I Hate Democrats

Max,

Even if I could find sources that support my ideas, would you accept them?

Would my sources need to pass some mystical test for you to accept them?

For that matter, you have stated mistrust of scientists who support evolution, and those that support global warming.
Yet, you accept the ramblings of economists!

Imagine the weather forecast if it were presented the same way economic forecasts are:

Check back with us in 9 to 18 months, and we will fill you in on what the weather conditions are today.

It's September 22nd, the Autumnal Equinox. Typically, that means that fall is on the way. We won't know if it will be fall or spring until we have time to evaluate all of the data. However, according to 75% of my fellow economists, 3 years ago today, fall did begin.

If an economist can't determine what is happening in the economy today, what makes you believe they can predict the results of an unprecedented fundamental change in US economic structure?

I have come to another revelation, in many aspects you are a self appointed ideologue.

If someones ideas don't agree with your social views, you challenge them to prove their concepts.

Then, you find ways to refute their sources.

I don't see any time that you have been open to ideas that do not support your own preconceptions of what is best for society.

Your ideas and concepts aren't necessarily any better than mine, just different.

Chas

You failed to mention a few things in your gloom and doom predictions:

A flat tax closes the loopholes that many rich people use to pay no tax at all, so if you factor that in, the middle class tax burden will not go up nearly as much as you claim.

Since the bottom 50% of wage earners only account for 3.46% of tax revenues, shouldn't something be done to give the upper 50% a little tax relief? Which begs the question, 'How do you give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay any taxes in the first place?'

Your assumption regarding charitable contributions is faulty also. Many corporations donate to their pet causes because that's what they believe in, not because of a tax break. I don't think you give people enough credit for their good deeds.

And how about some responsibility from those people starting out? Why are they starting families if they can't afford it? Look at the current welfare system. You have people on food stamps, WIC checks, and government checks having additional kids just so they get more freebies from the Government. People with no visible means of support should not be having 6 or 7 kids but our current system rewards them for it.

Your talk of gloom and doom with nothing to back up your ideas would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

And please note -- I am not trying to be a smart a*s as these are serious questions.

But firstly let me say that my comment: "What is this obsession with people on welfare?" was not directed at your particular post, but at all posts which emphasised this issue.

So here are the questions:

1. Can you direct me to the article or amendment in your constitution that specifically prohibits the government from using some tax revenue to distribute to people who, for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to support themselves?

2. If redistribution of wealth is NOT in your constitution and is illegal, is there not some way that the Republican Party, or some individual, or group of individuals can challenge this "constitutionally illegal" redistribution of wealth through the courts?

I won't say that I don't want *ANYBODY* telling me my preferences...that's a bit generic.

I think that the courts should establish a base of conduct that is amiable to all persons holding citizenship here and non-infringing on anyone's rights.

Now in point, I'd like to say that does not cover things like prayer in public schools, religious celebrations of holidays, etc...so long as a child or teach is not forced or coerced into participation with some action which is against their constitutional and civil rights. Because an event occurs does not mean that you have to participate...it simply means you follow your beliefs and do what is in your conscience. And because you are made to choose not whether or not to participate, I don't see that as harassment. It is an exercise of freedom.

As for public school funding:

You're absolutely right...you fund them...along with 10s of millions of other working Americans. The system is established to provide an education which is a level environment for all participating. Hence, it's fine that there are things you want. However, you must also concede that you may be in the vast minority at times, and that you will not get your way simply because the $3.58 you pay per year in property taxes that funds schools in your area should give you say-so. Hence, you have to have tolerance for others' wishes who contribute to the system just as well as they have to tolerate yours...that is, so long as they do not implement a hostile or unsafe environment for the children or staff in those schools.

As for who the NEA, etc. support politically:

That's all good and well. They're exercising their freedom to vote as a group as to who they support.

However, I'm sure you bank with one of the major banks and have a retirement vestment with one of the largest holding firms here in the USA. But, I don't see you complaining about most of the major banking, lending, and investment institutions were major contributors both directly to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, as well as the RNC.

And, at least the NEA is not a commercial group taking funds generated from customer billing and using them to back their own business interest. They use their own monies made from member donations.

That is, your bank charges you fees and uses part of that to push agendas to make them more money...not to improve your service or quality of banking.

The NEA is a non-commercial entity which generates its own revenue through membership fees and donations for its campaign contributions.

So, I'd say the NEA might be doing political wrangling. But, at least they're not making others pay for it. They pay for it themselves.

And btw, teachers do *not* decide what is taught in their schools. Books are reviewed by teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards alike in most cases. And, teachers found to be deviating from established teaching principles and approved agendas are often found to be under review themselves.

As for you paying for public schools not being right:

I'm sure you understand that in America, we have an established government which provides services that are a base of necessities to provide a common good for the people. Education is one of those things, just as are the roads you drive on, the police that patrol your neighborhood, the lights that are on your street, etc.

Sure, it would be nice if you could take the services you wanted "a la carte". However, this would de-stabilize the country as then some areas would suffer where others would get the highest-quality of services.

I agree in the sense that we should not be paying to keep schools open that are not teaching our children or providing a safe environment. However, the cure for that is not to allow people to put children in private schools. The cure is most likely to involve:

1) Getting good teachers: people who can teach...not just read out of a textbook for $21,000-46,000 a year.

2) Stop playing the politically-correct game in schools: If a child is disruptive, harassing, or endangering others, they have broken the rules of decorum and civility and essentially have lost the right to participate in a learning environment by infringing on other childrens' rights to learn. It is not the right of every child to be in a school no matter what they do. It is their right to be there as long as they behave in a respectable manner and participate in the educational process. Education should be treated like a driver's license: it's not a right, it's a priviledge.

