases (food) tax exempt.

Very interesting. I appreciate the information.

You don't think LTC products would fill that gap?

True, I hadn't really thought about CVLI, which would likely go the way of the dodo. However it would also likely increase sales of term.

I know lots of very bright liberals, many of whom I agree with on multiple points. Your "point of view" isn't liberal, and isn't really even a point of view in-so-much as it's a disjointed, absurd, inconsistent, and largely indefensible ball of turd. Your entire purpose is to drag meaningful discussion into the sewer. You frequently admit to not caring about having your facts wrong, admit to dodging questions, and resort to name calling when challenged. The truth is that this sub-forum would absolutely relish the intellectually honest participation of actual thinking liberals who came here to discuss ideas. That isn't you, however.

Tax it when they spend it. Current saving largely represents future spending. The only real losers would be those with Roth holdings.

Initially it would likely dampen business outlooks: It would likely begin with a reduction in personal debt as individuals first began to pay down. Next you'd likely see an increase in personal savings and retirement investing. Finally, you'd begin to see an increase in spending. All those things lead to a much healthier and sustainable long term economic outlook.

Fantastic non-sequitur.

Modern American liberalism is liberal at all: it's just rebranded fascism.

I can as well.

Taxes act as a discouragement, as they penalize select behaviors. For instance, an income tax discourages work; as such, to some degree a sales tax does discourage spending. Conversely, however, it does encourage saving. It's also important to note that the suspension of the income tax would immediately put more money into the hands of Americans, which would likely drive spending, and offset much of the initial discouragement.

It's not that they don't know it, it's that they've purposefully moved to abandon it in order to advance an agenda. The ends always justify the means for people with no higher moral standard or respect for history.

Again, why do you act like this? There are people here, myself included, who have read more about the Civil War, it's causes, economics, outcomes, and participants than you will ever do in your lifetime. Your entire purpose here is to revise history, with a current agenda. It's one of the least intellectually honest things I've ever encountered here, and you are a worse person for it. Knock it off.

Because you're being an idiot. What is 365.25/7?

What is 365.25/7?

There is an unusually high amount of stupid in this thread, even for gator. I'll never understand why he chooses to act like this.

LOL

You'll find that some here, as you've undoubtably found elsewhere, insist on judging historical figures and times backwards through the lens of 2016 American progressive moral structures.

ALOL... You expect the Federal government to honor it's agreements?

Lincoln campaigned on a platform of denying the southern states their Constitutional rights. They had every reason to believe he would act on those promises, and he justified their concern many times over. Lee fought to North over Lincoln breaking the Constitutional contract, and then aggressively coercing the seceding states back into the Union.

Are you doing your math homework?

Because of Lincoln's stated intentions to deny them their Constitutionally prescribed States rights, fundamentally breaking the compact which bound them together. His stated intent was to deny the Southern states their Constitutional rights. The upper Southern states did not secede initially, but rather reserved their right to do so only if the federal government break it's compact. As it turns out, your point is moot, as Lincoln did in fact carry out with his breach of the Constitution.

The several states of the Union reserved the right to secede as a legitimate check on government, as State's rights were central to the American concept of government both conceptually, and Constitutionally at that time. What Lincoln did, in breaking with Constitutional authority, was to commit acts of aggression on the South, and dissolve the Union, as he was acting illegitimately with powers he did not possess. The fact that slavery is abhorrent today does not mitigate these facts. The fact that the North won the war, and Lincoln unilaterally and fundamentally changed the nature of American federal government, the role of the executive, and the relationship between the several states and federal government does not change the history either. The South was not traitorous, Lincoln was.