rhaig

wow... I quit using that non-argument in Jr High. -- Rob

So you do support the creation of the largest entitlement program ever created. ah... wordsmithing now are we??? see, I disagree that it's an entitlement program. An entitlement program, as you're using it refers to programs like welfare that hand out benefits that are never paid back. A prebate tax check ala fairtax proposal is paid back with taxes paid on essential items for family needs (food, clothing, gasonline etc...) So no. I don't support creating more entitlement programs (of any size). But I would support the fairtax proposal should it come up in a political arena (however unlikely that may be for the reasons I've previously stated). -- Rob

wait... I'm confused. I thought the Kiwi's were the sheep fuckers. -- Rob

from what I can tell you don't design your comments to appeal to anything. -- Rob

I had a rare steak the other night that was really rare. (by definition, a cool red center) And I didn't think about this thread at all. I enjoyed my meal. It didn't prove anything to anyone except me (that I still love a nice cut of meat, and that cow is yummy). -- Rob

he seems pissed off that people like Rush Limbaugh who operate their lives as part of a small business get schedule C income deductions. He claimed I was trying to discredit him by saying he didn't like small business. I was not. So I clarified myself. -- Rob

You are supporting the largest entitlement program ever considered. You would have EVERY adult over the age of 18 getting a govt check. well, every household with a tax payer in it. To offset the taxes they pay on essentials for their family. The difference between that and what we have now is that now, rather than getting a monthly prebate, if you're entitled to deductions for you, and your family, you're letting the government hold your money until the end of the year when you take your deductions on your income tax and get your refund. It's the same bottom line. Either you pay them, and they pay you back, or they pay you, and you pay them back. The difference is that now, you pay tax based on your income, not how much you spend. If you really can't afford it, don't spend it. That's the other reason fairtax won't get enacted. Right now to hasten economic recovery, we need people to spend. Except you completely ignore the FEDERAL GOVT is the one cutting all the checks. I did not ignore that. I thought you already knew that and I wouldn't have to explain it to you. Clearly I was right. and it would increase tax revenue to the fed. Decrease cost of running the tax revenue programs, and make the way we gather taxes constitutional. -- Rob

so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong) How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax? FAIR? Define "fair" in this context. Tax protocols and rates are set to give the maximum revenue with fewest complaints from supporting voters. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. the only time I used the word "fair" was in a question. "Is it not fair that they're making more money?" I was asking why those with more income should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. so my context of the use of the word "fair" is regarding income, not tax. You and other posters have put that word in my mouth with regards to tax rates. -- Rob

what all the vacillations mean to me is that neither side really has any facts to prove anything. -- Rob

catch up. we're talking about the tax proposal referred to by it's authors as the "fair tax proposal" (fairtax.org) not being fair or unfair to anyone. and as it is written and when it was written, with the numbers it uses, it actually increases tax revenue to the US govt. Isn't that what the higher taxes you want are all about really? Increasing the tax revenue? -- Rob

let me clarify since you don't use that section of the tax code. you seem pissed off about schedule C deductions one can get by running a small business. You Mentioned deductions that Rush might take due to expenses while travelling didn't you? Well, those would be schedule C business expense deductions. And there's no need to discredit you. Enough people here view your posts as entertainment value only. I don't need to throw wood on that fire. so if instead of saying small business, I say schedule C deductions, then I stand by my original statement. What you really seem upset about is all the schedule C deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small (or what some might call) personal business (and to clarify I'll add) as a means of tax avoidance against their primary income sources. I'm not trying to discredit anyone. I was trying to get your thoughts on the possibility of a system without schedule C deductions. But take it as you will. -- Rob

ditto on that, but add a wife -- Rob

yes, I believe I stated something very similar in another thread. If only we were talking about handing out tax breaks instead of why or why not a national sales tax is regressive or not. I still say it's not. -- Rob

The fair tax plan says people have to, "register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member." Now, who do you think will be the 'sales tax administering authority'? Anyone that supports smaller Govt should have a problem with the fair tax plan as written. what, you think that I believe that fairtax would eliminate the IRS? come on. I'm not that stupid, and you're not that non-observant. And the state authorities that already oversee sales taxation would take a large part in overseeing this tax collection. it changes the role of the IRS. it shrinks in size. It costs less to run. -- Rob

No a better matchup could be: Bruce Willis/Arnold Schwarzenegger vs Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert The macho Hollywood heros against the late night talk show comedians With those choices I want the Mayans to be right. with those choices, they ARE right. -- Rob

We have discussed this during last two pages, and this statement is not supported by: - Statistics from countries where personal gun ownership/carrying is severely restricted versus U.S.; - Statistics from U.S. cities where gun ownership or carrying is severely restricted; None of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. right. did you notice I labeled it my opinion? Because I knew you wouldn't agree with it and I don't really care what you think. More my point was the difference in the desire between the two groups. -- Rob

the plan discusses the size reduction of the IRS and it's savings by doing so. Adding the prebate check processing (which will be highly automated), but at the same time eliminating tax return processing (which isn't nearly as automatable). Would result in a net reduction in size. It's understandable if you don't believe me. I don't really care. FairTax will never get implemented anyway. Too many people knee-jerk at the sales tax aspect of it and don't take the time to understand it. Including the lying cheating politicians we elect. (oops... there I go being redundant again) -- Rob

Meat is MURDER!! Tasty Tasty murder!!! :) -- Rob

That hurts the poor more than the rich. The only truly "fair" tax is a flat rate that starts to accumulate once above the poverty level. go read fairtax.org National sales tax with a monthly prebate based on number of dependants. Family of 4 gets more than $500/month to cover the sales tax they'll pay on essential items. -- Rob

on an absolute value basis, they will generally spend more. They may also save, but a family making $0.5M per year, is going to spend a lot more (absolute dollar value, not percentage of income) on consumables than a family that makes $50K, or even $100K. -- Rob

given enough time for gun numbers to decrease (years likely) I see that as a possible outcome. However, violent crime would increase (in my opinion) as the law abiding wouldn't have the option of a firearm for self or home defense. The bad guys would only have to take a beating if their crime failed. This is one of the problems with the anti-gun/pro-gun arguments. Anti-gunners want a decrease in gun related crimes. Pro gunners want a decrease in violent crime. you stated "If restricting guns would prevent incidents like recent shooting sprees AND even keep the same crime rate we have now, the choice is quite obvious. " what if restricting guns decreased crimes that were committed with guns but more crime overall was committed (with knives, clubs, fists rape... violent crimes)?? would the choice then be as obvious? -- Rob

perhaps, but that's not the experience I was referring to. Dealing with the large, slow moving, goverment machine kind of experience is what I meant. (and I think you know it, but nice deflection) His staff too. They apparently still wanted to use facebook and AOL IM for communications in the white house. Yeah... no security implications there... -- Rob

so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong) How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax? -- Rob

what you really seem upset about is all the deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small business. What about a system with no deductions? How about a system designed by economists, not politicians? -- Rob

no... it was a meatball pitch that someone already swung at. butt pirates humor is not totally lost. well, on you maybe. It's a web forum. stop taking it so damn seriously. (now go cry to bill that it was a PA...) -- Rob