NationStates Jolt Archive

Finally, someone has realized that the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, is a huge burden on ordinary taxpayers. It was developed (http://hnn.us/articles/11819.html) in 1969, in order to tax 155 individuals that had taken advantage of legal exclusions to avoid any tax at all. That's it. One hundred fifty-five people. Over time, administrations have just piled on, rather than really evaluating the need for an AMT. Originally, it was a 10 percent flat tax, but it has grown to a two tier system: 26 percent and 28 percent for individuals.

John McCain has decided (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070723/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy_2;_ylt=As4UIOvxSXZCyV8E0b9KJaQE1vAI) that his new strategy will include the elimination of the AMT.

If he would only call for the elimination of the IRS and promote the Fair Tax, I think he'd have a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming President.

Too bad his campaign is already in the toilet, which is ignoring the fact he had no chance to win anyway.

Clutching at straws.

He worked out people don't like paying tax! Wow :p

You realize that he'd say that he believes the tooth fairy is a terrorist and should be shot on sight if he thinks it'll get him a few more votes.

McCain is the political equivalent of the T-1000 from Terminator 2; He can take any form necessary to get the job done. *nod*

You realize that he'd say that he believes the tooth fairy is a terrorist and should be shot on sight if he thinks it'll get him a few more votes.

McCain is the political equivalent of the T-1000 from Terminator 2; He can take any form necessary to get the job done. *nod*
Genius.
Today he is a hardcore conservative hanging out with the fundies.
Tomorrow: the most moderate person in the GOP race trying to court the moderate independents!

McCain: The True Story starring Dana Carvey as John McCain, the man of many faces.


If the Republicans want to start throwing around "waffle" again, McCain can start his own franchise.

It's unfortunate McCain lost the respect I had for him during the last seven years. He hasn't a prayer and what he blathers about at this point is useless.

Too bad his campaign is already in the toilet, which is ignoring the fact he had no chance to win anyway.

Indeed, but imo I think the GOP is going to have to give some ground to the centre if they really want to get pragmatic about winning, especially on the war.

If they give any ground to the center, they lose their hardcore base which far outnumbers the "center" since their hardcore base are old people and fundamentalists which all rally each other to go vote out of spite for people they don't want to win.

It's unfortunate McCain lost the respect I had for him during the last seven years. He hasn't a prayer and what he blathers about at this point is useless.

It's truly sad. He had real perspective on the war, with one son fighting in it and his own experiences in Vietnam (which he *shock* actually fought in unlike Rush "Anal Warts" Limbaugh). He seemed less likely to do exactly what he is doing: pandering to both sides and flip flopping more than a fish out of water.

What I hate about Presidential campaign promises is that no one asks, "well, what's the chance that would pass Congress?"

If they give any ground to the center, they lose their hardcore base which far outnumbers the "center" since their hardcore base are old people and fundamentalists which all rally each other to go vote out of spite for people they don't want to win.

You seriously think the GOP can win just by relying on their far-right support?

You seriously think the GOP can win just by relying on their far-right support?
You think they can win by doing something that would cause their fundie supporters to drop them? Their fundamentalist on a voting basis far outweigh any others because they exist in groups and out of spite. That leads them to have a high voter turn out.

Dude.

McCain's hardly the first to make sense.

Ron Paul has been making complete sense since Day One.

Get a clue.

Except Ron Paul is a crackpot :rolleyes:

Any idiot Republican worth his snuff is going to advocate the lessening of taxes.

You think they can win by doing something that would cause their fundie supporters to drop them? Their fundamentalist on a voting basis far outweigh any others because they exist in groups and out of spite. That leads them to have a high voter turn out.

The extremes of both parties are necessary to each party to achieve victory and to get the mobilization necessary.

However, who else are the extremes going to vote for?

If, for example, Giuliani gets nominated, and he's not against abortion, who are the fundies going to vote for? Sure, some will stay home - but the rest of them will be afraid of a Democrat in the White House.

It works the other way around, too. Sure, if someone like Hillary gets nominated, there are some anti-war moonbats who will stay home and not vote - but most will still go to the polls and support her candidacy, because the specter of another 4 years of Republican White House would be too much to bear.

It would be smart to stay slightly to the extreme (but not too far - use ass-covering doublespeak so you can deny your position later) until nominated, and then move to the center for the election.

Except Ron Paul is a crackpot :rolleyes:

Any idiot Republican worth his snuff is going to advocate the lessening of taxes.