As for how you benefit:

I'm glad you can pay to put your children in private school. I hope they're getting a better quality of education. However, you do benefit from public school educational system.

The public education system benefits you by providing a common means of education to all children so that we do not become a country of ignorance. It is there for everyone to utilize...poor or rich, male or female.

If we didn't have the commonly-funded educational system, how long do you think it would take for their to be an income-based divide in the educational level of people in those income groups? We'd slowly degrade into cultural position much was the case in medieval Europe and still exists in impoverished countries around the world. Do you really want us to head that direction?

As for money following children:

If "the money" followed each child around that their parents paid in taxes and the parents had a right to choose how to educate their child, then how would you determine where children went to school? Would the child of a person who only makes $20,000 a year in your area be any less deserving of a public school education than your child simply because you make quite a bit more than that? Would schools be allowed to deny a child because they weren't in the right income category? Would it be right to be able to deny that child the right to go to a better school because they aren't in the right income level and are forced to be transported miles to attend their own school?

If your money followed your child and you could choose how you spent it...and everyone else got to do that...you'd see a huge fracturing in society according to level of ignorance.

And, that plan reminds me a lot of what was happening back in the 50s and 60s. Segregation.
Just based on income, rather than race.

I whole heartedly agree that your children have a right to the best education possible. And if the educational system isn't do the job, we should fix it...not fracture it.

But, you also have to include in that they deserve the best education possible from the existing public school system which everyone's tax dollars pay for in this country...just like every other child.

And sometimes, the best education may not be what you or I think is best for us.

And finally...if you truly want to have your children learn exactly what you like...in almost every state in this country you have the right to home-school your children, or pay for individual instruction at a learning center where you design the plan and content of their education.

but not when they are green!

I've seen to that was Jesse Ventura...he actually told people what he thought...and, he got a lot of bunk for it. But, he always distinguished between what he liked/wanted...and what was best for the people.

Of course, I think even the corruption eventually got to him.

At least the guy was honest and didn't mish-mash around like some stone-faced bean-counting aristocratic knob.

And for that reason I don't think an independent could get anything done with Congress. They are more concerned about their own party's well-being than the nation's well-being. Doesn't matter how good your ideas are, you need a lot of oomph to back you up. In our govt, that oomph only comes from political parties. And party members will provide that oomph based on party membership more times than not.

but with a tint of green on the edges of the peel. I don't even understand those mini bananas.

Are you talking about the short, fat, brown bananas that are always laying out in the produce section of the grocery store and are more of a curiosity than a salable item and that nobody ever seems to buy? I can't figger one thing out about bananans. Aren't bananas grown in tropical places like the Carribean? Every time I've been to a Carribean island (over a dozen times in my short, dreary lifetime), they only have those short, fat, brown bananans. No Chiquitas whatsoever. And they don't even taste very good. They sorta taste like acorn squash. Carribean people have other unusual food items, but this banana thing keeps me awake at night. Where in the world is the Chiquita factory?

.
....in these threads, ones from Chas, more than anyone else, cause me to just shake my head in total disbelief. Without the benefit of personal interaction, I can't put my finger on the best way to describe my impression, but something is just weird about his messages, especially over the past year or so.

I've had some great conversations with Chas over the years, and at one point I would have said that we had a pretty good understanding of each other, although we disagreed on some key issues. But then his outlook seemed to change to almost an apocalyptic degree. He told me once that he doesn't trust his fellow man -- doesn't trust his fellow man to "do the right thing", I suppose. So he comes across with this smugness to suggest to others what should be the "right thing" for them. Whatever the opposite of live and let live is, that describes how I've come to see Chas.

He calls it a revelation. But I call it having snapped.

If everyone in the USA thought like him, the USA would surrender to the terrorists; we'd confiscate everyone's income for the "greater good"; the business would come to a screeching halt to "save the environment"; the auto industry would be replaced with a bicycle industry -- a "hand-made" bicycle industry, I suppose, since manufacturing would cease to exist; a nation-wide moratorium on building would be implemented to halt, what he would describe as, urban sprawl; he would create MORE government hand-out programs, justified by his desire to have fewer government hand-out programs (I know, it doesn't make sense); all radio stations would be permanently preset to receive only NPR, so that all the things we consider include only the ones we should consider; the United States would pledge an allegiance to the United Nations, thereby capitulating to the desires and whims of that world body, so that their interests are placed before the USA's interests; and I would volunteer to be the recipient of a one-way ticket to Mars.

Of course, I'm being absurd (but not too far off-base), but only to point out the absurd that I've seen in his messages.

Maybe the day will come when I'll get this email or a message from Chas laughing his ass off at me for being fooled. Yea, that's it. He's really pulling my leg. Okay, I fell for it. This is an April fools joke for the ages, right? One that keep going and going and going, fooling year-long? This as all a big "gotcha", right?

those nasty little oddities. I bet the Chiquita's come from a special farm in the middle of peru and guarded by mighty warriors from the Andes.

I would support a simpler tax system. While I think a flat tax as the only tax would not be "fair", we could have a flat income tax at a lower scale, and a consumptive tax, like the fair tax.

In Canada, there was great wailing and nashing of teeth about the GST(Goods and Services Tax) because it was on top of provincial sales taxes, and because it applied to services for the first time. As someone selling computer hardware at the time of introduction, I watched the prices fall, because the GST replaced a manufacturers tax - which applied to manufacturers and wholesalers of durable goods.

I do agree that loopholes should be closed - some of those tax loopholes mean people invest in stupid things to get tax breaks.

One of the silliest taxes we have are property taxes. In Toronto, many people have made huge gains in the equity in their house because their neghbourhoods have become hot and the value of their house has skyrocketed. But this is a paper gain - if they went to buy another house in Toronto, they would have to pay the same amount, so there is no real gain, unless they become renters or move to the country. Yet we tax them on it regardless. To me municipal taxes should be flatter - they pay for infratrsucture and everyone uses infrastructure.

