Discussion Locked

I Hate Democrats

0 helpful
414 replies
Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

.
Okay, I got your attention.

And to all Democrats:

Get out of my life.

Stop trying to take my personal property.

Stop trying to infringe on my RIGHT to take personal responsibility.

Stop presuming that you know what's better for me than me.

Stop telling me how to live.

Stop telling me how to define my moral values.

Stop telling me how to plan for my own future.

Stop telling me how to raise my kids.

Stop telling me how to educate my kids.

Stop taking my hard-earned income.

Stop trying to take care of my own health.

Stop telling me how to run my own business.

Stop telling me how to live.

Just GO AWAY!

I'll make a deal with you. You leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave you the hell alone.

414 replies

by puppybreath

If they stop trying to run your life and your business, you would need less Government. Less Government means thousands of unskilled workers would be dumped on society.

If you make decisions regarding education, many public schools would close due to poor attendance. This would mean thousands of people with no practical or real-life experience would be unemployed and dumped on society.

Less Government means more profits for big business. And as we all know, big business means more pollution because they build big factories and don't care about the environment.

More pollution means more global warming which would lead to a new ice age. (Don't ask me to explain this one, it's a liberal idea).

A new ice age would mean that all of those thousands and thousands of unemployed, unskilled people would freeze to death since they couldn't possibly take care of themselves after having soemone protect them for so long.

Do you really want to be responsible for the deaths of that many people? Perhaps being an evil warmonger has made you too insensitive to the needs of others. I would suggest that you read several books with Psycho-babble and re-think your position. Remember, it's not about you. It takes a village. Go hug two trees and call me in the morning.

by surflover

Or our political system as a whole?... I'm not in favor of the government meddling in any of the aspects of my life either... and I think puppybreath may have hit some of the problem on the head...

Read "The Fair Tax" that Niel Boortz put out a while ago... it's basically a consumption tax that would eliminate income tax and shift tax collection to a national sales tax... The basic premise is that those who spend, pay the taxes (so theoretically, the rich pay a larger share than the poor, and it is proportional)...

I heard an economist interviewed about it (a republican), and he said it would dump so many unskilled workers into the economy (ex IRS employees, tax accountants, tax lawyers, and other government employees), that it would create a depression worse than the 1930's... So he felt that it could not be adopted...

by maxwell edison

.
....the "Baby Democrats", of course, being the Republicans.

I view the Democrats of today as equal, in principle, to the American socialist Party of 1932. If you don't believe me, read the 1932 American Socialist Party platform. You really wouldn't know the difference between that document and what the Democrats espouse today. The socialist movement in America really picked up steam in the 1930s. One of FDR's vice presidents was even a socialist; and we all know what FDR did for the movement.

I view the Republican Party of today as being more similar to the Democrat Party of 1960, especially the Kennedy wing of the Democrat Party (the John F. Kennedy wing, that is ..... Ask not what your country can do for you ..... and the lower tax rates to generate higher government revenue). But LBJ took it back for the socialist wing real fast. (And most theories concerning JFK's assassination, lead to some sort of socialist origin -- Oswald and the Soviet connection, Cuba, LBJ himself, et al.)

However, the Republicans are not much better today. In my estimation, whatever they are doing, is either too little or too late -- or both.

Are ALL Republicans "Baby Democrats" in my eyes? No, not all. But to be politically successful, and for political expediency, almost all of them have to be. And the ones who aren't are the ones targeted for persecution -- people such as Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo. (And Barry Goldwater in 1964, by the way.)

The bottom line is that all too many Americans are asking -- and expecting -- what their country can do for them, not what they can do for their country -- and for themselves. And in the long run, we will all be worse off as a result. And most people neither know or understand history. They don't know the real principles upon which this country was founded, and they don't know the political origins of the system we have today.

What's the answer, you might ask, as to how we can get this thing turned around? That is indeed the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

by maxwell edison

.
If I could sum up in one word, why I like the FairTax plan, that word would be control. Under that FairTax plan, I would control my income, and I would control my spending. Under the current system, the government controls my income by the progressive and selective taxation of it, my spending by the selective exceptions and loopholes of the monstrous tax-code, and my investments for the same tax-code reasons.

I want total control of my own income; I want total control over my own spending; and I want total control over my own investments. It's about as simple as that. And regardless of the reasons or arguments levied by those who want to continue, or even grow big-government, they don't want me to have that control over my own life, pure and simple.

Who is this "Republican" economist who claimed the FairTax plan would create a depression and all that crap? If you can't cite specifics about it, and who actually said it, you shouldn't cite it at all. But if you want to delve into the details of the FairTax plan, you have (in me) a most interested party. I'm all in favor of it, not only for the reasons I cited, but for a myriad of others as well. And it's exponentially better than the system we have today.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178992&messageID=1823428

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=178992&messageID=1823434

Read that whole discussion, if you feel so inclined, or at least my contributions to it.

Or we can continue the discussion right here.

by thechas

Max,

While I cannot site the Republican economist, one of my concerns about the "Fair Tax Plan" is that unless it were to be phased in, it would cause serious economic upheaval in the US that could lead to a global recession.

It's not any gloom and doom, just greedy human nature.

Here's my scenario:

With a 24% or higher sales tax coming up, the 6 months prior to the tax change would see a surge in retail sales.

The last month, would have goods flying off the shelf faster than they could be restocked.

Come the last week, even perishable items would sell right off the loading dock at every store.

Retail being what it is, the planners would think they were looking at a booming economy and increase orders dramatically.

The supply cycle being what it is, most of the goods would not arrive until after the sales tax went into effect.

When the tax shifts to a sales tax, retail sales are going to drop like a rock. I predict that the first quarter after the "Fair Tax" goes into effect will record the lowest retail sales since the depression.

The rest of the year won't be any better as the public struggles with record personal debt from their buying binge.

The "Fair Tax" also provides a new opportunity for organized crime.
With goods sitting on store shelves and loading docks, OC will find it easy to acquire goods at a discount and a thriving black market in untaxed goods will spring up across the US. The profits for OC will be as sweet as they are for selling tax free cigarettes in New York. And the risks will be no greater.

As a result of the now missing sales tax revenue, government borrowing will climb to record levels. Eating up every penny that might have gone to business investment.

With a soft economy, employers won't have any incentive to give any of their tax relief back to employees, and will begin laying workers off in record numbers.

Since a large portion of our retail goods are imported, the sagging sales in the US will result in recessions in Mexico, China, Korea, and all of Asia.

This doesn't even consider what will go on in the stock and financial services markets as ALL present investment and market strategies undergo unprecedented change.

With any luck, in 2 to 5 years, we will start to crawl out from under the personal debt load and begin consuming again.

Long term bodes even worse for the US.

Without the tax incentives, most US companies will not spend on long term basic research. Basic research is a hard sell to stockholders and executive boards as is. With no short term benefit, the stockholders won't allow it.

The US will loose it's role as a technology innovator.

Chas

by surflover

I didn't document his name, (wish I had) and was only referring to the fact that the problem is on both sides of the isles...

You are absolutely correct, the FairTax would be light years better than what we have... I think those in washington are afraid of it for the very reason you stated... Control... It gives control back to the people where it belongs... I think they fear that if the people get control of their money back, they might start after regaining control of the political system as well... and we cant have that, CAN WE?

by jck

As you put in the first article link, you said the national sales tax would eliminate billions of processing dollars and eliminate the IRS.

However, I have two questions:

Question 1: Who would be responsible for processing all the new sales tax data and paperwork if the IRS was eliminated?

Question 2: Don't you think there would be more data to process on a regular basis from all businesses required to report sales taxes rather than on a quarterly/annual basis as there is with income tax, thereby leading to an increase government's size because of the increase of required data to process?

Personally, I was all for the Forbes proposal of a flat income tax.

If you make a poverty line, a 10 percent flat income tax for everyone (personal and corporate), and establish personal exemptions for things such as catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenses or across-the-board natural disaster recovery exemptions, I think it would be just as effective as a national sales tax without increasing the workload overhead involved with regularly processing sales tax information.