Yeah some of the stuff he has said is stupid, including some weird comment I remember about an embassy bigger than the Vatican in Iraq, and something about China and Mexico which I remember was qute ridiculous, and some of his libertarian views such as that the government shouldn't protect the welfare of it's people, and scrapping taxes, but that's standard GOP stuff anyway. The only thing that really makes him different is the non-interventionist idea, which isn't so bad.

So yeah, he's a crackpot, but seriously go on youtube and watch the debate, they're all crackpots pretty much.

Except Ron Paul is a crackpot :rolleyes:

...How?

Finally, someone has realized that the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, is a huge burden on ordinary taxpayers. It was developed (http://hnn.us/articles/11819.html) in 1969, in order to tax 155 individuals that had taken advantage of legal exclusions to avoid any tax at all. That's it. One hundred fifty-five people. Over time, administrations have just piled on, rather than really evaluating the need for an AMT. Originally, it was a 10 percent flat tax, but it has grown to a two tier system: 26 percent and 28 percent for individuals.

John McCain has decided (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070723/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy_2;_ylt=As4UIOvxSXZCyV8E0b9KJaQE1vAI) that his new strategy will include the elimination of the AMT.

If he would only call for the elimination of the IRS and promote the Fair Tax, I think he'd have a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming President.
everyone with half a brain knows that the AMT needs to go bye-bye......

So yeah, he's a crackpot, but seriously go on youtube and watch the debate, they're all crackpots pretty much.

Or, you could watch the Democratic debates, and die of boredom.

Or, you could watch the Democratic debates, and die of boredom.

I've watched both, and yeah it's true the democrats pretty much all agreed on most issues, but then again so did the Republicans except for Paul.

Giuliani on the other hand, I really don't see how being in charge of NYC when 9/11 happened really makes him any better, he seems to be a one-trick pony, beyond terrorism rhetoric he has nothing.

everyone with half a brain knows that the AMT needs to go bye-bye......

Then we have an awful lot of Congressmen with less than that.

Personally, I would never vote for McCain because of his Incumbent Protection Act that masquerades as campaign finance reform. But my hope is that this will strike a chord with voters and catch on with the real voters. The FairTax would be a better campaign issue, but I don't think politicians are ready for that, yet.

It works the other way around, too. Sure, if someone like Hillary gets nominated, there are some will stay home and not vote - but most will still go to the polls and support her candidacy, because the specter of another 4 years of Republican White House would be too much to bear.
Because that totally worked 4 years ago.

anti-war moonbats
Crackpot.

Or, you could watch the Democratic debates, and die of boredom.

Or watch the Republican debates and die of boredom and a severe drop in IQ.

Personally, I would never vote for McCain because...
He's so desperate he'll whore himself out to any platform if he thinks it'll garner a vote or two?

I've watched both, and yeah it's true the democrats pretty much all agreed on most issues, but then again so did the Republicans except for Paul.

Giuliani on the other hand, I really don't see how being in charge of NYC when 9/11 happened really makes him any better, he seems to be a one-trick pony, beyond terrorism rhetoric he has nothing.

Call me when you find a politician of any ilk who has any real substance, or isn't lying through their teeth.

Hey, if you say 'fundies' I can say 'moonbats'. ;)
Fundie is short for fundamentalist, though I wouldn't take you for some one clever enough to understand that it is a shortening of a word, not an insult made up by some one whose profession is "jackass."

Because that totally worked 4 years ago.


Crackpot.

Hey, if you say 'fundies' I can say 'moonbats'. ;)

If he would only call for the elimination of the IRS and promote the Fair Tax, I think he'd have a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming President.

Ron Paul has done both of those things. Eliminating the IRS seems to be one of his biggest issues.

Call me when you find a politician of any ilk who has any real substance, or isn't lying through their teeth.
living or dead?
dead - not that difficult.
living - damn! ya got me there!

Well, the question in my mind is: What is he going to be as President if he wins and drops the act?

If his old self is any indication, he might make an excellent president. On the other hand, CAN he drop the act? Or is he going to be so sold out to the various special interests whose collective dicks he had to suck to get this far that there's nothing left?

Dare we find out?

Well, the question in my mind is: What is he going to be as President if he wins and drops the act?

If his old self is any indication, he might make an excellent president. On the other hand, CAN he drop the act? Or is he going to be so sold out to the various special interests whose collective dicks he had to suck to get this far that there's nothing left?

Dare we find out?

Can you name a President who didn't sell out to either special interests or poll numbers in order to suck massive dick?

