DaVinci

I love how the mods get to act this way.

wow... well said.

Still waiting on an a non insult reply from you.

No, and I never said I would be. But a pure consumption tax works like this: Poor guy, "That will be an additional 20% of your income to buy milk and bread." Rich guy, "That will be an additional 1% of your income to buy milk and bread." You guys think I support the poor buying crap? No. This amazes me. http://www.macon.com/2010/12/16/1379464/funding-cuts-leave-many-without.html Look at the picture. She has a nicer TV than I do and is crying about someone not paying her electric bill???? Sell the damn TV then I'll have some compassion.

No because "prebates" would give the money back to them. There are other ways to make everyone pay some tax... A flat rate tax is a prime example.

Just because the sales tax is currently doing it is no justification to make matters worse by adding a consumption tax. I used the 10 v 10k to illustrate the point. But the concept works for 50k v 1B just as well. The only "fair" tax is really a flat rate tax that starts somewhere after a standard deduction for necessities has been reached. Before that point (and I dare not give a number or someone will focus on the number instead of the concept) there is no tax owed. After that number a standard rate is applied to ALL income no matter the source. The rate of tax would be determined by the budget. (God, I know I am gonna regret this.....) You take the number above 'poverty' that are left and figure out how much they all made and what equal % each would have to pay to cover the budget. So say it was 19% (a number I have seen used). then each person over the 'poverty level' would pay that % on the income they made from any source. Payroll? 19% Dividends? 19% Capital Gains? 19% Source does not matter, all income is taxed at that rate. The guy making 50k over 'poverty' pays 9,500 The guy making 100k over pays 19,000 The guy making 1m over pays 190,000 etc. Remove ALL but 401k deductions. This has the added benefit of making people pay attention to what the Govt does. Because they are going to have to pay for it, not just someone else. The IRS can be greatly reduced since a 4th grader can add up all sources of income and get a %.

No, I am now just stooping to your level since it is all you seem to be able to do. No, because the consumption tax would be FEDERAL revenues, not STATE. Strike one!!! No since the FED GOVT would be sending mthly checks. So size would INCREASE. Strike two!!!! you have not even read the proposal. If necessities were not taxed you would not need the prebate. Really, read the things you seem to claim to back. Strike three!!!! and you are gone!!!! Yes, since you were unable to discuss them, you are free to continue to ignore them.

I used the extremes to show the concept. Some got all wrapped around the axle and avoided to point. Still a consumption tax hurts the less paid more than the rich. To drop the 'poor' BS side debate. Take someone firmly in the middle class.... He still pays MORE as a % of his income as tax for the Xbox than the millionaire. AND THAT IS THE POINT. Got it... you are unable, so you just are not going to look silly trying. You said TX was doing great with "tax free weekends", I showed that tax revenues are down.

Because the end of the year is fast approaching and tax issues need to be figured out before then. Waiting till Jan 1 will have an impact on the tax plan, but will not have an impact on START. Simple as that really.

I (and others) have tried to discuss substance with you... all I got was childish insults in return. My posts are more mature than yours. That is clear.

The black beret is a little different. I don't agree with it, but they changed the Army uniform. Still stupid they took it from the people who earned it. Still waiting on Quade to answer how he feels about Doug Forth having a military pin that he didn't earn.... Quade?

No.... The only mistake I have made is expecting you to be able to have a worthy debate.

See you are emotionally unable to have an adult conversation without childish BS. And every post you make... Proves that.

So I guess only YOU are qualified to say what is a need and what is a want? Besides you are, intentionally I think, ignoring the point that I made: A consumption task makes a poorer person pay more that a richer person as a percentage of income for the same thing. So while you are bringing up the 'poor' what about the guy that makes one dollar over the 'poor' threshold and now wants that candy bar? He is paying more as a % of income for that luxury than the millionaire that bought the same thing. Sorry, but that is a fact. A 'middle class' guy also gets hurt more than a millionaire for buying the same candybar. The prebate/rebate BS would create the LARGEST govt entitlement program in history. Do you want EVERY person waiting on a check from the Govt each mth? If so, then you are no conservative. I used ridiculous numbers 10/week vs 10,000/week to make a point. Unfortunately, you would rather nit pick some number used as the example than actually discuss the issue brought.... Already been done. you just ignored it. The data was there the first time..... You managed to discuss the 10 dollar v 10k dollar bit. So no, it was not added after the fact. Hell, you QUOTED part it: "Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week." So you quoted part of it... It was there. Try another lame attempt to avoid the topic and focus on some piddly issue.

Got it... you are unable to worm your way out of it.

Still waiting on you to answer how you feel about Doug Forth having a military pin that he didn't earn.