I think the Forbes idea would increase government income while at the same time reducing the size of the IRS significantly and not putting the burden of work on US business to have to regularly report sales information and taxation data.

by Member 25348569

One of the problems with a sales tax is that no-one wants to pay taxes and a sales tax is much harder to police. Over here we have Value Added Tax at 17.5% on both goods and services - as well as income tax! - to pay for our membership of the EU and subsidise French farmers.

Choose your vendor or tradesman well and you'll get a good ten percent reduction for a cash deal that both of you know isn't going past the tax man either for VAT or income tax. With income-based tax, the fraud is only perpetrated by the tradesman.

The "black economy" in the UK is at well over ten percent of GDP. Italy, Greece, Spain and other Mediterranean EU nations are at around thirty percent. I think that the US comes in below ten percent.

You're either more honest or your tax system is better policed.

by stress junkie

Isn't this exactly the kind of thing that we discussed a couple of weekends ago? And didn't you say that you don't prejudge entire groups of people? And didn't puppybreath agree that you aren't bigoted?

I suppose you're going to say that this is an obvious bit of sarcasm and that you really don't hate all Democrats.

by maxwell edison

.
That's why my first sentence was, " Okay, I got your attention."

Of course, you (and others) can certainly choose to believe whatever you'd like. But I was expecting that as well.

by sleepin'dawg

The only Democrat you can trust is a dead one and even then drive a stake through his heart to make sure.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by maxwell edison

.
.....I suspect that you don't fully understand my comments or my true position. But thanks for your comments, nonetheless.

by lukcad

Hey!
I did it to save my wrong opinion in our minds only.
It's really hard to image the aim of your post. But till i was drinking a coffee in pause of drawing of the new sketches for my project i was need to find some relax for my brain. It was TR's discussion and your post. ;-)
Have a nice day!
LukCAD

by puppybreath

We type something like that and we're either chastised for killing old growth forests or rain forests depending on what wood we use for the stake. Talk about a no-win scenario......

by maxwell edison

.
....I don't want them dead. I just want them to leave me and my property, my income, my family, my future, etc. alone.

What's mine is mine, and what's theirs is theirs. That sounds like a good deal to me.

But to Democrats, what's theirs is theirs, and what's mine is theirs to do with as they see fit.

by bfilmfan

Being a Libertarian Rationalist, I would point out that all politicians actions are designed to get them elected back into office.

Both the Democrats and Republicans pander to their political base, no matter if it is the "Welfare Mother" or the "Fire-and-Brimstone Religious Sect" and whatever is in between.

The only way to fix the system is to have term limits. We've had them for Presidents for many years.

Frankly, far too many people are concerned with the way others live their lives and far too neglectful of their own.

by maxwell edison

.
But term limits is not the answer, at least in my opinion.

I believe that a constitutional amendment prohibiting, or at least severely restricting, transfer of wealth programs is the answer. And while we're at it, we obviously need something more to protect the private property rights of American citizens. The power of eminent domain has been running amok, and the property tax-codes have, in essence, severely restricted or denied the full and out-right ownership of property. And don't even get me started on the right to pass property onto one's heirs.

We are a nation of laws, not of men. And the way to fix what's broken is with laws, since men have shown they can't be entrusted with such things ("men" in the generic sense, of course).

by tony hopkinson

In the recent few months we've noticed a dismaying tendency for you to go around thinking for yourself and making decisions that affect your life. While we applaud your bravery, I and your duly elected nanny feel that your selfish actions are impinging on our potential livelihood. To this end we are now enacting new legislation where you will be lobotomised and then will have your free will chemically inhibited in order to further the altruistic ambitions of your commercially appointed political masters.

Yours sincerely
Mr DP Trough

YOUR duly elected representative of vested interests.

Seriously why single out democrats, they are all as bad as each other, their lips move in time with their excretions.

by maxwell edison

.
.....if my sense of self-responsibility is infringing on your potential livelihood. Perhaps I should get two more jobs so I can properly support you. (Sarcasm answered with sarcasm, of course.)

And as you've noticed, if you've read the rest of my messages, I don't single-out Democrats. (It was a headline intended to grab attention.) In fact, if there's one thing about President Bush with which I am profoundly disappointed, it's his dismal failure to use his pulpit to advance the cause of true conservatism, such as in the mold of Barry Goldwater, or to a lesser extent, Ronald Reagan.

We need someone to lead the charge. Someone who can properly articulate and illustrate how deep into socialism America has fallen, and how it will ultimately be our undoing. We need someone with the savvy and charisma of John F. Kennedy, and the ideals of Barry Goldwater.

Perhaps someone like ....... Maxwell Edison?

by tony hopkinson

I am a socialist, not a commie, not a f'ing liberal, not a damn tree hugger but a died in the wool born and bred socialist.

Don't listen to what they say they are look at what they do. They'll either perpetuate the welfare state or pretend we don't need one.

Neither outlook has any conception of long term consequences. As far as I'm concerned at the moment we do need a welfare state, and that we can't afford (literally and figuratively) to keep on needing it. So if a decision they make increases the need for a welfare state and nearly all of them do, it's not in our interests, therefore it can only have happened, through ignorance, outright stupidity or self interest.

Personally I'm going with all three.

by montgomery gator

You might be a good President. However, if you can't get the support to mount a successful campaign, how about this guy:

http://www.hermancain.com/

Herman Cain is a true conservative. He supports the Fair Tax, wants less government and lower taxes. I suggest you read his book "They Think You're Stupid", where he discusses where both major parties went wrong and what needs to be done instead. His experience is in the real world, a son of a chauffer and janitor who worked his way up the corporate ladder in Pillsbury and Godfather's Pizza, to the top. And he has a degree in Computer Science, so he is a "geek" like us. :-)

His list "You might be a Liberal" is right on target:
http://www.hermancain.com/liberal.asp

by av .

Both parties are responsible for the state of our government. It is a disgrace.

I feel just like you Maxwell (shudder). I don't like intrusive, expensive government, but I am willing to give my fair share. It is hardly fair right now, to say the least.

You're an American though, so you can choose not to listen to the government on most of your gripes. You still have to pay like the rest of us and ,oh, they can still take your property if they want it (bad news for us all).

Personally, I am totally disgusted with our government. There is arrogance of power, no integrity, no morals and greed and deception beyond belief. They are supposed to be representing the people. Instead, they represent their own interests and we are all paying.

There are truly needy people in this country. One look at New Orleans really shows that our government, with all of the money we give it, doesn't take care of its own. Don't get me started on FEMA. Where is that money going? Someone's pocket.

If I have to pay my fair share, and I do, I want to see some truth in government, no matter what party. We do need some form of government, but somehow I think we elected Gods instead. They are a little too self-important to be the public servants I had in mind.

by m_a_r_k

It's not just the political parties or the "government". It's the whole political system that feeds on itself to cause greed, deception and waste. It's probably one of hte evils of a democracy. On most policy issues, my guess would be that a few members of the Senate or the House feel strongly against it or for it, and all the rest don't give a rip. So they vote one way or another based on what kind of influence they can gain on some issue that they do feel strongly about. It's one of those, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back" scenarios. Do you think a Congressman from Alaska cares more about New Orleans levees or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Remember that we still have a government of, by and for the people. So we are a little bit responsible too. Why do we keep re-electing those greedy, immoral, deceptive politicians? We want to throw the corrupt, greedy, immoral, deceptive politicians out only if those politicians are not representing our own state or congressional district.

by av .

I just don't know how it can ever be fixed as long as there is pay to play and I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine. Big money runs our government and it is no longer serving the people, its serving big business and special interest groups.

I don't know if there are many honest politicians left. Do they start out corrupt or become corrupt because of the system? I think its similar to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?".

I think that integrity is missing from politicians today. They do it for the power and money. They lie, cheat and do whatever they have to, to move into politics and attain power.

We allow them to exist. People don't vote and don't bother to know anything about who they vote for. It makes it hell for the rest of us.

by jamesrl

You will excuse the view of an outsider.