Well, the question in my mind is: What is he going to be as President if he wins and drops the act?

If his old self is any indication, he might make an excellent president. On the other hand, CAN he drop the act? Or is he going to be so sold out to the various special interests whose collective dicks he had to suck to get this far that there's nothing left?

Dare we find out?
McCain would make a great president, what with his ability to pander to every single special interest while maintaining staunch and unwavering support for a number of positions the majority of America opposes and with his lack of self-respect, he would do anything for the people!

Can you name a President who didn't sell out to either special interests or poll numbers in order to suck massive dick?

Jimmy Carter. :)

Look what that got him. If he had been any more unpopular, they would have tarred and feathered him when Reagan was elected.
Read: "Oh no, some one found a not-totally-corrupt president, better go on the offensive immediately and muddy up his name a bit."

Jimmy Carter. :)

Look what that got him. If he had been any more unpopular, they would have tarred and feathered him when Reagan was elected.

Look what that got him. If he had been any more unpopular, they would have tarred and feathered him when Reagan was elected.

He was a mixed bag. ButI never understood why people assessed him so much blame for the screwed up hostage rescue. It's not like he planned it. He's the president. He wasn't poring over intel maps and standing over mock-ups of the landing zone saying, "And the helicopters will lay down cover fire from the north..."

No. He picked up a phone and called the mlitary rescuer general guy and said, "Rescue them." Military general guy(who was probably a fuck-up for decades before that) screwed it up.

But I digress. We're talking about McCain. I actually pity him because he couldn't get elected when he was (relatively) honest and forthright. He had to become everything he hated to have a shot at the presidency. Politics sucks. :p

If he had gotten the nod to run against Gore in 2000, I would have voted for him. *nod*

But I digress. We're talking about McCain. I actually pity him because he couldn't get elected when he was (relatively) honest and forthright. He had to become everything he hated to have a shot at the presidency. Politics sucks. :p

He seems like a nice guy. But you know where nice guys finish.

He seems like a nice guy. But you know where nice guys finish.
Behind the kind of people you vote for?

Then we have an awful lot of Congressmen with less than that.
yes we do. We also have a lot of congressmen who bow down to their idiotic constituency, there is still very much the feeling within the idiotic group that the AMT is a rich people tax, even though for years it has been consistently kicking the crap out of the middle class.

Behind the kind of people you vote for?

And who would that be? Or do I vote "against" some people?

living or dead?
dead - not that difficult.
living - damn! ya got me there!

Easy.

Dead: Barry Goldwater
Living: Ron Paul

Living: Ron Paul

Dr. Fleetfooted covers up his background like any good politician. How is he different.

I once considered supporting Ron Paul's campaign. That lasted all of about 5 minutes. His oft-forgotten proposed repeal of the 14th Amendment effectively killed any sympathy he might have gained from me, especially since it contradicts his public "defender of the Constitution" image.

Finally, someone has realized that the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, is a huge burden on ordinary taxpayers. It was developed (http://hnn.us/articles/11819.html) in 1969, in order to tax 155 individuals that had taken advantage of legal exclusions to avoid any tax at all. That's it. One hundred fifty-five people. Over time, administrations have just piled on, rather than really evaluating the need for an AMT. Originally, it was a 10 percent flat tax, but it has grown to a two tier system: 26 percent and 28 percent for individuals.

John McCain has decided (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070723/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy_2;_ylt=As4UIOvxSXZCyV8E0b9KJaQE1vAI) that his new strategy will include the elimination of the AMT.

If he would only call for the elimination of the IRS and promote the Fair Tax, I think he'd have a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming President.

Too bad he wasn't man enough when it counted - on stage with that sniveling little smear of disease-ridden excrement Bush when he was doing the "POW-chiding" campaign tactic. He should've throttled Bush within a few of his last gulps of undeserved air, or something like that.
If that wasn't enough, he started the evangelical fellatio again. Now there's integrity. :(

McCain should be automatically discounted if only for the fact that he's so totally blown his campaign that we should all fear his presidency.

He's gone through HOW much money? He achieved what? He's actually gone down in ratings and, from all accounts, he didn't even know he had little money left.

One can blame the campaign managers but really, with friends like that, he doesn't need enemies.

I'm sure he's a great guy but I wouldn't trust him to organise shoelaces into a knot let alone the largest economy in the world.

Giuliani on the other hand, I really don't see how being in charge of NYC when 9/11 happened really makes him any better, he seems to be a one-trick pony, beyond terrorism rhetoric he has nothing.Eh, fuck him and his anti-weasel stance.