James

for not supporting fairtax fall under one of these categories:

1. They're getting an unfair advantage under the current system, and are afraid of losing it.

2. They're worried that someone else will benefit more than they will.

3. They're in their comfort zone, and just don't want to rock the boat (this includes those who think their livlihood depends on the rules or complexity of the current tax code).

The way I look at it Accountants might have to shift around a little, but there will be plenty of work, probably more! Lobbyists... maybe become talk show hosts. Displaced lawyers, well, there's always fish-tank cleaning, and ex-IRS muscle could do something productive like collecting back child-support :)

Income taxes punish achievement! They stifle innovation!

Why should I have to pay extra because I'm willing to get my sorry ass out of bed in the morning and go to work doing something legal? Yet someone who has money given to them (either by the government or a rich relative); or a prostitute or drug dealer not have to pay it?

[i]Chiquita is truly a global company. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, they have 26,000 full-time employees and operations on six continents. They own approximately 90,000 acres (36,400 hectares) and lease about 50,000 acres (20,000 hectares) of improved land, primarily in [b]Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala[/b] and [b]Honduras[/b]. They also grow bananas on the [b]Ivory Coast[/b] and through joint ventures in the Philippines and Australia. Mostly, they use this land for growing, packing and shipping our bananas. They also own power plants, warehouses, irrigation systems, wharves and a railroad.[/i]

wow. you learn something new every day.

Those brown, green, and oddly shaped banana-like fruits are called "platanos" in Spanish and "plantains" in French. You have to COOK them! They are not meant to be eaten raw like the "bananas" we're used to.

In Cuban restaurants I've had them sliced and sauteed, but I'm sure such a ubiquitous source of starch has other recipes as well. They cook them both green (platanos verdes) and ripe (platanos maduros). The green ones vaguely resemble french fries. But the ripe ones are sweeter and a little softer, vaguely (even more vaguely than the previous comparison) like a french-fried sweet potato. They're both quite tasty.

Of course the Cuban-Americans helpfully translate the word and tell us they serve "fried bananas" which doesn't sound so appealing. But if you've ever experimentally fried a banana and ended up with icky mush that tasted like rotten bananas, don't worry, platanos are much sturdier and are meant for cooking. The texture is great and the flavor is brought out.

Actually the sign in my grocery store calls them "plantains," even though most of us are far more likely to run into them in the cuisine of Spanish-speaking countries than (I suppose?) Haiti or Martinique. I guess we English speakers just can't help it, we love to assimilate French words even when they're not appropriate.

was quite arbitrary, but was an attempted reflection of the portion of your property taxes that would go to fund the one school one of your child would attend directly...not the totality of your property taxes in whole.

Even if you pay $5k-10k a year in property taxes, remember that those property taxes fund several schools, police officers, firefighters, utilities operations, roads maintenance, street lights, etc. Not just one school.

For instance with my home and the 43% increase I had in value in last year's bi-annual assessment, I believe the portion of my taxes that funded county education was about 6.3% of the 100% of my property taxes, which is for all schools and their operations in the county (some 30+ schools). That ends up being a little over $5 a school, so I was at least in the ballpark for making an estimation of your individual contribution to a school your child would attend.

And yes, you must shift that decimal place over a few spots on that $3.58 to get my property tax level too.

Seeing as there is probably not just one school in your entire area for which your property taxes fund government, the number is probably quite accurate unless you live in a $3M home in Marin County, CA or Washington D.C. or a penthouse in a downtown area.

And if that's the case that you live in such opulence and you're on the soap box about money all the time, then you need a reality check about what being told what to do and how to live really is.

Be thankful you can afford what you can...not be so worried about how much you can pack away in a hidey-hole.

I did not say it was a Republican issue either, so don't start the party banter.

I was pointing out, because you were pointing out all the problems with government, that the fix is not happening and it's because neither major party is doing anything to stop it.

Proof that they're all out for themselves, not to help the working man.

As for any other complaints, I'll get back to you after I do a 300 page thesis on this.

Usually when I get asked to hold myself to something, it means someone has some crap to spew that and is looking to corner me on a technicality.

I'll get back to you after I finish the thesis and let you review it. If I'm gonna get held to absolutes, I'll go to absolute research.

and I'm a poet.

Plantains...that's the word I was looking for. I forgot the real name of that particular species of the banana genus. Thanks, DC.

girli, yep a railroad. At first I couldn't figger out why they would own any of those non-bananalike things. But other than power plants, they all have to do with production, shipping and storage of their bananas. Warehouses for storage. Irrigation systems for watering (though why they need to manually water anything in a tropical rain forest is beyond me). Wharves for receiving shipments from the banana farms. And your railroad for shipping from wharves to the friendly neighborhood grocer. The power plant thing is puzzling. Maybe they found a way to convert bananas into nuclear energy.

I find one flaw in your comparative analysis.

The Korves report is an analysis based on long-term stability, i.e.- decade or more, for tax-base incomes.

However, governments do not analyse budget needs past 1 year generally for expenditures and rarely forecast budgets past 3 years which means their tax stability for operation is based on short term tax incomes.

You can't operate government on decade-based forecasts.

Budgets are year to year and, in the short term, tax income from sales tax is more likely to widely fluctuate in the short term than income revenues based on a wide variety of factors (consumer fears, natural disasters, etc).

If you need it, I will go find corroborative literature as such.

BTW, is it fine for someone to take your sales tax and spend it how they decide in government how the deem okay, but not your income tax?

Either way, government is going to get your money and spend it on programs government wants which more and more benefits the establishment, and less and less benefits the people.