The largest problem I see in US politics has nothing to do with the party in power. It has to do with interest groups, PACs (Political Action Committees), gerimandering (messing around with electoral boundaries for partisan reasons) and pork. Neither party can claim innocence in these matters.

I see totally nonsensical additions to bills like defense appropriations which serve to strip out money needed for equipment and give it to non defense related projects in someone's home district, in return for their support on the bill. I see politicians gaining most of their political campiagn funds from PACs, who most definately rent if not buy votes.

I think a Congressman from Alaska could care as much about a New Orleans levee if he didn't have to spend every waking minute campaigning for re-election and plumping for pork and pleasing the PACs that support him.

What does Canada do different? Tighter campaign spending limits. No PACs. Limited funds from any one individual. Soon to be total elimination of funds from corporations and unions. Longer terms(often 5 years) to spend more time governing and less time campaigning. Bills that can't be amended except with relevant amendments. Less ability to gerimander the boundaries of electoral districts(decided by judges, not politicians)

I am not for a moment saying the Canadian system is scandal free, perfect or not in need of reforms. Both countries should take a long hard look. We get the government we deserve, and if we are apathetic, we get bad government.

James

by av .

On the title of your article "I Hate Democrats", you said it was just to get our attention, but you also said "And to all the Democrats:" suggesting that regardless of what you said before, you think that the Democrats are the cause of your problems.

Admit it. You're a Democrataphobic. Don't say a word about the Republican part in our misery. Its hard to miss. Its in the news everyday. Pick your subject. Hurricane Katrina? Michael Brown and FEMA. The CIA leak case. Tom Delay. Bill Frist. Harriet Miers?

by puppybreath

You have a huge hole in your basic premise. You state that the planners would think they were looking at a booming economy and order accordingly. The planners would also be aware of the tax changes and would factor that into their future orders. They would cut back in orders to be delivered after the tax went into effect for the reasons you stated. Consider the ordering of water and batteries in the states being hit by hurricanes. The planners didn't adjust their future orders because sales went up 400%. They knew the reason behind the increase and acted accordingly. So there wouldn't be the large amount of additional goods delivered after the tax went into effect that you have predicted.

I also don't believe that all items would be affected. People aren'y going to be concerned about a few extra cents of tax for their groceries. The increase in sales would be the high ticket items that people were probably already planning on purchasing in the near future. So even though they bought it earlier than planned, it was an expense that they had planned on absorbing anyways.

by master3bs

The embedded taxes in goods and services (an average of 22%) will be gone under the plan. The big question is "will companies keep that 22% as profit?"

What will happen is that one goods or services provider will try to get a competitive advantage by lowering the price. To be able to compete; others will follow suit.

Besides, if the plan passes, many consumers will know the embedded taxes are gone and not stand for still paying them.

But even if it doesn't (it will; but for arguemnts sake say it doesn't); you're still getting a monthly check for the basic neccesities of life and still receiving 100% of your pay check. You still come out on top.

by maxwell edison

.
Every time you post such an "opinion", Chas, I can't help but compare it to some nonsensical analogy such as two plus two equals forty-two, just because you want it to. Your opinion, just like the equation, has absolutely no basis in fact or reason, it has no support or agreement whatsoever by any reputable economist, and it's no more than a desired conclusion in a desperate search for justification. Two plus two equals forty-two because you have a two and then you have another two, which together makes a four, and there are two of them, so the answer is forty-two. Sorry, that bird won't fly.

Not only can't anybody cite a Republican economist predicting such a massive recession if the FairTax plan were to become reality, but you couldn't site ANY economist of ANY political persuasion to provide a legitimate argument for such an assertion. Go ahead, find one. And if you can't, don't suggest such a thing, unless, of course, you also want to suggest that two plus two equals forty-two.

I will concede, however, that there might (with a strong emphasis on might) be some growing pains with such a drastic change. But experiencing some short term pain for the long term gain is a long-established and reasonable method to bring about the basis for long-term good. Just because a fat-ass 400 pound frame would experience some short-term discomfort, it isn't reason enough not to change the diet -- and the entire life-style -- so that person can live a more healthy long-term life in a more lean body.

I thought you experienced a socialist "revaluation", Chas? You don't have to play games any more. You can come right out and admit that you espouse a collectivist society in which income is controlled by the state. You can come right out and admit that you espouse a collectivist society in which income is taken from the person who earned it so it can be given to a person who did not earn it. You don't need to advance such silly arguments. Go ahead, Chas, you rest on your principles, and I'll rest on mine; and we'll just let the chips of public opinion fall where they may.

I don't want the government controlling my income, while you do. And therein lies one difference between you and me.

by thechas

Max,

If I were a true socialist, would I not want business to pay ALL of the costs of government and society?

One social issue that we have some agreement on is that taxes on business income are counter productive.

Just how does a progressive income tax control your income?

Are you so strong an ideologue that you would refuse a raise that might place you in a higher tax bracket?

That is one thing I would like to see changed in our present income tax system. When your income increases such that you are placed in a higher tax bracket, only the income above the bracket level should be taxed at the higher rate.
Changing the tax table from a series of fixed percentages to a set of steps would take care of most of the inequities that people complain about. Including the marriage penalty.

I would love the opportunity to fund the research to prove or disprove my postulates on the US economic system. However, since I'm just a poor working stiff, all I can offer is the results of my personal observations and convoluted thought patterns.

What I see as a very big difference between us in relation to government spending, is that I am willing to compromise and accept that there are other spending priorities than just my own. If I want the government to spend money on my programs, I also need to accept and allow the government to spend money on programs that to me personally are a waste.

So, you agree that we cut military spending by 90% and I'll agree that we cut welfare spending by the same 90%.

Or how about, you agree to require employers to pay a living wage, and I'll agree that we eliminate equal rights quotas.

Like it or not, the US government will always be twice as large as either of us want it to be. As neither of us is willing to just give up the government programs that are important to us.
Nor, would the rest of our fellow citizens.

Chas

by thechas

Max,

I see many more threats to the items on your list from the Christian Evangelical right than I see from Democrats and other Liberals. At least as far as "personal" freedoms are concerned.

Your hero GWB and his "No Child Left Behind" along with the Texas State Board of Education have more impact on what your kids are taught in school than any group of Democrats have.

One could make a solid case that Bill Clinton and the 90's Democrats had a significantly greater degree of fiscal and fiduciary responsibility than GWB and the present crop of Republican Congressmen.

Sorry, the right is a MUCH greater threat to personal freedoms than the left.

Chas

by maxwell edison

.
....was pretty much written by Ted Kennedy.

http://www.nea.org/newsreleases/2004/nr040913.html

Besides, there you go again, stating some vague innuendo, and basing a false conclusion in it. Give some specifics. What exactly are you talking about?

And which items on my list are being threatened by the "Christian Evangelical right", whoever they are?

How to educate my kids is one you'll probably cite. Well, the "Christian Evangelical right", whoever they are, don't want to tell you or me how to educate our kids, but they don't want to be told how to educate theirs either. They may want to have prayer in their school, while you may not want it in yours. Your idea is to have a one school fits all, but to deny them their prayer. Their idea (and mine as well) is to have true choice and competition in public schools, so a person can actually choose the education they feel is appropriate for their own kids. The "Christian Evangelical right", whoever they are, would support school vouchers to facilitate school choice; you left-wing control freaks do not.

But go ahead, be specific. Which items on my list are threatened by the "Christian Evangelical right"? And just who in the heck are they? And remember, be specific.

by jck

The "Christian Evangelical right" has also been pushing school systems all across the country for years to eliminate any educational premise that doesn't conform to the "Word of God", e.g.- Darwin's evolutional theories. So, they are trying to tell you what to teach your children and what to expose your children to.

My specific example: In Oklahoma in the late 1970s when I was a child at school, the Southern Baptist Convention was pressing hard for schools in many states to focus on teachings aligned with religiously-based foundations for creationism, rather than scientific evolutionary proof. I grew up in the "Bible Belt" of the south, so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this.