McCain should be automatically discounted if only for the fact that he's so totally blown his campaign that we should all fear his presidency.

He's gone through HOW much money? He achieved what? He's actually gone down in ratings and, from all accounts, he didn't even know he had little money left.

One can blame the campaign managers but really, with friends like that, he doesn't need enemies.

I'm sure he's a great guy but I wouldn't trust him to organise shoelaces into a knot let alone the largest economy in the world.

meh, he deserved it, I remember when he first came into the race and announced and he seemed to be genuine center kinda politician, saying stuff like he wanted to close Gitmo etc, but he quickly sold out and basically overnight became a raving neocon.

meh, he deserved it...

I agree - nothing I've seen gives me any confidence in his acumen.

...How?

He claims that blacks are stupid and criminals.

If he would only call for the elimination of the IRS and promote the Fair Tax, I think he'd have a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming President.Ron Paul has done both of those things. Eliminating the IRS seems to be one of his biggest issues.

therefore ron paul has a lock on the nomination and a very good chance at becoming president

lojicts to teh rezqueue!

He claims that blacks are stupid and criminals.

no no no, he merely allowed somebody to ghost-write that in his name and published it in his personal newsletter, "the ron paul 'black helicopter are coming' survivalist guide" and then didn't immediately distance himself from the statement. see? totally different.

i haven't yet been able to get a hold of copies of the various incarnations of his newsletter (they have them in madison, but they are in off-site storage somewhere), but one of them is listed as being about 'international banking and globalism', which are fairly well-known and obvious codewords used in certain less than savory circles.

no no no, he merely allowed somebody to ghost-write that in his name and published it in his personal newsletter, "the ron paul 'black helicopter are coming' survivalist guide" and then didn't immediately distance himself from the statement. see? totally different.

i haven't yet been able to get a hold of copies of the various incarnations of his newsletter (they have them in madison, but they are in off-site storage somewhere), but one of them is listed as being about 'international banking and globalism', which are fairly well-known and obvious codewords used in certain less than savory circles.
Ron Paul is like "oh, I didn't write that, but I refuse to say those arn't my personal beliefs" and then gets all irreverent when people ask to see other things he has written. Ron Paul is dicking everyone around and all the Libertarians and Goldwaterists are happy to have a non-neocon on the GOP ticket so support his crazy ass, then again I don't trust the Libertarians anyway...

then again I don't trust the Libertarians anyway...

well, they do have this amazing tendency to come out in support of imperialist wars of aggression and massive domestic spying programs. not uniformly, but it is surprising how quickly a number of their notables jumped ship from 'libertarianism' to fascism with tax cuts

well, they do have this amazing tendency to come out in support of imperialist wars of aggression and massive domestic spying programs. not uniformly, but it is surprising how quickly a number of their notables jumped ship from 'libertarianism' to fascism with tax cuts
It's funny that you say that. The Libertarian Party platform doesn't support any such thing. I don't see how strict Constitutionalists could ever support domestic spying, either...Folks that left the party don't count.

But don't let any facts get in your way.


[edit]
I started a five star thread? How did that happen?

The Fair Tax is anything but. It will be a huge burden on the poor, who already struggle to buy everyday things, while the rich can easily buy what they need and pay the tax. Also, rich people just let their money collect dust in the bank. Exceptions being Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who plan to donate or have donated a lot of their money back to society. Warren Buffett even believes that the rich should pay more taxes.

We should certainly keep excise, estate, and gift taxes to say the least. Income tax needs to be changed, however.

[edit]
I started a five star thread? How did that happen?

What do those mean? Just curious. Are we allowed to vote on the quality of a thread?

It's funny that you say that. The Libertarian Party platform doesn't support any such thing.

i'm actually speaking more of noted 'libertarians' such as glenn reynolds, neal boortz, and dennis miller (and many more).

The Fair Tax is anything but. It will be a huge burden on the poor, who already struggle to buy everyday things, while the rich can easily buy what they need and pay the tax. Also, rich people just let their money collect dust in the bank. Exceptions being Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who plan to donate or have donated a lot of their money back to society. Warren Buffett even believes that the rich should pay more taxes.

We should certainly keep excise, estate, and gift taxes to say the least. Income tax needs to be changed, however.

Baloney, Baloney, Baloney...

You don't know anything about the FairTax, or you would realize that it exempts low wage earners from any payroll tax, whatsoever.

Go to the website, read about the prebate that covers the taxes on necessities and then tell me how the sainted poor have it so hard under the FairTax.