Let me know if you need documentation as such about short-term tax base fluctuations. I'll find you some.

the main reason I believe it will never pass:

Because if you made everyone (personal and corporate) pay the same base tax rate above a certain "poverty line" income, a lot of wealthy people and corps would be paying a LOT more in taxes and getting a lot less in their golden parachutes.

And so long as the corps and the wealthy are lining campaign pockets, we will never get that flat tax.

BTW, I also think that taxes for poverty level folks should be adjusted much in the way per diem is for government workers in different locations (difference say between working in Ottumwa, IA vs. Grand Cayman Island.)

It would only be plausible...a person can live in rural IA well on $27,000...but, not Washington D.C.

And, I'm not saying it has to be a big range, but something to compensate a bit for cost of living difference.

First of all: good to see you.

Second, just to let you know not every American tourist is a cheap-ass bastard:

When I was in Ireland getting ready to depart, I had customs ask me if I had anything to declare or a VAT form to submit for tax relief. I asked "Relief?" The customs agent told me I could submit receipts and get my VAT back on items I'd purchased in Ireland.

I looked at him and laughed and said "If it's what supports the system to keep Ireland the way it is, I don't want my VAT back."

Personally, I pay all my taxes and don't try to cheat anyone. It's bad enough the wealthy and corporates get all the loopholes they do. If those didn't exist, the whole world would be better off.

And I will point out to you:

The NEA is NOT the public school system.

The NEA is a educator-based membership that organizes. They pay for their campaigns, not the schools.

Banks take your money and pay for campaigns...plain and simple...to back THEIR agenda...not yours. So, they are taking your money (much like government) and spending it in places you probably would choose not to.

As for banks vs schools...you can have your child put in different public schools. It has been done before.

An like banks with your money, there are only a limited number of schools you can put your children in also. And also like politicians, you are sometimes forced with schools to choose the lesser of "evils" when it comes to education.

And I don't know where you live, but I've lived in 4 areas and seen school systems allow students to transfer schools (at the transportation expense of the parent to get them there) to put their children in another public school that gives the child a better education. But if your child doesn't warrant move to a school with better scholastic programs, I wouldn't expect them to move your kids there just because you want them there. You have to show a plausible reason to put your child in a better program rather than just to personally satisfy your demand.

In fact, the people I bought my house from had their child in a school in the next county south because the school system up here did not have the programs in honors that the child was academically gifted toward. So, it's not impossible to put your child in a better school...even outside of the county in which you pay taxes.

You can have a choice. It simply has to have merit to be considered.

But didn't know there were any more lyrics than you posted.

James

Yep I missed the reference. I haven't read many of Monty Python's books. :^O I don't even like snakes that much anyway. double-:^O

would you want to increase the government's income???

In Quebec, if you have a Parisian accent, they think you are a snob. Many of the French teachers in Ontario are from France - hilarity ensues..

There was a great movie (in english) about those Quebecois tourists in FL. It was about two Quebecois motel owners in FL trying to steal each others Quebecois customers and put each other out of business. Its a comedy if you hadn't guessed.

I am very meek as a customer -not at all demanding, tip 15 %, more if the service is excellent. My wife used to be a waitress and can't help but order substitutions and stuff off the menu - I usually cringe and tip extra to compensate.

Of course I could tell you stories of the ugly Americans visiting the historic heart of Quebec City - the walled part with some building still standing from 1630(earlier buildings were made but crumbled). I was in the city for a week, and immersed in French. Loving all the great restaurants, the museums, art etc. Along comes some American tourists - remember I haven't spoke a word of English in 5 days. They ask in a whiny drawl if I can tell them where the McDonalds is (and sadly there is one in the old city). I reflexively replied "Je ne sais pas"("I don't know" in English).

The biggest influx of tourists in Toronto is around Caribana - about a million or so. I try not to be downtown at that point - not because they aren't nice and polite, but because I just don't want to be around that many people. Driving down the parade route the next day it looks like a disaster zone.

James

A merchant sells something, he collects the tax. if he doesn't, it will be discovered at inventory time! If it's not discovered, someone isn't doing their job, and that person can be identified at every step. I'm truly sorry that Europe doesn't know how to collect sales tax. Perhaps if you went to a pure sales tax system, you could add the income tax enforcers to the police roles and find out why.

.
You said, "If you need it, I will go find corroborative literature as such ...... Let me know if you need documentation as such about short-term tax base fluctuations. I'll find you some."

Yes, please go find it. But keep it in context, and be sure to find opinions and forecasts that are directly related to this particular FairTax plan. (Not all tax plans are born equal.) Otherwise, your message is nothing more than conjecture put forth by an economic simpleton. I'm not an economic expert by any means, nor is anyone who debates these issues in these threads. But at least I provide support for my assertions, while others just blow whatever smoke might suit their desired outcome.

You asked, ".....is it fine for someone to take your sales tax and spend it how they decide in government how the deem okay, but not your income tax?" You went on to suggest, "Either way, government is going to get your money and spend it on programs government wants which more and more benefits the establishment, and less and less benefits the people."

This is comparing and/or grouping together apples and hubcaps.

The tax collection system has nothing to do with my opinions and preferences on the tax spending practices. The FairTax collection system is designed to be a revenue neutral system. As it stands today, the revenues collected by the various governments would remain the same. And regardless of how the tax is collected, I'm still an advocate for cutting government spending on unfair, unnecessary, counter-productive, and harmful programs. Just like I would suggest drastic cuts in the income tax rates, I will also be an advocate for drastic reductions in the rate of taxation under the FairTax proposal, should it ever become reality. The difference is that I would be a tax-rate-cut advocate who doesn't have to file an income tax return each and every year.