And, it is still happening to this day across the country. Prayer in school, religious depictions of holidays, etc. But, wanting to exclude religious practices other than those of Christian faiths, e.g.- in my hometown, there were Jewish kids in my school, yet we never learned about Jewish holidays in school...only the Christian version of Christmas and Jesus.

They also were trying to dictate morality in telling school systems where I lived by saying that it was wrong to have school dances because, according to the Southern Baptist Convention, it was an abomination against the Lord unless you were dancing in His "Glory".

And in fact, the First Baptist Church in my hometown single-handedly managed to cause a Kroger store to close (through patron intimidation and members of their church being on every city board) because they were selling beer in a grocery store and that was "immoral" according to their pastor. So, there's your religious right interfering in business as well and telling people how to live (legal adults couldn't get beer at a retail grocery establishment because of religious influence).

Hence, the "Christian Evangelical right" (whom aligns themselves so closely to the Republican party and to whom the Republican party caters to most for votes) is trying to dictate morality in schools, homes, and workplaces. Hence, their effect is going to be felt most through Republican-led initiatives within society, since it is the Republicans who are expected to "pay back" those religious campaign supporters via initiatives in legislation that give power to their religious causes.

As for "school choice" with vouchers...the right doesn't want "to have true choice and competition in public schools". They want school vouchers to help pay for them to send their kids to the private school of their choice. Plain and simple.

And let's not get confused here:

Private schools are NOT public schools. And if you are not happy with the education your children receive in the public system, you have a right to CHOOSE to send them to a private school at your cost which will teach them what you find best. And, the right WAS pushing lawmakers to make it legal for school vouchers to be used to fund private educations. That was happening in Florida where I live.

Anyways...the church tries to interfere and they're not absolved simply because they consider themselves of the highest moral calibre.

So with my examples, they (the Christian right) are guilty of trying to tell people what their kids should learn, what extracirricular activities their children should attend, where they should spend their money, and on what they should spend it...all based on their own faith.

And for they in the religious right to assert their religious beliefs on others, through intimidation or legal code, is a violation of those other peoples' right to freedom of religion.

by jdclyde

but handing out birth control is just fine.

Pushing homosexuallity as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" is just fine.

As long as it is the lefts morals (or lack of) that is being pushed, all is fair.

As soon as THEY disagree with something they start pulling out the myth of "separation of church and state" and how it isn't fair to push your beliefs on others when they do the EXACT same thing with theirs!

When you have no principles in your life, it is easy to be inconsistant like that I guess. I person who is quick to compromise is a person with no standards of their own.

by ldyosng

Do I give up my right to choose to become a mommy or not, or do I give up my right to keep and bear arms, or do I give up my right to be intimate with whom I want (in private, of course, with a consenting adult) how I want, or do I give up over 1/3 of my income without having a choice how it is spent (isn't that taxation without representation?)? Or do I demand Christmas off, with pay, and deny my co-worker Yom Kipur? Do I demand the right to not worship as I see fit, while forcing you to do the same? Do I enforce freedom FROM religion on everyone? Or do I mandate that you are not allowed to say certain words that I don't like, regardless of your right to freedom of expression?
Personally, I like Thomas Jefferson's idea of throwing ALL the bums out of office on a set schedule and starting fresh. Oops, my Jeffersonian Libertarianism is showing. And don't even get me started on what I owe to whom because someone in my genetic line oppressed someone else once-upon-a-time, even though I have received absolutely zero benefit from that oppression.

by thechas

The chaos that would ensue with a direct shift from an income to a sales tax is not the only problem I have with the so called "fair-tax", just my worst fear.

I actually toned down what I believe will happen significantly.
A 5 year or longer recession bordering on a full scale depression is more likely.

On some levels, I should like the "unfair tax".
I agree that it is counterproductive to tax business income.
I am at a point in life where my spending on material goods should be dropping. So, I should come out ahead.
With a significant increase in the cost of new homes, urban sprawl should slow significantly under the unfair tax plan.

In no particular order, my issues with the unfair tax include:

The cost of living for everyone who earns less than $100,000 rises significantly.

The unfair tax, much like a flat income tax does not take into account ability to pay. You get taxed on your needs and your desires.
Exempt groceries, utilities and health care from the unfair tax, and it starts to become palatable.

I see no "just" reason to give the richest people in this country a major tax cut and shift the tax burden to the working class and young families.

The unfair tax WILL increase the economic divide between the rich and the rest of us!

The people who will take the biggest hit under the unfair tax are those starting out in life. Especially those starting families.

In fact, those for Zero Population Growth should love the unfair tax, as it will tax large families right out of existence.

Contributions to charitable organizations will drop significantly.
Businesses and the rich will reduce contributions because there will be no benefit.
The general population will have less money available to give to the causes they support.

If you think you can control your spending enough to reduce your tax burden under the unfair tax, you are kidding yourself.

Back when we were able to deduct sales tax from the Federal Income Tax, my wife and I worked VERY hard to control our expenditures so that one year we would come out ahead by totaling our actual sales tax paid, and the next, spend very little and take the standard deduction.
Guess what, unless you have a LOT of extra money to buy your day to day taxable items in advance, you end up spending very near the standard deduction every year.

Mark my words, the unfair tax will be both a financial and social failure if enacted.
Within 10 years, it will have to be replaced by either a new income tax, or some other progressive tax.

Chas

by jdclyde

the power the democrats have is from their creation of a "gift society".

You can get power with an army and take it.

Or you can get power by giving things away to people, they like it so they let you do anything you want as long as you keep the gifts coming.

Until people are put in contol of their destiny, they are content to go with the road of least resistance.

Which will get people elected, "vote for me and I will GIVE you money" or "vote of me and I will remove obsticles from your path so you can go make some money"?

The nice thing is, lately the country has actually been going with the second choice for a while!

Thank god the minimum wage increase looks like it died again. You have no right to demand a "living wage" when you work at McDonalds making fries.

You want to make more? Get a skill and then get a job that requres that skill.

Raising minimum wage only HURTS MIDDLE CLASS America, because they won't get a raise, but their expenses will go up to pay for the wage increase of the people that didn't advance themselves through any effort of their own other than government mandates.

by jdclyde

That are unclear on the definition of the word "Miscellaneous".

less tech, more republic. :D

by jardinier

I believe there will always be a left and right wing in politics because of a very fundamental human dynamic, namely:

The survival and success of the individual cannot be separated from the survival and success of the group.

If the group fails, there will be no context in which the individual can express him/her self.

If the individual fails however, the group will continue without even noticing the failure of one individual.

So I think right wing politics is aimed at the success of the individual -- free enterprise etc -- while left wing politics is aimed at the survival and success of the group.

Note that in "Atlas Shrugged," Ayn Rand separated the most creative people from the group. In reality this would no doubt result in the group declining into perhaps chaos or slipping backwards in "evolution."

The creative people would have nothing to do but pat each other on the back.

Although earlier in my life I would probably have qualified for MENSA (the old grey matter is not as sharp as it used to be) I could think of few things less repugnant that joining a group that considers itself an intellectual elite as per Rand's scenario.

I would much rather join a religion or a political party which had a cross section of people.

by jdclyde

[i]"while left wing politics is aimed at the survival and success of the group"[/i]

Looking around at the strongly Democratic slums in the country that get worse, not better I would have to say the left wing aproach has taken care of the survival part, but success has not been a part of their solution.

New Orleans got hung up for the world to see as a perfect example of the failure of the Democratic party, as both the governor and mayor are and have been controlled by the Democratic party for decades.

I remember reading a column by Ken Hamblin (the self titled "black avenger") and it was called "Don't feed the blacks". It followed the idea of the don't feed the animals, in that it is learned dependance instead of independance.

by jardinier

in any country at any time. While this discussion is about the Democrats in America, the point I am trying to make is that a government in a democratic country can be neither 100 per right wing or 100 per cent left wing.

100 per cent right wing leads to fascism, just as 100 per cent left wing leads to socialism. Both of these extremes suppress the creativity of the individual.

What is this obsession with people on welfare? City, state and federal governments in all countries collect tax to pay for things like defence, roads, garbage, sewerage, police, hospitals, schools and so forth.

