On Maintaining High Quality Discussion
I would like to ask all our commenters to help keep our quality of discussion here as high as possible.
Of course, this applies to those who promote the FairTax as well as those who oppose it.
In my opinion, the FairTax dissenters who post on our site add a great deal of value to our discussions. They raise objections — sometimes great objections — for us to analyze and discuss. (The question of taxing government expenditures is, I think, a good recent example of this.)
On the other hand, anytime we use words like “scam” or “scheme” or “myth” or “dishonest” to describe something we disagree with — and we don’t offer incredibly solid evidence for such claims — then we are undermining any opportunity for constructive dialogue.
A dialogue between two people assumes that they are both being intellectually honest. If you think the person you are talking to is not being intellectually honest, then there is no point in talking.
Similarly, if you think the FairTax is a scam or that it relies on myths, then you’d better be prepared to offer real evidence, presented without puffy rhetoric, if you have any hope of convincing people who don’t yet see your perspective.
If you’re not prepared to meet this standard of dialogue, then please go elsewhere. It takes time to monitor the discussions in these forums, and I’m determined not to see the discussions devolve into senseless accusations.
Anyone who has tried maintaining a forum like this one will notice that it takes much more time to comprehensively rebut a spurious argument than to present it. That gives a natural advantage to dissenters who like to take pot-shots, and I’m increasingly sensing a need to level the playing field, in that regard.
Toward this end, I’m going to begin occasionally pointing out the problems in people’s accusations. For example, if you claim something is a myth and you offer no real evidence for your assertion, I may well add a comment to your comment, as editor, pointing out your failure to back up your accusations.
Sometimes I will rebut the argument, other times I’ll simply point out that you’ve provided little or no evidence. (Other times I’ll rely on our readers to point out the spurious nature of an argument. My own time is limited, of course.)
I’m 100% committed to discussing the pros and cons of the FairTax, but I’m not willing to let our site devolve into a forum for attacking the FairTax with innuendo and flimsy arguments.
As owner of the site, I welcome dissent, but I don’t welcome drive-by attacks. If anyone else has additional suggestions for better achieving this balance, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Wow. I really think you are taking this the wrong way. I only meant myth in the sense of “an unfounded or false notion.” And it was directed at the idea (the “notion”), not an individual or the FairTax movement. I don’t think that is anything like calling something a “scam,” which would be individual(s) knowingly attempting to defraud or deceive others.
I appreciate the openness of this site - I made a point of tell you that after the technical issues were resolved. I also understand moderating a site like can be very trying - I’ve done it myself in the past - especially when some of the poster have different desires than you. It’s really to your credit that you allow this to be an actual debate. There are plenty of echo chambers on the web - this isn’t one of them.
In the future, I will avoid posts like the one you had an issue with.
Fred,
Thanks — actually, this post wasn’t directed at you personally. It was intended to reflect some general observations about the discussions that have transpired here over the past few months.
I’ve been trying to figure out a way to express my desire to keep things as constructive as possible — including making things a bit easier for those of us on whom it is incumbent to answer questions.
Your post referring to the “myth of embedded taxes” was just a recent example that came to mind, and in which I had decided to try out the comments-from-the-editor option.
I appreciate your comment above and that you’ve been forthright in answering the challenges I’ve presented in my editorial remarks. All is good.
If I could get buy-in from our other FairTax dissenters, then I think we’ll be good to go.
And I continue to welcome input from any of our readers about the direction I’m trying to take things, here.
Joshua
Makes sense to me...
Agree with all of the above. I would actually like to see more input from FT supporters. Seems like only a couple or three want to weigh in. Wonder why?
Josh - Thanks again for providing this forum.
Merry Christmas!
John
AugieBendoggie said...
Well, I for one like fairtax. I think some more enhancements could be done to it, though...
ONE: PROFIT MARGIN RATIO.
The bigger the gap between the cost to produce and the asking price to the END consumer, then the higher the Tax should be.
This would control producers and retailers from trying to gouge consumers. Would this end up shrinking a Wal-Mart or some other giant retailer? Maybe, but then you would see Mom-and-Pop stores return and flourish.
government would have to calculate, or ‘double-blind reverse engineer’ what a product, similar in form, feature, and function to a given product, cost to make, plus what average overhead would be, in order to set a graduated rate.
TWO: Monetary Policy (2 parts)
Government (Federal, state, and local) should not have to pay a tax on products, goods or services, used for fulfilling Governmental Duties and such. Or at least a LOWER rate. Why should the government pay the tax when it’s just going to collect it back anyway? That ends up putting the money on a long winding detour, when it could be used to make another purchase. Also Time factors into the debate.
So when the economy needs money pumped into the system, Instead of having Fed lower the intrest rate that banks can charge one another, or that it can borrow from Fed, (with lending being a counter balance against Gov Bond issuance...) have government determine the cost it has to pay for such product, good or service in the marketplace, then CREATE THE PHYSICAL MONEY, and then spend it into the economy, at the point of sale, giving that money it has created INTRINSIC VALUE.
Make this the ONLY way government can put new money into the economy. If the FedReserve can create the money to spend for its stationery, office supplies, and such, then so can the government.
Banks have to accept this money. but this money has LIMITED LIFE!
On Each dollar you could put these words...
“This Note was created for (such and such purpose) on (Some Date) and presented to (Original Recipient) to satisfy all or portion of debt assumed. By reception of this note (O.R.) accepts this note at FACE VALUE, This note must be either spent by (Original Recipient) or deposited at any US FDIC-insured institution, up to (X) days after reception, For Second and Subsequent recipients receiving this note by either (O.R.) or subsequent presenter, this note is LEGAL TENDER at FACE VALUE, for any and all debts, public and private, until (X*3 days from creation date) when note must be deposited in US FDIC insured institution, after which value of note will decrease at rate determined by Federal Reserve”
So each New dollar pumped into the economy has a “born-on” date, an emancipation from “O.R” date, and a depreciation/ death date.
but what about all the dollars and coins floating around now? wouldn’t this cause inflation? No.
You make announcements through all media that such and such notes that have “Cirica 19(20)XX” must be turned in to a US-FDIC insured account on such and such date before depreciation dwindles its punch, the checkable deposit does not dwindle as the papers dies, it lives on at the ORIGINAL FACE VALUE.
that means that any foreign economy accepting and circulating US Dollars must turn that note back in, and it can either turn it back in at their bank, which can exchange it for thier notes, and then turn around and get it into a US FDIC insured account, before thier time is up.
You can effectively control your money supply this way. and your money issuances is now controlled. It can circle the globe and flow in eddys and currents of foreign economies, but it must come back home to die its proper death.
January 19, 2008 9:10 PM