What do those mean? Just curious. Are we allowed to vote on the quality of a thread?
Beats the hell out of me. I just noticed in the General page that it had five stars... I do drive a Dodge, but how does it know?

The Fair Tax is anything but. It will be a huge burden on the poor, who already struggle to buy everyday things, while the rich can easily buy what they need and pay the tax. Also, rich people just let their money collect dust in the bank. Exceptions being Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, who plan to donate or have donated a lot of their money back to society. Warren Buffett even believes that the rich should pay more taxes.

We should certainly keep excise, estate, and gift taxes to say the least. Income tax needs to be changed, however.

Eh. Not sure where you got that idea. Most smart people (rich or poor) know that you never benefit by letting your accounts 'collect dust.' I would think very few wealthy people let piles of cash just sit in their checking account, given that most middle-class people I've met don't.

Beats the hell out of me. I just noticed in the General page that it had five stars... I do drive a Dodge, but how does it know?

No idea. :p I've never seen a voting function, so I'm at a loss too.

No idea. :p I've never seen a voting function, so I'm at a loss too.

its up at the top of the page, just above the actual posts, where it says either "rate thread" or "rating:" with stars after that, next to the thread tools. nobody much uses it, so the ratings can be easily swayed by just the one or two people who do.

Baloney, Baloney, Baloney...

You don't know anything about the FairTax, or you would realize that it exempts low wage earners from any payroll tax, whatsoever.

Go to the website, read about the prebate that covers the taxes on necessities and then tell me how the sainted poor have it so hard under the FairTax.

Sure, let's see how that works out. Rebates or not, the poor will still be paying a lot of taxes in an very unfair watch.

its up at the top of the page, just above the actual posts, where it says either "rate thread" or "rating:" with stars after that, next to the thread tools. nobody much uses it, so the ratings can be easily swayed by just the one or two people who do.

Aha. Got it. Interesting idea, I guess. :p

Sure, let's see how that works out. Rebates or not, the poor will still be paying a lot of taxes in an very unfair watch.


What Taxes???
No Income Tax
No SSI Tax
No Medicare Tax

Yes Sales Tax...Offset by a several hundred dollar pre-bate every month.

Sounds like a good deal to me -- More money in the paycheck and a few hundred from the Fed to boot. Prices about the same as they are now.

If anythign, AMT should be INCREASED. If someone's making $200,000 a year, then NO WAY IN HELL should they be able to get away with paying less than 20-25% of their income in tax.

I stand by my statement that they should have a 50% bracket for income in excess of $500,000 -- once you have that much, you have more than enoguh to live comfortably.

What Taxes???
No Income Tax
No SSI Tax
No Medicare Tax

Yes Sales Tax...Offset by a several hundred dollar pre-bate every month.

Sounds like a good deal to me -- More money in the paycheck and a few hundred from the Fed to boot. Prices about the same as they are now.

Sales taxes affect the poor more then that.

Especially when sales taxes will probably increase to cover the taxes lost by those eliminations.

Never mind the fact those you have listed affect your class more then the poor.....

Also, the middle class will be greatly affected by this and they won't be receiving rebates.

At South Lorenya, those ideas are good. There was once an amendment proposed to the Constitution limiting wealth to $1 million. I don't think it passed Congress though, as I cannot find it easily.

Sales taxes affect the poor more then that.

Especially when sales taxes will probably increase to cover the taxes lost by those eliminations.

Never mind the fact those you have listed affect your class more then the poor.....

Also, the middle class will be greatly affected by this and they won't be receiving rebates.

At South Lorenya, those ideas are good. There was once an amendment proposed to the Constitution limiting wealth to $1 million. I don't think it passed Congress though, as I cannot find it easily.

All I've got to say is that since ignorance is bliss, you two must be truly happy.

Let's read a section from the FairTax web site...

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

There, it's revenue neutral, progressive, and only taxes us on what we choose to spend. The sainted poor pay no federal tax at all -- that's eliminated through the pre-bates.

There is nothing wrong with the FairTax and it has many advantages over the existing system of taxes. I fail to see why anyone would oppose it, save for their ignorance and disinterest.

All I've got to say is that since ignorance is bliss, you two must be truly happy.

Let's read a section from the FairTax web site...

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

There, it's revenue neutral, progressive, and only taxes us on what we choose to spend. The sainted poor pay no federal tax at all -- that's eliminated through the pre-bates.

There is nothing wrong with the FairTax and it has many advantages over the existing system of taxes. I fail to see why anyone would oppose it, save for their ignorance and disinterest.