In Australia I would say that we have pretty much an even balance of socialism and free enterprise.

by maxwell edison

.
I would never suggest that people are never dependent, or that they should (or could) always be independent. After all, we all start and end our lives totally dependent on others. It's what happens in-between, however, that can make or break not only the individual, but a society as well.

I like the way Stephen Covey explains it, defining three stages. The first is dependency, as we can all imagine little children being totally dependent on others (hopefully his parents) to provide for his needs. One of those needs is the need to become independent, and that is the next stage. The last stage is inter-dependency, where a group of independent people depend on each other to achieve even greater things; the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, so to speak. A group of dependent people could never form an inter-dependent group, and they could never achieve much of anything; but a group of independent people -- inter-dependency -- can literally go to the moon. And dependent people in an inter-dependent society are a drag on not only themselves, but on the whole.

We should all strive to go from dependence, to independence, to inter-dependence; and government should be structured to facilitate that, not interfere with it. What's the opposite of dependent? Of course, it's independent, but it might also be provider. What happens when there are more dependents and less providers? What happens when the number of dependents is so great that it ultimately makes the provider, himself, dependent?

Moreover, when a person does find himself dependent on someone, for whatever reason, the government does not have to be the provider of first choice. Where did that silly notion come from, anyway? The notion that the government's role is to provide womb to tomb care is ludicrous in theory, and it will lead to disaster in practice. And if I'm going to be a provider, I'd like to be a provider by choice, not by force.

Not only that, but most of the people who claim that they need the government for __________ (whatever), would certainly find another way, perhaps even a BETTER way, if the government wasn't an option. The image of people dying on the streets if not for government is silly; and it's disingenuous to advance such scare tactics in the quest for that almighty power. And that, after all, is exactly what the people advancing such notions are after -- power over the dependents. They create the dependents to begin with, and they strive to continue the dependency only to maintain their power over them.

Our society has gotten so skewed, that the best way to describe it is that of a group of co-dependents. And then I see some reasonably intelligent person, who claims that government must be the one and only provider in a nation of dependents. It's crazy, and it's only getting worse. People like that, are the ultimate co-dependents. We have become a nation of co-dependents, not a nation of inter-dependents. And that, my friend, is what I want to change.

by jardinier

Fair enough statement, Max, in fact a very good statement. But what do you personally propose to do to change the situation?

A few years ago I got sick of listening to people whinge and bitch about the government, but not contribute in any way (apart from voting every few years) and so I decided to make a definite contribution.

I joined a political party and at the 2001 Federal Election I helped my local member to resist a nation-wide swing of about 2 per cent towards the Government, and actually gain a marginal swing away from the government. I also had articles and letters published in the local free media.

The result was my local Federal seat dropped from the second safest in the country to the third safest for the incumbent government, and I felt that that was one of the most useful things I had done in my life.

Well of course you would know that it was our major left wing party, The Australian Labor Party that I campaigned for, but the point is I became involved and in my own small way made a change.

by jkaras

Another political rant pointing fingers at an opposing political party that is solely responsible for all of our problems. Truth is all politicians are not patriotic that they didnt become one due to a sense of need other than a privledged life. They are not fighting for our rights or well being, just using key words to entice voters like gay marriages, abortion, and religion. Look at the pandering for votes, stupid infighting, scandals, insane spending, loss of small businesses for mega plexes like this mart or that depot, wars for money, scare tactics for compliance, cronism, corruption, and apathy in times of need that have cost thousands of lives. It is shameful at their negligence and arrogance that they live a privledged life to grandstand with pathetic speeches not leadership and action. A true professional would work with others to bring about what is best for all not their political party credit.

The argument of who is better is as worthless as their performance. We have obviously seen the need for a larger choice of leadership that has outgrown the archaic two party choice. Why is it when we shop we demand more than two choices? Why is it when we shop and get poor performance we get upset and do something about someone who is paid minimum wage and hold them accountable, not what is considered a professional, like say a politician?

Truth is everyone is after their own interest not in the interest of what is right or best for our country. Everyone believes that their opinion of moral fiber is correct and wants to impose their version of morality like theirs is perfect. People need to grow up and tend to their own garden. There has been more intrusive on personal way of life than I dare say in the times of Mc Carthyism. In my opinion those who are also as guilty are the news stations that cant for the life of themselves report one story objectively. News is not supposed to be slanted, have production values such as mood music to affect the view/listener, speculation, false reporting for ratings, endorsements of products, and the best fake live reports having reporters fake the conditions like during hurricanes of horrific flooding and volital winds that somehow have them almost being knocked over when a frail person walks by calmly uneffected wandering into the shot. It's funny when I was in school if I deviated from any objectivity or miss reported any facts in a paper I would fail the course or be subject to expulsion for falsifying facts. Tell me what's wrong with higher standards for our youth and not our elders? If you you were to compare the integrity and professionalism and quality of life from America over fifty years ago would they be better or worse than today? Progression of society or declination? Sure, only blame one small facet of America on all it's broblem and listen to a so called expert on economics when our economics are in such great standing. Beautiful, blind loyalty of a Lemming, hello cliff were coming!!!!

by jdclyde

Except for the Hamblin quote, the rest was just talking about the total poverty that only gets worse under the complete control of the Democrates and New Orleans is just one of many examples. Detroit is also a perfect example of how the poor poor vote Democrat even though their own situation only gets worse and worse.

Why do these cities have problems paying for the infrastructure you mentioned? Because they have catered to the poor with social programs to get their position of power, yet now are left with no tax base to tax to pay for all the infrastructure.

It isn't the evil upper 2% that we always hear about that have caused the poverty, yet they are always the ones that are suppose to pay to continue it?

Right wing leads you to become a success yourself, not to leach off of the people that have applied themselves and cry that it isn't "fair".

Redistribution of wealth is NOT in our Constitution here in the US, and is illegal and immoral.

by maxwell edison

.
I kinda' wish he hadn't done that, though.

There was an obvious language barrier, and he didn't seem to understand where I was coming from, so to speak. But I would have welcomed delving into it further, perhaps, to facilitate some mutual understanding.

He is from Zhlobin, Homelskaya, according to his profile; he probably speaks Russian; and he probably used one of those on-line translators to both read my message and post his, although that's all assumption on my part. Where is Zhlobin, Homelskaya, you might ask? Homelskaya is a province in Belarus, and Zhlobin is a city in Homelskaya.

"After seven decades as a constituent republic of the USSR, Belarus attained its independence in 1991. It has retained closer political and economic ties to Russia than any of the other former Soviet republics. Belarus and Russia signed a treaty on a two-state union on 8 December 1999 envisioning greater political and economic integration. Although Belarus agreed to a framework to carry out the accord, serious implementation has yet to take place. Since his election in July 1995 as the country's first president, Alexander LUKASHENKO has steadily consolidated his power through authoritarian means. Government restrictions on freedom of speech and the press, peaceful assembly, and religion continue. Belarus, although a republic in name, is in fact a dictatorship", at least according to the CIA.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bo.html

One thing that I remember him having asked was, who will grow your bread? Premise and upbringing speaks volumes in this case. I would have liked discussing the difference between dependence and inter-dependence, at least as it relates to how I make the distinction between the two. But is it possible for someone who was raised to think a certain way, who was schooled to believe certain things, to actually understand things that are contrary to that train of thought? And it does indeed apply both ways, I suppose.

So, LukCAD, don't go away. Feel free to jump in and share your views and discuss ours.

by rfink

If we change over to a sales tax system then I get hit twice on my savings. I paid income taxes on them when I earned the principle and interest and now I have to pay sales tax on them when I spend them?

What about real estate? Putting a 20+% sales tax on real estate would kill it. It won't help the auto industry any either.

by maxwell edison

.
This FairTax proposal will tax only NEW items, not used ones. You can buy a used car, and pay no tax at all. You can buy a used house, and pay no tax at all.

For those who do buy a new car or a new house, the same principle would apply.