And looking at the other side of the same coin, the tax-the-rich and support-the-government-made-dependent-class advocates would still have limits and percentages to play with and demagogue over. I'm sure that John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their merry band of wealth-bandits would still want to raise the percentage of taxation and raise the level of exempt income.

I think the political system is set up wrong. Representatives shouldn't be elected, they should be drawn from the jury pool :)

.
Other than your own extremely limited, unscientific, and totally baseless observations in your little corner of the world, what in the world can you provide to support your claim that Americans are more impolite and worse tippers than the English or any other nationality?

It was easy to find something to refute your silly assertions.

Contrary to what you claim, the English and the Irish are the WORST, not the best. And Americans are the BEST, not the worst.

You have it bass-ackwards.

Cut-and-pasted:

Britons are the rudest, meanest and worst-behaved holidaymakers in the world, according to a new survey. The research, by online travel service Expedia, also found that British tourists make the least effort to speak the local language.

Germans were the most popular holiday makers, followed by Americans - who also give the biggest tips. British tourists are joined at the bottom of the league by those from Israel and Ireland.

Americans were judged the most courteous and the British the rudest, alongside the Russians and Canadians. (Canadians rude? Well, we have our Oz_Man to show that's true.)

But the Germans did not perform well in the spending and tipping stakes and were described as the meanest nation - closely followed by the British. The big spenders were the Americans, then the Japanese and Russians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2137729.stm

And my source is the BBC!

Man-oh-man. People sure do blow a lot of smoke around here.

.
I would like to write a book someday, but not here and not now. Could you be a little more specific?

But let me pull out one commonly misused and misunderstood phrase, "..... provide for the ..... general welfare of the United States ....."

James Madison is the Constitution's acknowledged "father," and here's what he had to say: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare', I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

.
I don't exactly know, Julian. Except continue to speak out, get involved in not only the election process, but everything leading up to it, writing, speaking, etc., all of which I do to some degree or another. And in 8 years, I just might throw my hat into the ring and try to make some waves. (Four years if some things go right.)

First off, I have no vested interest in the present tax system.

Secondly, I already stated that I suspect I would come out ahead under the unfair tax.

My opposition to the so called "fair tax plan" is that it does not pass muster as either fair or just.

The believers in the unfair tax think their is this large stream of presently untapped tax revenue that will fill the coffers and reduce their tax burden.
It just ain't so!

Sure their are people who find ways to reduce their taxes under the present system. Those same people are going to find ways to do purchase goods without paying sales tax under the unfair system.

The concept of capturing tax revenue from criminal activities is even more fanciful!
Do you honestly believe that they acquire a significant portion of their goods through the legitimate economy?
Or, that they won't find a way around a large sales tax?

As to large families, I'm not referring to welfare families. (Their benefits don't change under a tax change.)
I'm referring to a couple who desire to have a large family, and can afford so under the present system. In part because they get a tax break.
Under the unfair tax, they would end up paying so much more in taxes that their dream of a large family would be ruined.

Finally, YES I do seriously believe that the implementation of the unfair tax would bring the US economy to it's knees.

Chas

I challenge ALL of you who believe you would be so much better off under the unfair tax to test your theory.

For 3 months, keep track of ALL of your spending.

If you carry a balance on your credit cards, include the interest portion of the payment.
Same for home equity loans used for new purchases.
(This is because your balance would be 23% higher for the same expenditures, not because interest would be taxed.)

If you are paying for a new car, or lease a new car, include that.

If you bought your home new, include the principle and interest. But not the escrow.

Don't forget all those little cash purchases. Candy, pop, coffee.

Now, total all of that up, and multiple it by 0.23 then again by 4.

Compare that to your net tax burden from last year AFTER subtracting your refund.

If you do this right, and capture ALL of your spending that would be subject here is what I predict you will discover:

If you earn over $200,000 a year, you will come out WAY better under the unfair tax.

If you earn under $50,000, even with the rebate, you will be paying a lot more in tax under the unfair tax.

If you earn between $75,000 and $150,000, those who are very frugal will come out ahead.
Those that work to impress the neighbors will come out far worse under the unfair tax.

Chas

First off Max, if you think any of my comments are in jest or part of an elaborate joke, you are in denial. I have espoused my thoughts from the heart and core of my being more here than any other place or to any other group of people.

Further, I'm reasonably certain that my transformation into a liberal grinds you more than your comments and challenges influence me.

I'll even go so far as to suggest that I would still be supporting and voting for Republicans were it not for our exchanges.

You have shown me that my previous conservatism was in deep conflict with my core self.

As practiced in the US, conservatism is neither fair, just, nor tenable.

Further, one cannot be a true Christian and practice US style conservatism.

Jesus Christ IS the original liberal, and the path of US conservatism is anathema to his teachings.

I have neither the time nor the need to search for evidence to support my assertations.

I take comfort that I am on the right path, leading to the betterment and ultimate destiny of mankind.

Chas

It would have to be someone rich, so they didn't owe anyone anything. The problem with independents is that no one knows anything about them. They really need a party of their own that can give them equal footing with the other parties.

Political campaigns are out of control. So much money spent, so many negative ads from both parties. I can't stand to look at them anymore. I just don't get it.

We need to start over.

.
.....predicting such doom and gloom if the FairTax plan were to pass.

There is virtually NO organized opposition against it.

There is virtually NO respectable economic organization opposed to it.

There are virtually NO political leaders predicting such silly gloom and doom outcomes.

But Chas is smarter than every person in America.

Ether that, or he is the epitome of a frightened little rabbit.

which I would never assume to be interpreted as personal welfare benefits.

I was responding to your statement:

"In the beginning, our federal government had no power whatsoever. All of the power lied in the individual or the individual states. The constitution was intended to spell out what powers the people would allow the federal government to have. If something is not enumerated in the constitution, by its own definition, the government does not have that power."