Well you seem to be reading what they say and take it as correct and the right idea, without looking at what it would do. That is ignorance. The "prebates" only give up to the poverty line. What about those above it? My family spends $150 on groceries for a family of 4 and my dad has a fit. I'd like to see him when there's $38 in taxes as well.

This is just a way for the rich to keep their money and the poor to lose what little they have. It would also weaken the government greatly in areas it is sorely needed: Social Security and Health Care.

I fail to see why anyone would oppose it

because it abolishes all the taxes that rich people pay and only counteracts the ridiculously unfair and regressive nature of its system up to the poverty line?

Well you seem to be reading what they say and take it as correct and the right idea, without looking at what it would do. That is ignorance. The "prebates" only give up to the poverty line. What about those above it? My family spends $150 on groceries for a family of 4 and my dad has a fit. I'd like to see him when there's $38 in taxes as well.

This is just a way for the rich to keep their money and the poor to lose what little they have. It would also weaken the government greatly in areas it is sorely needed: Social Security and Health Care.

Fortunately, the world is made up of more educated and less ignorant people than your self. Did you notice that this is a retail sales tax, only? No, of course not -- that would have required effort. The taxes that are currently embedded in the wholesale markets would disappear and the prices are expected to stabilize at about what they are now. That's not my conclusion, that's the conclusion of a number of economists that have vetted the plan. Translation? Your Dad won't throw the fit you expect because $150 of groceries is still going to cost $150. Plus, he'll have brought about 25% more home in his check.

Plus, did you notice that I said revenue neutral? No, I'm sure that went right by, too. Translation? SSI and Medicare are funded through the retail sales tax at the same levels they are currently receiving.

Last, your misunderstanding of the prebates is incredible. Everyone receives them and they are based on family size. They cover the taxes on the necessities of life.

because it abolishes all the taxes that rich people pay and only counteracts the ridiculously unfair and regressive nature of its system up to the poverty line?
That's just silly talk. Do you really believe that sort of stuff, or is it just so ingrained into you at school that you can't help spouting it out?

Sure, let's see how that works out. Rebates or not, the poor will still be paying a lot of taxes in an very unfair watch.

Exactly. "Low wage earners" is way too ambiguous for it to even be worth touting.

I fail to see why anyone would oppose it,
Because not everyone is blinded by the "omg no moar IRS or incum tacks!"


Last, your misunderstanding of the prebates is incredible. Everyone receives them and they are based on family size. They cover the taxes on the necessities of life.
Because we see how much the government knows about cost of living now don't we? I'm sure I trust them to put in enough "prebates" to cover the actual cost of living for families instead of a fraction of that cost.

Fortunately, the world is made up of more educated and less ignorant people than your self. Did you notice that this is a retail sales tax, only? No, of course not -- that would have required effort. The taxes that are currently embedded in the wholesale markets would disappear and the prices are expected to stabilize at about what they are now. That's not my conclusion, that's the conclusion of a number of economists that have vetted the plan. Translation? Your Dad won't throw the fit you expect because $150 of groceries is still going to cost $150. Plus, he'll have brought about 25% more home in his check.

Plus, did you notice that I said revenue neutral? No, I'm sure that went right by, too. Translation? SSI and Medicare are funded through the retail sales tax at the same levels they are currently receiving.

Last, your misunderstanding of the prebates is incredible. Everyone receives them and they are based on family size. They cover the taxes on the necessities of life.

Well, of course many people are more educated. I will be going into my final year of high school, but I know enough to know that this plan is utter crap. Having money taken away every time you buy something will put a jab in everyone's back. When it's all at once at a known, set time, people can handle it.

Yeah I'd like to see SS and health care get paid with a little sales tax. What will happen to our defense budget?

So what about a couple who don't have children, but make little money?

That's just silly talk. Do you really believe that sort of stuff, or is it just so ingrained into you at school that you can't help spouting it out?

He made a good point.

Because not everyone is blinded by the "omg no moar IRS or incum tacks!"


Because we see how much the government knows about cost of living now don't we? I'm sure I trust them to put in enough "prebates" to cover the actual cost of living for families instead of a fraction of that cost.

Yes, the government would totally fuck it up. You'd never get your rebates or they'd be late. And you'd probably not get the full amount you should get. Also, won't these rebates further drain the amount of money the government has.

