NationStates Jolt Archive

The President's tax reform panel was charged with the duty of simplifying the tax code. Instead, they recommend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/tax_overhaul) rewriting laws, creating new exemptions and deductions, while making the old ones more complex. This is a complete failure and the report should be rejected. This is certainly the time to start writing our representatives to promote the Fair Tax.


Chosen to find a simpler way to tax the nation, a presidential panel on Tuesday recommended two designs that would rewrite virtually every tax law for individuals and businesses.


What's worse is they have almost codified an employers responsibility to provide health insurance by making a new deduction for those who are not provided any benefits from work. What a crock. No one is responsible for themselves anymore . It's either your employer that has to provide more than a wage, or your government that has to provide whatever your employer doesn't.

So you support the government turning over all major duties to private corporations and now show you support not making those corporations do those duties.

God forbid anyone gives a second thought to the well-being of anyone but themselves, unless it is of course to interfere in their personal lives for "moral" reasons. Can some one remind me why we would want people who think like this in power?

So you support the government turning over all major duties to private corporations and now show you support not making those corporations do those duties.

God forbid anyone gives a second thought to the well-being of anyone but themselves, unless it is of course to interfere in their personal lives for "moral" reasons. Can some one remind me why we would want people who think like this in power?

Only as soon as you remind me....

Though, the deduction, at its heart, sounds fair...

If an employer does not provide benefits to an employee, then the employee gets a tax break [read, the government does not rape them of as much money], which [may/could/might] assist them in aquiring such on their own [though I doubt the break is enough to matter].

Though, however thought that convening a pannel of persons which pull hundreds of thousands a year from the US treasury, together, so as to propose a way to simply the income source in the first place is daft...

Might as well be asking the legislature to vote on cutting their pay.... How many you think would be in favor?

Might as well be asking the legislature to vote on cutting their pay.... How many you think would be in favor?
The one guy in the back doped up on prescription drugs they get from the Congressional drug program (which may or may not exist).

So you support the government turning over all major duties to private corporations and now show you support not making those corporations do those duties.

God forbid anyone gives a second thought to the well-being of anyone but themselves, unless it is of course to interfere in their personal lives for "moral" reasons. Can some one remind me why we would want people who think like this in power?
An employer only has a responsibility to provide a wage to his employees. Period. It's up to the employees to decide if that wage is fair. Any benefits are just dressed up wages. There is no right to a retirement plan, no right to health insurance, no right to educational reimbursements. Not even a place nor implements to do the work. Only the wage.

And where was any interference in moral matters encouraged? But if you want to know what I think, fine. An employer can fire an employee for any actions that reflect badly on the employer's business.

So you support the government turning over all major duties to private corporations and now show you support not making those corporations do those duties.

God forbid anyone gives a second thought to the well-being of anyone but themselves, unless it is of course to interfere in their personal lives for "moral" reasons. Can some one remind me why we would want people who think like this in power?

I was going to say this, BUT ya beat me to it.

George is going to have to raise taxes anyways. I heard a good little talk about him on PBS's Lehrer-News Hour (they show that here :confused: ) - they said that Clinton did all the hard things first (ie get the budget fixed etc) and then governed with small, popular things for the rest of the time.

Meanwhile Bush has given the people tax cuts galore, battled terrorists (uses a lot of money, but also makes you popular I guess) and just had a generally more easy time.
And now he's going to have to deal with things in the second term, and that is fixing the budget (and yes I know apparently he thinks the budget gap is getting smaller with economic growth, but that'll take years at the current rate).
At this point he's got Iraq to deal with (which many don't like), his bungled Supreme Court Choice, the whole Cheney-Plum Issue, the social security reform which wasn't that popular apparently etc etc
Before his term is over he'll be a lot less popular than he is now - or go into the history books as the most irresponsible president so far.