And merely pointed to two sub-articles which quite clearly gave the government the power to raise revenue through taxes.

.
That was obvious sarcasm intended to make a point. And you suggest I'm in denial? This is getting too weird.

And I absolutely LOVE the fact that our exchanges" have contributed to your "revelation" into becoming an admitted liberal. I've been goading you for so long, and you finally broke. But can you spell "deep end"?

But I will suggest one thing that did surprise me. Your arrogant, pompous and smug judgmental attitude is absolutely sickening.

Have a nice life, Chas. But wait, your "nice life" is denying others their "nice life" of choice. How sad. And you call yourself a Christain. Excuse me while I throw-up.

.
Prove what you claim. Like I said, "deep end" and "sad".

Max,

Are you so cynical that you cannot tell when someone is speaking from their very heart and soul.

I know that your hope was to guide me down the dark path of conservatism.

You have both my condolences, and my unending gratitude for being the instrument of my enlightenment.

Just as I know I am now following my proper life path, I know that I am not destined to be the one to guide you to the path of enlightenment.

Perhaps someday in the future you too will be guided down the path of true enlightenment.

Just to clarify, no joke, no sarcasm, no mind altering substances, no deep end or mental breakdown, just the inner calm of true enlightenment.

Chas

Do you mean that you will consider presenting yourself as a candidate for public office?

Well I have missed my opportunity forever.

At the last NSW State election, a member of my local branch of the ALP suggested that I present myself for preselection. However it was already too close to the election date and I missed out.

Because of my age, I will never again be eligible to represent my preferred party.

I should mention briefly here that from all the remarks made in this discussion, I think the Australian Labor Party is quite different in terms of general policy to the American Democratic Party.

Australia flourished during the reign of Labor Prime Ministers Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, from 1983 - 1996.

Both these leaders moved the party so close to the centre of politics that many people now complain that they can't distinguish one party from the other.

The current economic prosperity and stability for which PM John Howard claims credit, is (according to people who understand these things much better than myself) simply a natural flow-on from legislation introduced by Hawke and Keating.

At the last federal election (October 9, 2004) the Howard government gained control of both houses. However this power for the Senate only became effective in July, 2005.

The Labor Party is in a shambles, largely through factional infighting, so currently we do not have an effective opposition, which I consider is necessary for balanced government.

However in Australia we do have an unusual (and I would think historically unique) situation in which the Federal government is conservative, but all states and territories have Labor governments.

Max,

Shame on you for falling back on the most tired of conservative rhetoric.

"If I don't use it, I don't benefit from it."

Whether it is public schools, public colleges, public libraries, public transportation, public roads, public parks, public beaches, public museums, public roads, public whatever. We all benefit from from everyone being able to make use of every public institution.

Might some benefit more from a private institution? Sure. That does not mean that you do not benefit from the corresponding public institution.

Every person who rides a bus benefits you.
Every child that graduates from a public school benefits you.

You are so caught up in your desire to control money that you blind yourself to all the good that comes from the PUBLIC coming together to aid each other.

We were better served by public utilities than we are by for profit utilities.

While some private schools better serve a small segment of the population, for profit private schools are a disservice to the community.

Every post of yours that I read further convinces me that you have aided my journey through life by showing me how bad the dark path of conservatism is.

Chas

I missed it, but should not have. Please forgive me.

sounds like a good idea. but I think monkeys migth get mad at us taking all their bananas (yes, we have no bananas) and the monkeys will go and hire some liberal lawyer out of California and we'll end up having to give the planet back over to the apes and.... wait a second! Maybe that's what happened on Planet of the Apes! It's really about our future! Wow! I am beginning to see things more clearly. After work I think I'll run by the zoo and pay homage to our new rulers.

You said:

"Yes, please go find it. But keep it in context, and be sure to find opinions and forecasts that are directly related to this particular FairTax plan. "

I was discussing the topic of broad-base stability of sales tax vs. income tax (and believe it or not, your FairTax plan *is* a sales tax and therefore falls under the umbrella of my discussion). Therefore, I was in context.

And I am going to be an "economic simpleton" if I don't only address what you want to talk about?

Hahaha...at least I know the difference between long-term and short-term economics.

Once again, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Let's get back to economics rather than name-calling.

I urge you to look up the 1997 study by Holcombe and Sobel study on nationwide tax base analysis and how in the long-term (30-50 years) they remain about equal because of their cyclical nature. But, that income tax remains more stable and has less "elasticity" and is less prone to destabilization in the short-term.

Have you been burned by others too many times? I have not baited you (as well as I can recall) and have no intention of starting now.

I state my point, and then ask you to respond on that point. Focused discussion of a topic. Too many of the posts in here will start running off "oh yeah, but what about XYZ blah blah blah?" to justify or distract from the point instead of just answering it.

No thesis needed, just an answer that you BELIEVE to be true that is consistant with your personal moral values. There will be times when you are asked to SUPPORT the beliefs, but up front I ask what YOU think, not what some clown has published on a web site and another clown is pushing as documented facts. It makes me laugh so hard that tech people here seem to forget how easy it is to post a website that says ANYTHING you WANT it to say. Also, just because you read it in the NY Times, or hear it on the BBC does NOT make it a fact.

As for the taxes, it could be a lot more automated than it is now, (I believe) which would cut down on the horde of IRS workers.

Of course, people forget when we "cut the pork" and "streamline government" we are putting people out of work. I just disagree with having so many people paid by the government, and personal responsability should HAVE to be a part of more peoples lives.

I don't CARE is someone that didn't bother to finish high school can't afford a nice car, bottom line. Let them ride the bus.

