There's no more income tax. That essentially means the consumer decides how much in taxes he will pay b/c the government doesn't take out a mandatory slice beforehand. I see that as an opportunity for a net gain. Instead of the gov't automatically taking 30% out, I now have discretion how much I pay out in taxes through my consumption choices. And, as for myself, I would consume less and save more in order to capitalize on the opportunity for a windfall.

That's what we'd been discussing in previous posts. Is that reasoning entirely off?

Perhaps you would spend less, but most people have the natural tendency to consume as much as they can. With more money in the pocket, they'll spend it.

I know I'm just feeding the troll, but ... can't resist ... dance ... of ... death ...

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=62

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=35

I await the next post explaining why these links don't indicate him attacking the source.

I didn't realize you were debating a consumption tax versus an income tax. This direction has merit but will never be adopted. I wish it would. Carry on.

I see it going the other way b/c the consumption tax will make everything seem so much more expensive.

I didn't say I don't attack the source. I said this:

"Tex, in the instances I recall where you posted an article that I bashed, the paper itself was the one giving the opinion (which they clearly identified as opinion). That isn't a "source" in the sense of a source that is stating facts. It is just another voice giving just another opinion. It is astonishing you can't figure that out."

In both instances you just cited, it was an editorial by a paper. They didn't pretend to have any special insight. They didn't pretend to have conducted any scientific study of the issue or pretend to be presenting any fact. They presented their opinion in the form of an editorial. You then linked to those papers' opinions to bolster your argument. How does that bolster your argument? Answer: it doesn't. The fact that a newspaper editorial agrees with you isn't evidence that your position is correct. It is a statement that someone else holds your position (i.e., an appeal to popularity- a logical fallacy).

You want to show that I "attacked your source" when you clearly didn't have the intelligence to understand the simple concept that you took a position, used someone else's opinion as support for your position, and I challenged your use of that "source" as support for your position (because it's use was a logical fallacy).

My comment of "link" in response to your silly post was for a link to this claim of yours:

"Anyway, I'm not going to get started on the "dance of death" as some have amusingly called it. I just found it funny that you get all hot-and-bothered about bad sourcing, when you yourself are guilty of the same."

You aren't a very good dancer.

Arch or myboynoah called it that; can't remember which. Look it up yourself.

About par for the course.