"Homebuilders will Reduce Costs and Increase Profits: Like other firms, homebuilders will enjoy a zero corporate tax rate under the FairTax. Also, shareholders will not be taxed on dividends received from homebuilders or on capital gains from their investments. Partnerships, limited liability companies and sole proprietorships will also not be taxed on profits because of the repeal of the individual income tax.

Overall compliance costs of the current income tax system will be reduced. These costs, which are estimated conservatively to be $225 billion,[1] are partly borne by homebuilders (discussed below).

All purchases by homebuilders of building materials will be free of consumption tax. Business-to-business sales are not taxed under the FairTax. Moreover, since all producers of these materials will be operating free from income tax and with dramatically lower compliance costs, material (wood, sheet rock, nails, etc.) prices that now contain these costs will fall significantly. This will allow homebuilders to sell their products at lower prices while maintaining their current profit margins.

Research by Dr. Dale Jorgenson, Chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University and one of the country?s leading economists, shows that producer costs in the construction industry will decrease in the first year by as much as 25 percent. Economic output in the construction industry during the first year of implementation of the FairTax is expected to increase by more than 50 percent. The huge boom in this industry will be due largely to a significant rise in the demand for all investment goods. Dr. Jorgenson?s research shows....."

The Demand For New Homes Will Increase.....

Interest Rates Will Drop.....

Homeownership Under the FairTax Will Be More Affordable.....

Homebuilders? Compliance Costs Will Be Lower.....

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/homebuilders.html

by maxwell edison

.
It depends on the type of savings. First of all, the typical "passbook savings" accounts for a very small percentage of the total dollars invested. Tax-deferred savings, such as a 401(k), IRAs, and such, will get a HUGE one-time windfall, since they were not taxed going in, and they won't be taxed when spent. (The real value of your 401(k) will, in essence, go up 25 to 30 percent!) Savings invested in any long-term, income-generating asset such as a stock, real estate, or a long-term bond that can?t be called, will increase substantially in value, offsetting any tax on those dollars once their spent. And if you don't buy anything "new" with them, then they're free of tax.

But even though that $1,000 you might have in a passbook account might be taxed twice, you can still choose what to buy with it, new versus used, for example. But that pales in comparison to the other side of the coin, which is the tax-deferred savings most of us have. On balance, this one is a no-brainer. You have $1,000 in a passbook account, and it might (strong emphasis on might) cost you an extra $230. But compare that to the $100,000 (or more) you might have in your 401(k) account where you'll get a windfall of $30,000 that would have otherwise been taxed!

The key to determining if this is a viable plan is to look at it on balance, and in its entirety. If you want to pick and choose one little thing to focus in on, and ignore the dozens of other benefits, you're not doing it justice. Balance, that's the key. Not to mention that it should be compared to the current system.

by jdclyde

The people that benifit from the current corrupt and unmanagable system will only focus on a few negatives (in their minds) and never even look at the positives or balances as it will be some trade-offs taking place.

The other group that would oppose are the partisans that will determine if it MIGHT benifit the rich, then it must be bad, even if it benifits them as well. After all, it isn't "fair" that someone might "save" thousands while they only "save" hundreds.

These two ANTI groups often stand in the way of much progress. They don't stand FOR anything. Their purpose is to block the evil rich at all costs even if it hurts the poor poor in the prosess.

by master3bs

As far as real estate goes; the 20+% embedded taxes would be taken away. Several economists a lot smarter than me have looked at this plan and determined that real estate prices would stay about the same and even potentially be lower.

As far as your savings; yeah you'll be taxed when you spend the money. But you would be taxed anyway and not even know it. The beauty of the fair tax is how visible the tax is.

And remember you'll be able to put future savings away without being taxed on them; plus have more money in your paycheck to be able to save.

by tonythetiger

Resist the urge to compare how much someone else will get or save with how much you'll get or save. Simply calculate your own before and after spending power.

Real estate: Only new homes are taxed. Not only that, but the builders will no longer have to pay the embedded taxes of the companies that provide the materials. The same for cars. The further away a product is from "natural resources" ( component-wise), the more that will be saved due to the elimination of embedded taxes.

by montgomery gator

I think Democrats are misinformed and illogical, but I don't hate them.

I think they do not have enough self-reliance and are selfishly immature, since they want the government to be their nanny, but I don't hate them.

I don't like how they want to raise my taxes to confiscatory levels, then want to spend the money on socialist "bread and circus" giveaways of the kind that resulted in the declines of the Roman Empire and the Soviet Empire, but I don't hate them.

I don't like how they side with our enemies instead of with our military, but I don't hate them.

I find that they are smug in their ignorant anti-business, anti-freedom, socialist attitudes, but I don't hate them.

I think we would be better off if our two major parties were the GOP and the Libertarians, and the Democrats were a minor fringe party, but I don't hate them.

It takes a lot of strong will and Christian faith (love your enemy, etc.) to avoid hating Democrats, but with God's help, I will not hate them!!!

by tony hopkinson

has to do is sell out like the rest of them. As much as I disgagree with him, it would be disappointing if he lost all that 'moral' rectitude and became a commercialised brown nose flunky. I wouldn't have to pay any attention to what he say's then.

by maxwell edison

.
I might only be a one-termer because of it -- or maybe even get shot because of my style and painful honesty. (Speak my mind regardless, kind of honesty, that is -- as well as the other kind, of course.) But there's absolutely no way I would "sell out" on my principles. If I ever did run, and if I ever did win, I'd make the most out of it. I wouldn't run to join the status quo club. I'd run to make some drastic changes, and if nothing else, some drastic changes in at least the dialogue.

However, that's the very thing that would probably lead to my defeat. The voters all want something from somebody. And all I would promise to give them is less of what they've been expecting in the past.

Imagine this at a campaign stop. I ask for a volunteer from the audience. "Give me a dollar", I would say. The person would then give me that dollar, and I would ask, "Did you earn this dollar?" The person, of course, would answer in the affirmative. I'd then I'd ask for another volunteer. "Did you earn this dollar", I would ask the second volunteer? No, would be the answer. I'd rip the dollar in half, put half of it in my pocket, and give the other half to that second volunteer.

"That's what kind of government we've had for the past fifty years. One that takes a dollar from the person who earned it, and gives it to a person who did not -- keeping a little for itself, of course. And if that's the kind of government you want to continue to have, vote for my opponent. But if you want a government that will protect your right to assume self-responsibility, and allow you to keep more of what you earn so you can take that self-responsibility, then I'm your guy."

Nope, I'd never get elected. Too many "takers" would be in the audience. Besides, one of them would be a Democrat Party undercover operative, and try to make hay over my ripping the dollar. (Isn't that illegal?) Maybe I'd have to use Monopoly money to further illustrate the game they've been playing.

by tony hopkinson

unpatriotic. Even worse if you do it with a tax dollar you've just pissed on all the hard work and effort that went into

....

collecting it.
What you should do is keep both dollars, give them a nickel a piece and then question their morality and patriotism when they don't thank you for this largesse.

by maxwell edison

.
Actually, I might seriously consider looking into it in about 8 years. (Consider looking into it? What the heck does that mean?)

My campaign would be different than the standard crap you see, and I do believe I could at least cause some people to sit up and take notice of some things.

It might be tough to win my district, but I think I could. And if I could just get one term, just one.......

But president? No, I don't think so. However, with a big enough splash, and making enough waves, one never knows, does one? The next revolution, after all, might just be right around the corner......

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We don't love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, al...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright

by jdclyde

It is easy for me to not hate Democrats (most at least. People like Sharpton really try me)

I just realize that MOST Democrats are good people with bad ideas. Many of the bad ideas come from not being informed and following politics through the water cooler based on talking points they heard. Many at the top that have hi-jacked that party though are not in the same catagory, but I still don't hate them.

Not enough time in life to waste it on hate. I find I don't even hate my ex-wife although as many here have found I have had many reasons to feel that exact way.

"all we need is love" (too bad we don't have a flower child emoicon in TR!)

by jdclyde

My humble understanding on the workload is that the varification process of going through the tax returns on checking income and exemptions, not to mention audits, is a big part of the process.