Yes, the government would totally fuck it up. You'd never get your rebates or they'd be late. And you'd probably not get the full amount you should get. Also, won't these rebates further drain the amount of money the government has.
Damn...This is the same government that many want to provide a secure retirement and a responsive single-payer health service... The government has already hosed up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid beyond salvage, but we want to give them more chances and more money to just screw up more programs. At least the FairTax gives us some direct control over what revenue they get for these plans...

And in conclusion, you haven't pointed out anything that couldn't be answered if you only had the initiative to READ THE FUCKING PLAN!@

FairTax.org has it all laid out. There's no point in any further discussion until we at least have common knowledge of the plan.

Damn...This is the same government that many want to provide a secure retirement and a responsive single-payer health service... The government has already hosed up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid beyond salvage, but we want to give them more chances and more money to just screw up more programs.
They screwed up Medicare and Medicaid because everyone is "omg, sosializm!" Thanks alot, Ronald Reagan. They are trying to provide social services while trying to weasel out of providing them as much as possible. If everyone stopped paying for their health insurance separately and added it into a tax on income, the government should then pay for everyone to get basic medical and dental care and pay the same or more for more indepth care. Also, it would take a major burden off US industry that pigeonholes them when competing with foreign industry and hurts their bottom line more than anything else.

At least the FairTax gives us some direct control over what revenue they get for these plans...
No it fucking doesn't. You are still giving the government money. You don't have a say in where it goes or what they do with it. Or what they get. In fact, it is worse because it relies on the government, according to you, to pretend that it knows or gives a fuck about the cost of living and provide enough "prebates" to offset things like food and drugs. I'm pretty sure my local grocery store is alot less expensive than one in California. And drugs? Since the US government is in the drug lobby's pocket, they refuse to negotiate prices down. The government will do what they are doing with Medicare/Medicaid - give social services while trying to weasel out of it because social services are icky and people will still be living below the poverty line trying to pay the absurdly large tax to feed their family after the government stipend only covers maybe 10% of it.

And in conclusion, you haven't pointed out anything that couldn't be answered if you only had the initiative to READ THE FUCKING PLAN!@
I've read it and that is why I oppose it.

I'm not enamored by "luk, no moar IRS or encum tacks! hoorai for fairtacks!" Sure, that sounds great, but the "where the money is now coming from" is just as bad as it is now. You want a FairTax? Take the base idea of the plan and then do: double rate or rate and a half on luxury goods - jewelry, cars with a blue book prices over $80k, clothing over $3k an item etc. No taxes on drugs or food or clothing under $100 an item (rough number on that last one). That is a fair tax plan, that is not what the FairTax is.

I'm not enamored by "luk, no moar IRS or encum tacks! hoorai for fairtacks!" Sure, that sounds great, but the "where the money is now coming from" is just as bad as it is now. You want a FairTax? Take the base idea of the plan and then do: double rate or rate and a half on luxury goods - jewelry, cars with a blue book prices over $80k, clothing over $3k an item etc. No taxes on drugs or food or clothing under $100 an item (rough number on that last one). That is a fair tax plan, that is not what the FairTax is.

Oh nooos! luk, ew ar not being fair to da rich! you tacks dem till dey rich nohmoar!

no moar IRS or encum tacks! hoorai for fairtacks!


It sounds good but you know it will never happen.....

You want a FairTax? Take the base idea of the plan and then do: double rate or rate and a half on luxury goods - jewelry, cars with a blue book prices over $80k, clothing over $3k an item etc. No taxes on drugs or food or clothing under $100 an item (rough number on that last one). That is a fair tax plan, that is not what the FairTax is.

also, tax the things that rich people do with their money. 'cause the money of the superwealthy is not mainly tied up in retail goods and services bought for personal consumption, but rather is vastly disproportionately being used for other sorts sales - like stock transactions.

also, tax the things that rich people do with their money. 'cause the money of the superwealthy is not mainly tied up in retail goods and services bought for personal consumption, but rather is vastly disproportionately being used for other sorts sales - like stock transactions.
Taxing stock transactions would also be a good way to deal with the rich and have them pay a fair share relative to what everyone else is paying. Of course the FairTax probably doesn't even glance at stock.

also, tax the things that rich people do with their money. 'cause the money of the superwealthy is not mainly tied up in retail goods and services bought for personal consumption, but rather is vastly disproportionately being used for other sorts sales - like stock transactions.

Actually taxing consumption hurts the middle/lower classes far more than the upper classes, and by consumption I mean goods and services taxes etc, but consumption tax aimed directly at things like capital and private equity could be effective. The best thing that could be done is more property tax for the upper-class.