Actually it will reduce the tax burden for almost all individuals and businesses. It costs money to comply with the current tax code. That money is gone forever, having provided no useful (to a business or individual) product or service. Not only that, but this cost is passed along and added to in each step of the process from raw material to final consumer. When you talk about something truly complex like a modern automobile, where manufacturers buy from manufacturers of parts who buy components for those parts from other manufacturers, the cost of those taxes can add up to a substantial fraction of the cost. I would have no trouble at all believing that in an automobile or other similarly complex item it could easily be 50%.

22% is the "average" that Fairtax assumes. To me that means some will be higher, and some will be lower. Basically the further you are from "natural resources" in the manufacturing chain, the more imbedded taxes are included in your product. Also under Fairtax, business to business sales are not taxed. This isn't hurting government one bit because businesses write-off all of it anyway, but they still include it in the cost of their product or service, so it will help the consumer to be rid of it.

There are also large untapped sources of revenue. There is the underground economy, consisting of varying levels of seriousness from criminal activity to the average joe doing side work "off the books". I don't know how well this has been pinned down, but it is not insubstantial. When these people use this questionably obtained money, it will be taxed.

Then there is money that has left the country due to our current unfavorable tax position that would return, as well as new money coming in, which will stimulate the economy and put more people to work and improve the position of the people already working.

While the government's needs won't be reduced by a lot (they'll save on the same imbedded taxes when they buy stuff that we will, plus the costs to administer the new system will be greatly reduced), the citizens' ability to meet those needs will be increased, so it will reduce the overall "burden". And I suspect it will be discovered that the initial estimate of a 23% sales tax might have been a couple percent too high.

Nothing wrong with faqs. the more questions, the more interest.

I know this guy who wrote about going to live with God via alien spaceships too.

Maybe you'd like a black workout suit and some Nikes and to shave your head? I guess since he wrote that, he's right?

You put too much faith in writings without using analysis and common sense to verify it.

Every English person I've ever met here in the states who is on holida tips at a bar or restaurant because they see it as the "norm" here, where as tipping is not the de facto standard in England.

And, they tend to be more courteous and socially polite in public establishments and don't get all loud and obnoxious and are respectful of other peoples' dining experience.

Also, I'd like to point out...my post was about what *I* have seen. I didn't puff it up to be a scientific analysis of cross-border economics amongst various international citizens groups.

Stop your antagonization and trying to make yourself look smart by twisting words, Max. It might work at your job, but you haven't fooled anyone here.

Chas,

Max is right (at least more right than you are)...

I am all for the Fair Tax Plan... AND...

I am one of those people who does not pay taxes because I have a smart investment/tax lawyer... I made over 200k last year, paid no tax, and carried a 28k tax credit to this year...

This change would allow me to live in a single home (I own three for tax and residency reasons), drive the car I would like (a ragtop sports car instead of a Mastadon Tax break called an escalade), get rid of my rental property headaches, and just SAVE my extra income for retirement instead of tying it up in all this insane tax aversion... for you see, if I tried that under our current system, Uncle Sam would get almost 50% of my income...

Some of the obstacles it faces to pass into law are;

1. The ultra rich who control the Fed, Congress and the Senate, would never let it pass without giving them time to change all their investments out of tax shelters... and they may view it as empowering the great unwashed they so desperatley avoid...

2. The government would be tied directly to the economy (slow economy=less money for uncle sam)... This has some good and bad consequences, but too many to mention here...

3. The people could ACTUALLY protest bad government policies by organising purchasing boycotts... people don't buy for a week, government gets noticibly less money, they (might) listen... (might not work in practice, but theoretically)...

All in all, I think it would be a huge improvement, even though there might be some growing pains at first...

American tourists a lot of the time are either ignorantly obnoxious (raising their voice thinking it will make their language better when speaking a foreign language) to absurdly rude (having the same lack-of-manners they have when they're at home).

In fact, I've travelled with buddies before that I won't travel with again simple because of their lack of manners, inability to say thank you when served a meal or a pint, their lack of dignity (stealing towels and pillows and stuff from hotels), etc.

And while I was in Ireland, I met 3 Americans who were there on vacation who were rude and uncaring as to what the laws and customs were there. And no, they weren't travelling together. And, I bet they poop their pants whenever someone comes stateside and acts a bit not to their liking.

I know there's a bad lot in every country, but I spend over 200 hours in Ireland and I met not *1* rude person...even on the streets of Dublin where I spent almost a week.

If I could do that here in the USA without being in an area under 100,000 people I'd be amazed.

FRESH organic spinach, Steamed, with roasted garlic, cracked pepper, a little fresh grated parmesan, and a little butter...

A meal in itself ! ;-)

I never eat pepper. and garlic on spinach? yuck! blech! eww!!!!!!!!! parmesan too? I get sick just thinking about it.

Brussel sprouts (the smell could make a dead man vomit), and avacados (had a tree in my front yard in honolulu that produced so many I got sick from eating them)...

to run the production (packing) plants in the south american countries...I forget which ones specifically, but Discovery or Natl. Geo did a documentary on bananas last year and showed some of Chiquita's operations....

Yes girlie, you do learn something every day :^O

I wrote a pretty poem! everyone must see it!

However, I prefer spinach uncooked, in a salad.

When I was little, I hated spinach, since I only knew it as the frozen green blocks that were thawed and boiled, or in the cans that Popeye would squeeze open and eat right out of the can.

When I discovered leafy spinach in its natural form in a salad, I discovered I actually liked it. It is very good in a Caesar salad, kind of similar to Surflover's recipe without steaming it first, keeping it in its leafy glory.

nothing yummier!

Corporate filter won't navigate to it.

Been watching "Commander in Chief"? We can dream.

but do excuse me if I'm occasionally too busy to read [b]all[/b] of the FAQs for a theoretical tax system for a foreign country...Gripping though the subject matter might be!