And if someone pays more to electronicly submit their return, it is already in an electronic format and can be dropped right into a database that can look for errors and inconsitancies.

Am I wrong in my understanding of the process?

Question, if efiling reduces the labor involved for the government to process your return, why does it cost us more to do it? Hmmmmm.

by jck

But, I e-filed and paid $9.95 to use TurboTax for the Web last year. And, that included the entirety of going through about an hour of Q&A about my stuff.

If you spend 1 hour with any tax prep firm to consult doing yours, it'd cost you way more than $9.95 I assure you.

BTW, it was $9.95 to submit it. All the entry was free into their interface. I think it was normally $14.95 for first-time customers.

Plus, I got my refund in 11 days. Mailing your paper form in even right after you got your income statements I think takes a minimum of 3 weeks?

As for why it costs more? I dunno...maybe because the IRS keeps everything electronically on about $200M of computer systems and has to pay a full-time staff to support them? Paper would be more inefficient, but the computers cost more to keep.

And...the auditors still have to do their jobs, i.e.- reviewing any records that seem out of normalcy.

I just know, as I mentioned about the sales tax...sales taxes are generally filed on a more frequent basis than income taxes. That increase in workload would make abolishing the IRS almost impossible because (even with electronic filing) the increase in data to audit would increase by at least 2-4 times.

Plus, income tax revenues are considerably more steady than sales taxes. You still collect income taxes in a down retail market...sales taxes would drop and therefore your government makes less monies.

by jdclyde

get government out of the socal care role it would not NEED as much money.

If we stopped trying to buy influince with corrupt governments around the world by GIVING them "aid", it would not NEED as much money.

If we would crack down hard on illegal aliens AND anyone that would hire them, there would be more people paying income taxes (I like a flat income tax myself).

A sales tax on everything would reduce what people buy for a while at least as many would be driven away due to "sticker shock". (much like shopping in Canada)

You have stated that you don't think this would reduce costs for the processing of the data.
[b]
Do you have any complaints besides that? I haven't looked into it that much, but would love to hear if there was anything else about it that you object to.[/b]

by maxwell edison

.
You said, "...income tax revenues are considerably more steady than sales taxes. You still collect income taxes in a down retail market...sales taxes would drop and therefore your government makes less monies."

That's not true. Do you have anything to support that suggestion?

From FairTax.org

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

Yes, in fact, consumption is a more stable source of revenue than income. A recent study by American Farm Bureau economist Ross Korves shows the FairTax base was less variable than the income tax base. Why? Because during difficult times due to loss of a job or an inability to work, people may not have as much income, or may have no income at all. They borrow funds or use savings. They may not have earnings, but they still continue to consume. Korves?s Figure 2 below shows the yearly changes in the tax base, adjusted gross income (AGI), under the current tax system for 1971-2001 and changes in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) of the same time period.

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq-main.html#9

by jck

I don't see politicians on either side doing what's entirely right.

I also stated that government income would be based on a much less stable income base if it were depending on the spending habits of Americans rather than income.

by maxwell edison

.
Question 1: Who would be responsible for processing all the new sales tax data and paperwork if the IRS was eliminated?

Answer 1: The states already have in place the system to collect sales tax at the point of sale. This is the system that will be used, albeit a slightly expanded system. The feds will pay the states a nominal fee to facilitate the collection and pass the revenues on to them. There will be a need for a federal agency to collect the revenue from the states, but the size of this system pales in comparison to the current IRS.

Question 2: Don't you think there would be more data to process on a regular basis from all businesses required to report sales taxes rather than on a quarterly/annual basis as there is with income tax, thereby leading to an increase government's size because of the increase of required data to process?

Answer 2: No

The previous answers are mine. The following answers are from FairTax.org

How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax?

No state is required to repeal its income tax or piggyback its sales tax on the federal tax. All states have the opportunity to collect the FairTax; states will find it beneficial to conform their sales tax to the federal tax. Most states will probably choose to conform. It makes the administrative costs of businesses in that state much lower. The state is paid a ? of one percent fee by the federal government to collect the tax. For states that already collect a sales tax, this fee proves generous. A state can choose not to collect the federal sales tax, and either outsource the collection to another state, or opt to have the federal government collect it directly. If a state chooses to conform to the federal tax base, they will raise the same amount of state sales tax with a lower tax rate ? in some cases more than 50 percent lower ? since the FairTax base is broader than their current tax base. States may also consider the reduction or elimination of property taxes by keeping their sales tax rate at or near where it is currently. Finally, conforming states that are part of the FairTax system will find collection of sales tax on Internet and mail-order retail sales greatly simplified.

How is the tax collected?

Retail businesses collect the tax from the consumer, just as state sales tax systems already do in 45 states; the FairTax is simply an additional line on the current sales tax reporting form. Retailers simply collect the tax and send it to the state taxing authority. All businesses serving as collection agents receive a fee for collection, and the states also receive a collection fee. The tax revenues from the states are then be sent to the U.S. Treasury.

by maxwell edison

.
I would certainly support the Forbes flat tax plan over today's system. In fact, I've personally discussed that specific flat tax plan with Steve Forbes when he was running for president back in 1996. (Ooooooo, some name-dropping.)

I was also in support of Dick Armey's flat tax plan that he tried to get out of a House committee on several occasions. (No, I've never spoken with Dick Armey.)

However, flat tax plans have come, and they have all gone. None of them have been successful enough to pass even a committee vote, much less a floor vote. A flat tax just won't pass, regardless of how much people might want it to. Besides, some sort of progressive tax seems to be preferred, especially by the politicians themselves, who can play the class-envy game with it. And the FairTax exemption on the first $27,000 of income creates a progressive scale, depending on a person's income.

A flat tax will pass Congress when the preverbal pigs start to fly. And personally, if I'm going to throw my support behind something, I'd want it to have slightly better odds of passing than a snowball's chance of surviving in hell.

by jdclyde

[i]"And in fact, the First Baptist Church in my hometown single-handedly managed to cause a Kroger store to close (through patron intimidation and members of their church being on every city board) because they were selling beer in a grocery store and that was "immoral" according to their pastor. So, there's your religious right interfering in business as well and telling people how to live (legal adults couldn't get beer at a retail grocery establishment because of religious influence)."[/i]
A community and the people living there have a right to establish what they feel are community standards. If you don't like what a business is doing, you vote with your pocketbook like they did. The same thing happens when you try to open a nudie joint in the same area as a school. Adults are barred from going doing that because of community standards. You don't like it, you need to get more people to support your side. That is how our country works and you know it.

[i]"As for "school choice" with vouchers...the right doesn't want "to have true choice and competition in public schools". They want school vouchers to help pay for them to send their kids to the private school of their choice. Plain and simple."[/i]
If I am paying tax dollars for education, if I chose (and I did) to have my kids raised with a school of my choise that has a Christian value system, MY tax dollars should be directed to where MY kids attend, the same as if I move them from one district to another. This IS the point of vouchers that not all of us want our kids to become the future pagans of the world and believe a moral base helps to raise a moral person. It is our RIGHT. If the schools get money based on enrollment, how is this taking anything away from the public school systems? Answer, it isn't. That is just another of the many LIES told by the corrupt and unethical Teachers Union and the foaming at the mouth "Progressive liberals" who want a godless society with no standards or judgements on behavior of any sort.

This is the same as what the "Christian right" is doing, but that is different somehow? EVERYONE has the right to try to shape this country into what we think it should be and yes, Christians do have the same rights that you and the progressive liberals do, whether you want to admit it or not.

Your freedom FROM religion does not trump someone elses freedom OF religion. Your only protection is there will not be a "state mandated" religion, not that you will never be exposed to someone elses religion. You are way off on this (again).

by jdclyde

did I?

Both "sides" are guilty of this, not to mention the very nature of politics is the Senator that brings "home" more federal spending is re-elected, not the one that is fiscally conservative regaurdless of the party.

I pointed out why so much is needed, causing us to have to leach so much money off the people that actually work and how this money that is leached is NOT used to benifit us, the tax payer.

