joedirt 0 #1 October 23, 2007 Know of any candidates other than Huckabee who support it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 October 23, 2007 I can't name names, but there are quite a few in Congress (mostly on the right side of the aisle) who would support it, but only with a Constitutional amendment repealing the sixteenth amendment. One of the more notable supporters is GA Rep, John Linder (R). He's been one of the leaders of the effort in Congress.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 October 23, 2007 There is no way that it will happen, I hate to say. It'll put CPA's, etc., out of business. No way they'll let that happen. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #4 October 23, 2007 QuoteKnow of any candidates other than Huckabee who support it? Too many tax accountants, lobbyists and lawyers would be instantly unemployed; it hasn't a chance of success.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #5 October 23, 2007 I've said it before and I'll say it again - the good Professor isn't always wrong. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #6 October 23, 2007 Not to mention the fact that it's not 'fair' to begin with. But hey, it sells a lot better than the 'fuck you in the ass' tax. Fox News figured this all out - tell people you are 'fair and balanced' in your slogan, and many take you at your word. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 October 23, 2007 QuoteNot to mention the fact that it's not 'fair' to begin with. I think "fair" is about the most subjective word in the language. So discussing that aspect is about as productive as pushing the ocean back with a fork. What are the key points: 1 - it's progressive (via the refund). The argument about whether it's progressive enough is the main subjective part you are beefing on, right? THe level of progressiveness will be defined by 2 things mainly - the refund amount per citizen, and the actual tax rate. 2 - other stuff that won't matter in the end Here's how it'll fail if actually passed: a - instead of pissing around with the tax tables etc, now all Congress has to do to make it as bad as the current setup is to just raise the refund per citizen until a huge portion of the population essentially gets all or more of their taxes returned - I'm surprised the extreme liberals haven't figured this out already. Then, those that still spend a lot will have to deal with the incredibly increased tax rate. So still, the richest of those that spend a lot will still carry the entire tax load. It'll just get to that point a LOT quicker than our current system is doing it. b - the stifling of spending on discretionary stuff will be choked. Only the rich will buy things. c - lastly - eventually, someone will try to find a way to decide who gets how much of a cost of living refund in order (rather than the same to all) to also make that a progressive award. Again, I'm surprised the extreme social liberals haven't figured this out, either. In a nutshell, while fiscal conservatives are excited about the intended purpose of the concept, I think it can be twisted into their worst nightmare with little effort. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 October 23, 2007 QuoteNot to mention the fact that it's not 'fair' to begin with. But hey, it sells a lot better than the 'fuck you in the ass' tax. Fox News figured this all out - tell people you are 'fair and balanced' in your slogan, and many take you at your word. A tax based on consumption with exemptions for necessities would be a lot more 'fair' than what we have now. Dig at a news network that provides more even coverage of events than any other ignored.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #9 October 23, 2007 Quote A tax based on consumption with exemptions for necessities would be a lot more 'fair' than what we have now. Here's your "fair" - Final result example (exagerated - or is it?): We start with a 33% tax and a $10K/person/year check from the government for everyone. But, due to 'fairness' and 'compassion' these are adjusted so the rich pay their fair share and the poor get a little help that they 'deserve'. Tax - 90% on every purchase Refund - everyone gets a $45K per person check from the government. So - for single workers - if you spend $50K or less per year/per person, you get ALL the tax back as "exemptions for necessities). If you spend less, you end up with extra. For every dollar over $50K per year the government will take pretty much all of it. But, that's not good enough. They'll "pre-exempt" food and clothing so that people that only spend on real necessities will get a bigger annual government check than what they'd make in a job. Most wouldn't even have to work at all. A family of 3 gets $135K/year regardless of their spending habits. NICE. But, that's not good enough They'll find a way to reduce the refund for those that do make more than $50K/year in order to retain those refunds too. It's a liberal's wet dream come true. 90% tax on 3% of the population, everyone else gets a big fat check and doesn't need jobs. I'd still rather just see a flat income tax rate (which is progressive in terms of contribution), no exemptions for anything or anyone. Balance the loss of the exemption with barebones food and clothing service programs (maybe even, gasp, barebones health care also) that would only be used by the very poor and ignored by those with means. Everybody then pays and has a sense of ownership, rather than entitlement. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #10 October 23, 2007 Quote ... Then, those that still spend a lot will have to deal with the incredibly increased tax rate. So still, the richest of those that spend a lot will still carry the entire tax load. ... You do know why Willie Sutton robbed banks, right?