No, but they still buy them and it hurts them more than it hurts me. Which was the exact point I made when I said a consumption tax hurts the poor more than the 'rich'. The fair taxers desire to create the largest entitlement system in history to send out a check each mth is about the dumbest idea ever. Not taxing "essentials" is not a bad idea AND IF YOU HAD ACTUALLY READ MY POST YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT I SAID THAT ALREADY. But you have dodged my points over and over again. Yes, cause the Govt NEVER does anything half assed Show me a system that ONLY uses a consumption tax...... Care to discuss the other points? If you had paid attention.... I said the same things get bought, just in bursts when they don't have to pay taxes. And on that note.... Yeah, you are doing great http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6712249.html AUSTIN – Sales tax and natural gas tax collections fell more than $1 billion short of projections in the 2009 fiscal year, according to a state comptroller's report, fueling questions about the financial heartburn that may be ahead for Texas. And Georgia dropped it this year: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2010-08-02-salestax02_ST_N.htm Yet Georgia skipped a tax holiday this year for the first time since 2002. The state faces an estimated $371 million deficit for 2011. Its tax holiday last year, on clothing and school supplies including computers, cost an estimated $13.2 million in lost revenue, according to the state. More from that link Policy analysts at both ends of the political spectrum say tax holidays are stunts that don't boost the economy and hurt state budgets. Sales tax holidays are "a political gimmick," says Mark Robyn of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which backs broader tax cuts. Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says. Which also supports my other position.

Yep and if you had actually read those things you would see that I tried on each thread to get you to act like an adult instead of a child. Then you insulted me each time. Fact it.... You can't debate without childish insults and name calling. I have asked several times for you to try and each time you come back with more childish BS. The facts don't lie.

The point is 1. Luxury is subjective. Our poor consider color TV's to be a need while the truly poor would consider it to be only for the rich. 2. Items that both the rich and the poor might buy will cost more relative to income for the lower income person. This means that a consumption tax on an item will impact the poorer person more than the rich person. Not following you here. I never said it hurts me more... I said it hurts the poor more. And I have provided my data (both the rich and the poor pay the same amount on goods), you have ignored it.

Oh look more BS and no data.... typical for you. Face it.... you lost. You are unable to have an adult discussion. You are unable to refrain from childish insults. You are unable to bring data. Trying to have a discussion with you is like talking to a 5 year old, except one with a 13 year olds sense of humor and vocabulary. 1. My posts to you start with data... 2. Then you start the childish BS name calling. 3. Then I call you out on it... 4. Then you cry about me picking on you.

Because when you buy something that is not a "staple" and you get taxed 5 dollars on it and only make 10 dollars a week... It hurts you more than if I buy the same thing and get taxed 5 dollars but I make 10000 a week. And you must remember that today's "poor" have color TV's, AC... etc and those are not exactly considered luxury items. If you had paid attention.... I said the same things get bought, just in bursts when they don't have to pay taxes. And on that note.... Yeah, you are doing great http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6712249.html AUSTIN – Sales tax and natural gas tax collections fell more than $1 billion short of projections in the 2009 fiscal year, according to a state comptroller's report, fueling questions about the financial heartburn that may be ahead for Texas. And Georgia dropped it this year: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2010-08-02-salestax02_ST_N.htm Yet Georgia skipped a tax holiday this year for the first time since 2002. The state faces an estimated $371 million deficit for 2011. Its tax holiday last year, on clothing and school supplies including computers, cost an estimated $13.2 million in lost revenue, according to the state. More from that link Policy analysts at both ends of the political spectrum say tax holidays are stunts that don't boost the economy and hurt state budgets. Sales tax holidays are "a political gimmick," says Mark Robyn of the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation, which backs broader tax cuts. Tax-free days cause shoppers to shift their spending, not increase it, Robyn says. And you have given the classic emotional diatribe devoid of logic. When ASKED to defend your position, instead of defending, you started insulting.

Old school: 1 Samuel 25:13, "And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword; and David also girded on his sword: and there went up after David about four hundred men; and two hundred abode by the stuff." Judges 5:8 reminds us of what happens to a foolish nation that chooses to disarm: "They chose new gods; then was war in the gates: was there a shield or spear seen among forty thousand in Israel?" Nehemiah 4:17-18.They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon

I hear you guys are not that proud of 1933 to 1945.... Should we say, "shame on you" for that?????

Not surprised. CRA was signed by Carter, pushed bigger by Clinton. The dems have tried several times to make home ownership for everyone no matter their ability to pay. Heck the 105th Congress Rangel tried to pass an Amendment to the Constitution to "To establish the right to a home" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105hjres73ih/pdf/BILLS-105hjres73ih.pdf But this whole thing is not news to anyone that was paying attention. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank--the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie--admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. July 2003, Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and John Sununu (R-NH) introduced legislation to address regulation of Freddi and Fanny. What did the Dems say in 2001? 2005 Republican Senators Hagel, Sununu, Dole, and later John McCain reintroduced legislation to once again address regulation of Fannie and Freddie. In essence, the bill would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in risky subprime loans.

You know when you start cussing... you have lost. I guess this means you have lost...... Again.