It's much easier to occasionally look an idiot when posting. I can live with it, anyway!

:D

He was one of the names I had thought about. Someone with two tons of money. So no corp could intimidate or buy him.

I agree though that having an independent in office would probably be less productive. Since the two side we have now, are very loyal to each other. They would fight tooth and nail even if it was wrong.

Although, the one man, Ross Perot, I liked some of his ideas. Like when Countries have trade limits with us. We would impose the exact same limits on them. What a concept! Again, he had so much money he could laugh at corps when they tried to buy him out.

I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
No matter where they've been.
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
But only when they're green.
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
No matter where they've been.
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
But only when they're green.
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
That is what I said.
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
But not when they are red.
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
That is what he said.
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
He likes traffic lights,
But not when they are red.
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
Although my name's not Bamber.
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I like traffic lights,
I...Oh God!

.
Personally speaking, as far as its chances of becoming reality, I would give the FairTax plan about a 1 in 1,000 chance of passing congress, maybe more, at least as things stand today.

And another thing I would guess is this. If left up to the current lot of legislators, the weather channel will be reporting blizzards in hell before it passes. It'll take a strong will of the people to force new candidates to bring the plan to the forefront, so either a new lot of legislators will advance the plan, or it will force the existing ones to consider it -- probably a combination of both. But it'll have to be a primary campaign issue for a lot of candidates before it could muster up enough support to pass.

And this is neither a liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican issue either. Harry Reid, the very liberal Democrat Senator from Nevada, supports the plan, or at least is leaning towards supporting the plan, as does Richard Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana; and Lugar isn't exactly an extreme conservative. (Who would have guessed? Harry Reid and me supporting the same plan!)

Congress uses the current tax code, not as much as a vehicle for collecting revenue, but for control, plain and simple. And the last thing they want to give up is control.

People like Chas amaze me at their fear of taking control back from the government. Fear and ignorance -- the two things that will keep the FairTax plan from becoming reality.

.
....out of showing jck to be wrong. And it's an easy one at that!

Lighten up, jck. Can't you take a little friendly ribbing? I guess not.

I think we've covered just about every controversial topic imaginable in this thread. And not a single argument broke out! We should use this conversation as a model for every other member of TR to follow when discussing volatile issues. haha!

Moon Pies: Chocolate, Vanilla, or Banana? Or one of the new-fangled fruit-filled ones?

I prefer the traditional Chocolate Moon Pies. If you disagree, then you must be a liberal, socialist, left-wing sort of nut!!!

http://www.moonpie.com/

I like chocolate everything

.
That's what I'm going to give all the trick-or-treaters this year on Halloween.

.
Get Steve Winwood or Dave Mason to sing them and you'd be set.

It would be one thing to rib.

If you want banter, I'll sling mud with you.

I actually thought you were trying to attempt being credible.

I thought wrong...I'm sorry...I freely admit I was mistaken.

Back to coding for me. 2 moderate-sized software projects rolled out in less than one year single-handedly...not bad for a dummy, eh?

And one of them is an financial expense system.

.
....to ALSO take a "friendly poke" at our "very rude and very cheap" British and Canadian friends. And from the BBC, no less. I've heard so much "bash-America" banter from those guys, that it was satisfying to throw a little back at them.

Neil? Oz? You "rude cheapskates". What do you have to say for yourselves?

I love chocolate anything too. It's one my weaknesses. If you really wanna know, it's my only weakness. :D Keep me away from chocolate stuff. It won't last long.

Moonpies--I guess I've been living in a cave with girli's monkeys b/c I didn't know there was such a thing as spinach-filled moonpies. You did say spinach-filled, didn't you, Tom? Hell, maybe you didn't say that. Somewhere in this thread-tht-never-ends somebody was talking about spinach-something-or-other. Or was that the spinach-powered nuclear reactor?

I like your idea, Max. After all it is [i]trick[/i] or treat, right? It beats my idea. I was just gonna turn off all the lights in my house and act like nobody was home to keep the costumed kids away.

Certainly Florida - and probably the rest of the US - would, I guess, get the "best" type of British tourist, i.e. families with children. You can speak our language (nearly) and we don't have to eat "foreign muck" and can get good English foods like hamburgers and apple pie (though not with custard, for shame). Most of us tip well because we've heard of the starvation wages that your waitrons get and we try and help keep them alive because (compared to a UK barmaid or waitress) they are so bloody [b]nice[/b]. This is [b]major[/b] culture shock on any Brit's first visit, by the way - nice waitresses!

Some parts of Spain, alas, get a large number of another type of family tourist from my home country. Shout loudly in English, demand English food and English beer and don't have enough sense to get out of the sun. For our recent family holiday in Spain, my brother packed a pound of English bacon! Me? I speak some Spanish, [b]like[/b] octopus and chorizo and the rest of the family would only eat out with me if I promised not to "show off" or order anything too strange!

A third type of English tourist is the horde of twenty-something singles who flock to certain resorts in Greece and have drunken sex behind every palm tree, throw up, drink more and have sex again. Waaaa! I'm too old...

They would never go to the states 'cos the beer's piss!

Like most times, the BBC are right although it's a bit mean of the Med countries to mark us down because they certainly make enough money out of us!

Neil :D

Max,

I was not planning to return to this discussion as you have such a closed mind on the entire issue.

Anyhow, I came up with what I think is a great plan to further the cause of truth, fairness and justice.

I think I'll find some government grant money and go back to school.

Get a law degree.

Befriend a few politicians.

Become a judge.

Heck, if I put enough effort and make enough political connections I could make my way onto the Supreme Court.

Then, I would be able to mold the interpretation of the Constitution to fit the fair and just vision of the founding fathers.

Chas