I ask again,
[b]
Do you have any complaints besides that? I haven't looked into it that much, but would love to hear if there was anything else about it that you object to.

by itgirli

as a matter of fact, it is the only vegetable that I eat. I'm conservative, so if you don't like spinach, you must really be a liberal! oh! you liar! tricking me into thinking you were conservative!

by jdclyde

it hates you! ;\

Try it steamed with lemon! That mush out of a can is NOT spinach!

by itgirli

you go to the store and get Bird's Eye chopped spinach in it's little frozen box. Then you take it to my grandmother's house and have her cook it (I don't know why or how, but it only tastes good when she makes it) then you put some in a tiny little bowl (make sure it's still hot) then pour the tiniest bit of milk on it (no more than a teaspoon). It is wonderful!

by jdclyde

Nice of her to host the TR reunion instead of everyone going to Vegas!

Ask her if there is anything she adds while she is warming this up!

It is still too soggie.

That is why so many old people don't like veggies! Everything was boiled until it was mush with no texture or flavor. Lightly steamed is king.

Oh, at my boys request, tonight will be brussle sprouts (steamed of course, and then a dab of butter!)

by m_a_r_k

That's the crap I was talking about. I've tried it with lemon juice, salad dressing and even motor oil. None of it makes a bit of difference. It always tastes like death that hasn't even been warmed over yet. I'd rather stick a hot poker in my kneecap than eat mushy canned spinach. How did Popeye stomach that slimy goo?

girli, regarding your "all conservatives like spinach" fairy tale, sometimes I like to march to the beat of my own drummer. :D

by maxwell edison

.
Okay, I'll concede that I don't want the "Christian Right" telling people how to ___________ (fill in the blank) either.

Therefore what?

The bottom line is that I don't think ANYBODY should try to force anyone else to live, to work, to educate, to whatever in a manner that's inconsistent with their preferences and/or values. I don't care if it's a right-wing bible thumping evangelist, or a left-wing atheist, or anyone in-between.

Do we agree on that point?

And on the public schools versus private schools.

I PAY for the public schools, whether I use them or not. And the point being is that if I am being forced to pay for the public school system, I should at least have a choice as to which school I use and/or what they teach. And don't suggest that if I want to implement change, I run for the school board. I might want to change it in a way that's inconsistent with another's preference, and vice-versa. Moreover, the public school system is controlled by the teachers' union; and the teachers' union is in lock-step with the Democrat Party. In fact, the biggest and most powerful lobby group in Washington is the teachers' union. And they continually support the Democrat Party, Democrat candidates, and the Democrat Party agenda. I don't want to use that system, and I don't want to pay for that system. The public school system has become more and more about politics, and less and less about education.

Sure, it's my choice to pay for private schools, but that doesn't make it right, because I'm being forced to pay for the public schools as well. My "bottom line" is that the money should stay with the kid. After all, schools are for kids, so let's fund the kids, per se, not the schools -- schools you may or may not agree with, by the way. If the money follows the kids, school choice for all will be the result.

I find it ironic that those on the left side of the political spectrum advance "choice" when it concerns a woman's right to choose whether or not to have a child, but they want to deny that woman the "choice" when it comes to educating her child.

By the way, I do choose to pay for private school. So right now, I pay for both, but benefit from only one.

by itgirli

No. i still like the Vegas idea. I really think a bunch of us should give it a try. Have our own geek convention.

by jdclyde

Just hold off till spring time and I am settled in my new pad and I will be there!

Take a train, and I could meet you at Chicago to have someone to drink with the rest of the way! Bonus! got a few that could meet up with that one as I recall. And trains can be cheeeeeeeep!

by m_a_r_k

Vegas would be a perfect place to continue this vegan conversation. Everyone has to leave their pocket calculators and coke-bottle glasses at home. It would be wierd having to refer to everyone by their real name. I don't even know how to say "M_a_r_k". I guess you gotta quickly start and stop between all the letters. :^O

by m_a_r_k

No, you're just tone deaf. Come to think of it, I seem to recall you saying once upon a time that you have lousy hearing in one ear. :)

by antuck

Personally I think you could have named this I hate politicians. I feel both sides are to blame.

I have wondered for years what would happen if an independent were elected. It would have to be a billionare who doesn't need some corporation filling thier pockets. Someone who isn't concerned with keeping thier friends happy by passing laws to benifit them. Someone who belives in the consitiution, and doesn't look at it like it is a historical document that needs to be rewritten to suit thier cause at the time.

The sad thing is this will never happen. Each election I am forced to choose between idiot 1 and idiot 2. I have to some how figure out which one is going to screw me less. This is impossible because all the campaigning is about is each side pointing fingers at the other say how bad the other is.

What I would really like to see is a candidate that tells me what they are going to do and how they will be accountable for it if they do not get it done.

Maybe my title should have been fantasy land.

by jdclyde

I picture yours M_A_R_K as how a robot in a cheesy 70's scifi movie would talk!

Girli would be easy, as "Empress" is real easy to say!

Mine was a nickname I had growing up as I had two other kids have the same first name, one across the street and the other across the alley. Or jd would work for that I guess. Really doesn't matter WHAT you call me, nice or not, as long as your buying rounds!

Now GG, that one I would have to think about.

by maxwell edison

.
I cut and pasted these answers from the FairTax Web Site:

What about value-added taxes (VATs), like they have in Europe and Canada? Are they not consumption taxes?

While VATs are also consumption taxes, and better than income taxes, the FairTax is not a VAT. A VAT works very differently. It taxes every stage of production. It is much more complex, and is typically hidden from the retail consumer. Second, in industrialized countries that have a VAT, it coexists with high-rate income tax, payroll and many other taxes that, in some instances, have led to marginal tax rates as high as 70 percent. Third, all other industrialized countries, except Australia and Japan, have a much larger tax burden than the U.S., which requires higher rates and makes tax administration much more difficult. Lastly, a VAT is a lobbyist?s dream, allowing them to install their loopholes unbeknownst to the purchaser. A retail sales tax, in contrast, is a lobbyist?s nightmare, applied as it is under the bright lights of the retail counter.

Does the FairTax improve compliance and reduce evasion when compared to the current income tax?

The old aphorism that nothing is certain except death and taxes should be modified to include tax evasion. Tax evasion is chronic under any system so complex as to be incomprehensible. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), tax evasion is beyond 2.0 percent, compared to 1.6 percent in 1991. Tax evasion continues to be in the range of one quarter of income taxes collected. Almost 40 percent of the public, according to the IRS, is out of compliance with the present tax system, mostly unintentionally due to the enormous complexity of the present system. These IRS figures do not include taxes lost on illegal sources of income with a criminal economy estimated at a trillion dollars. All this, despite a major enforcement effort and assessment of tens of millions of civil penalties on American taxpayers in an effort to force compliance with the tax system. Disrespect for the tax system and the law has reached dangerous levels and makes a system based on taxpayer self-assessment less and less viable.

The FairTax reduces rather than increases the problem of tax evasion. The increased fairness, transparency, and legitimacy of the system will induce more compliance. The roughly 90-percent reduction in filers enables tax administrators more narrowly and effectively to address non-compliance and increases the likelihood of tax evasion discovery. The relative simplicity of the FairTax promotes compliance. Businesses need answer only one question to determine the tax due: How much was sold to consumers? Finally, because tax rates decrease, tax evasion is less profitable; and because of the dramatic reduction in the number of tax filers, tax evaders will be more easily monitored and caught under the FairTax system.

----------

Next question, please.

(I love it when all the questions are already answered on the very site I suggested everybody visit. It saves me a lot of typing!)

by av .

PACs and special interest groups should not be allowed to affect a campaign with their money or propaganda. The same goes for big business. Canada is outlawing contributions from corporations? I didn't know that, but its a great idea. Unfortunately for us in the US and as long as GWB is President, it will never happen here.

Its unfortunate that Americans are so apathetic about their government. I can't understand the attitude, especially after 9/11 and the Iraq war.

I think Canada is on the right track, but is it because people push for the changes or the people in power are more focused on making the government work instead of their own gain?