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 October 23, 2007 QuoteYou do know why Willie Sutton robbed banks, right? He was a 'Stuntman', and these were well planned and executed "stunts". It doesn't matter that he had little experience in neither banking or accounting, he also rode motorcross, and did a bit of work on several Lee Majors movies. You guys are just jealous because he did a KICKASS bank robbery and you don't have the guts to do it yourself. I know him personally and think he's ready to do swoops under a V97 at only 87 jumps. Frankly, I think it'll help the banking industry. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #12 October 23, 2007 What happens when you buy lots of stuff direct from China, as I do now? I suppose China will forward the proper US federal tax on to the USG? What about black market sales? Start the fair tax and watch the black market explode. No longer will they be dropping bales of weed off florida - it will be iPods and laptops. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #13 October 23, 2007 QuoteWhat happens when you buy lots of stuff direct from China, as I do now? I suppose China will forward the proper US federal tax on to the USG? What about black market sales? Start the fair tax and watch the black market explode. No longer will they be dropping bales of weed off florida - it will be iPods and laptops. Cool, Hillary or Rudy (or whoever) can launch a "War on Electronics" - of course, to fight it we'll have to raise the tax rate again. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #14 October 23, 2007 I propose a fair tax: 99.999% wealth tax on anyone possessing total assets of any sort in excess of $1B. The rest of us don't pay any tax. Steeply progressive, fair to almost everyone!My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #15 October 23, 2007 QuoteI propose a fair tax: 99.999% wealth tax on anyone possessing total assets of any sort in excess of $1B. The rest of us don't pay any tax. Steeply progressive, fair to almost everyone! Clearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #16 October 23, 2007 QuoteClearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes." The correct way to phrase it is "Only individuals pay taxes."Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #17 October 23, 2007 Or, Wealth redistribution according to some (mainly on the left) my wife and I are rich. A cop and retail manager, go figure "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #18 October 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteClearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes." The correct way to phrase it is "Only individuals pay taxes." Whoosh.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteClearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes." The correct way to phrase it is "Only individuals pay taxes." Very true - It seem like if Congress is REALLY concerned about the financial health of the lower income groups, they'd not be trying to raise taxes on those evil corporations all the time, since they just add the extra to the cost of their products and the consumer ends up paying the tax.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteI propose a fair tax: 99.999% wealth tax on anyone possessing total assets of any sort in excess of $1B. The rest of us don't pay any tax. Steeply progressive, fair to almost everyone! Clearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes." While I don't dispute the fact that EVERYONE (including the rich) try to pay the least amount of taxes that they can, the IRS says your quip (From Leona Helmsley, is it not?) is incorrect: "New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #21 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI propose a fair tax: 99.999% wealth tax on anyone possessing total assets of any sort in excess of $1B. The rest of us don't pay any tax. Steeply progressive, fair to almost everyone! Clearly you don't get it. "Only the little people pay taxes." While I don't dispute the fact that EVERYONE (including the rich) try to pay the least amount of taxes that they can, the IRS says your quip (From Leona Helmsley, is it not?) is incorrect: "New data released by the IRS today offers interesting insights into the distributional spread of the federal income tax burden, new analysis by the Tax Foundation shows. The new data shows that the top-earning 25% of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86%). The top 1% of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2% of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns." SO? Do you know who Willie Sutton was? He had an insight that you seem to lack.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #22 October 24, 2007 QuoteDo you know who Willie Sutton was? He had an insight that you seem to lack. Funny thing is, Willie claimed he never said that..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #23 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you know who Willie Sutton was? He had an insight that you seem to lack. Funny thing is, Willie claimed he never said that..... He was a liar too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #24 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteDo you know who Willie Sutton was? He had an insight that you seem to lack. Funny thing is, Willie claimed he never said that..... Both are still good quotes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #25 October 24, 2007 And the IRS has information that you seem to lack...your point being?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