Taxing stock transactions would also be a good way to deal with the rich and have them pay a fair share relative to what everyone else is paying. Of course the FairTax probably doesn't even glance at stock.
You wouldn't have to suppose if you had actually read the plan...

But molding it to your own pre-conceptions is a good way to condemn it. In fact, it's the only way.

You wouldn't have to suppose if you had actually read the plan...

But molding it to your own pre-conceptions is a good way to condemn it. In fact, it's the only way.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

What is taxed?

The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed.

You wouldn't have to suppose if you had actually read the plan...

But molding it to your own pre-conceptions is a good way to condemn it. In fact, it's the only way.
How about you point me to the part where it says stock transactions arn't exempt.

You wouldn't have to suppose if you had actually read the plan...

But molding it to your own pre-conceptions is a good way to condemn it. In fact, it's the only way.

Or, he read this part of the FAQ:

29. What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds?

Investors prosper greatly under this plan, since corporations face lower operating costs and individuals have more money to save and invest. The reform significantly enhances the retirement savings and/or retirement spending power of most Americans. The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.

Or, he read this part of the FAQ:

Actually, I read HR25 Sec 102.a.2 and came to that conclusion myself. Myrmidonisia was just posting to make it look like I was in the wrong so no one expected me of being correct.

And then look at that compared to FAQ 4. They make it look like they are out to protect the little guy and be fair. Fair my ass.

Actually, I read HR25 Sec 102.a.2 and came to that conclusion myself. Myrmidonisia was just posting to make it look like I was in the wrong so no one expected me of being correct.

And then look at that compared to FAQ 4. They make it look like they are out to protect the little guy and be fair. Fair my ass.
Wrong again. If you hadn't used the word "probably", I wouldn't have doubted you...as much. Probably connotes an assumption on your part that was indeed correct, as the FairTax is a retail sales tax on _new_ goods and services. Not financial transactions.

It's too bad that you're willing to ignore a plan that would only improve everyone's financial situation solely because someone may benefit more than another...At least you don't vote.

It's too bad that you're willing to ignore a plan that would only improve everyone's financial situation solely because someone may benefit more than another...At least you don't vote.
Too bad you are willing to support a plan just because you like the idea of no more IRS or income tax. I don't support the FairTax plan because it isn't what it claims to be and its methods for helping people under the poverty line are even sketchier than those that currently exist.

When they introduce a tax plan that doesn't provide millions, if not billions, of tax dollars in exemptions to the richest people, call me and I will support it, until then, blow your self-righteous bullshit out your ear.

Taxing stock transactions would also be a good way to deal with the rich and have them pay a fair share relative to what everyone else is paying. Of course the FairTax probably doesn't even glance at stock.

well i for one am shocked - shocked! - that the fairtax™ actually seems aimed at helping the rich make even more money while disproportionately shoving the burden on us lesser mortals who spend nearly all of their money on retail goods and services. who ever would have guessed?

Damn...This is the same government that many want to provide a secure retirement and a responsive single-payer health service... The government has already hosed up Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid beyond salvage, but we want to give them more chances and more money to just screw up more programs. At least the FairTax gives us some direct control over what revenue they get for these plans...

And in conclusion, you haven't pointed out anything that couldn't be answered if you only had the initiative to READ THE FUCKING PLAN!@

FairTax.org has it all laid out. There's no point in any further discussion until we at least have common knowledge of the plan.

I read it on wikipedia, which should be enough considering how biased it was.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

What is taxed?

The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed.

Other countries have a value-added tax, which is on the amount added to the price at each point of sale from raw materials to finished product.

Wrong again. If you hadn't used the word "probably", I wouldn't have doubted you...as much. Probably connotes an assumption on your part that was indeed correct, as the FairTax is a retail sales tax on _new_ goods and services. Not financial transactions.

It's too bad that you're willing to ignore a plan that would only improve everyone's financial situation solely because someone may benefit more than another...At least you don't vote.

Improve? Hardly. All this does is add more burden to the lower classes every time they buy something.

29. What happens to the stock market, mutual funds, and retirement funds?

Investors prosper greatly under this plan, since corporations face lower operating costs and individuals have more money to save and invest. The reform significantly enhances the retirement savings and/or retirement spending power of most Americans. The purchase of stocks is considered a purchase for investment purposes and not personal consumption so they are purchased tax free. The service fees charged by the broker, however, are personal consumption and therefore subject to tax.
So basically rich people pay far less than their fair share. I thought this was a "Fair" tax...