• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC's "20/20 - Lessons from Billionaires: Tax ME to create jobs IN AMERICA!"

Kinda confused here, Buffet is in court fighting his tax bills from as long as 10years ago, claiming that he should have paid less, and I'm sure with his wealth .. he has the most talented and expensive team of tax lawyers arguing his case for him.


Then you say that if they raise his tax rates to an even higher percentage, he is suddenly going to turn subservient and and just start paying his “fair” share ??? I guess you mean to say .. what Buffett and his team of tax lawyers feel his fair share should be. Not you, I, or the government but what “he “ feels is fair.



-chuckles- it funny how the hated rich can suddenly become the hero of the liberal party, just by making a public statement, saying he agrees with their talking point … while actions clearly state that he has no interest in paying "his fair share" until his high priced lawyers and accountants tell him this is as low as we can get your tax burden. But then with all the tax cheats in this administration this is really nothing new.

For one thing, you are assuming Buffett has administrative control of all his business interests.

Secondly, There is pending litigation regarding this case. It has not been determined for sure if Berkshire Hathaway actually owes the money to the IRS.

"The IRS's assessments in this case improperly extend application of the ticket tax beyond commercial airline and charter passengers, to persons who own the aircraft on which they fly," the company said in the suit.

NetJets also claimed that the IRS hadn't attempted to assess such taxes on rival fractional-jet businesses, placing the company "at a significant disadvantage."


Berkshire's NetJets Sues IRS Over Tax Bill - WSJ.com

Thirdly, Buffett has never claimed to want to pay more than what he legally owes.

And finally, what excuse do you have for the other 199 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the capital gains tax rate?
 
For one thing, you are assuming Buffett has administrative control of all his business interests.

Secondly, There is pending litigation regarding this case. It has not been determined for sure if Berkshire Hathaway actually owes the money to the IRS.

"The IRS's assessments in this case improperly extend application of the ticket tax beyond commercial airline and charter passengers, to persons who own the aircraft on which they fly," the company said in the suit.

NetJets also claimed that the IRS hadn't attempted to assess such taxes on rival fractional-jet businesses, placing the company "at a significant disadvantage."


Berkshire's NetJets Sues IRS Over Tax Bill - WSJ.com

Thirdly, Buffett has never claimed to want to pay more than what he legally owes.

And finally, what excuse do you have for the other 199 millionaires that petitioned Congress to raise the capital gains tax rate?


-chuckles- lets see the latest figure I could find is there are 3.1 million millionaires in the US out of those 3.1 million they could only come up with 200 …. 200 f**king hundred of them thats what less then 1/10 of 1%? Suddenly all you liberals are touting this like something special ???

So what now? When 1/10 of 1% of any group says they should do something … it should be made law?? Chit man I knew you were a wide eyed liberal .. I just never knew even you were that liberal …. . you know I bet you I could get 1/10 of one percent of teachers to say they were overpaid ….. so hell . Lets cut every teachers pay …. I bet I could find 1/10 of 1% of the people of the US that still don't believe that Obama is a citizen … so damn . He must not be ..

As you your point about Buffet .... I wasn't making a point about what he owed .. I was making a point about his mouthing off of "tax me more" if he honestly felt that way .... then he wouldn't be filing suit over the loop hole that . either you, I or 99.5% of Americans never even heard of ... it only goes to show he's not concerned with the middle class ... what he is concerned about is to make sure he ends up with the lowest tax liability possible. His company is already looking at overseas investments where his income won't be taxed as the US rates so he can avoid even more taxes ....

also if you have any memory left at all .. you should remember I was one that was for letting the tax rates expire at the end of 2009 ... something that the democratic control house, senate, and white house refused to allow. ... so as far as I'm concerned .. the Bush tax cuts that were extended by only Democrats ... is nothing nothing more then a political campaign move now.

you guys are just ….... well you figure it out .. cause it's against the rules for me to say it
 
Last edited:
-chuckles- lets see the latest figure I could find is there are 3.1 million millionaires in the US out of those 3.1 million they could only come up with 200 …. 200 f**king hundred of them thats what less then 1/10 of 1%? Suddenly all you liberals are touting this like something special ???

Frankly that is a much higher percentage of millionaires than I thought there would be that would put country before self!


So what now? When 1/10 of 1% of any group says they should do something … it should be made law??

You seem to have forgotten that 66% of voters agree with eliminating the Bush tax cuts in your little equation there.

Having a patriotic group of 200 millionaires that see the necessity of raising the capital gains rate and petitioning Congress to do so, is just icing on the cake.
 
Last edited:
Frankly that is a much higher percentage of millionaires than I thought there would be that would put country before self!




You seem to have forgotten that 66% of voters agree with eliminating the Bush tax cuts in your little equation there.

Having a patriotic group of 200 millionaires that see the necessity of raising the capital gains rate and petitioning Congress to do so, is just icing on the cake.

And 66% of voters is a low low number .. seeing that you are talking about 98% that wouldn't be paying a higher tax .. it's easy for anyone to agree to higher taxes .. as long as it's not them paying it.

They are not the Bush tax cuts, those expired ... it's now the Dem's tax cuts as it was them that extended them .. lets not forget that they controlled everything when they were extended. There wasn't even a vote needed to have them end .. so the Rep's could do nothing to extend them .. Obama and the rest of the liberals are using these tax cuts as a political campaign tool and nothing else .. . but trust me .... many Americans will remember who extended them for two years
 
Last edited:
And 66% of voters is a low low number .. seeing that you are talking about 98% that wouldn't be paying a higher tax .. it's easy for anyone to agree to higher taxes .. as long as it's not them paying it.

Well you've got to figure a certain percentage of what i refer to as trailer park republicans who vote against their own economic interest because they have been fooled into believing that someday, maybe another 30 years or so, some of that extra money they have been paying in their taxes for tax cuts for the wealthy will come back to them.

They are not the Bush tax cuts, those expired ... it's now the Dem's tax cuts as it was them that extended them .. lets not forget that they controlled everything when they were extended. There wasn't even a vote needed to have them end .. so the Rep's could do nothing to extend them .. Obama and the rest of the liberals are using these tax cuts as a political campaign tool and nothing else .. . but trust me .... many Americans will remember who extended them for two years

No, the Bush tax cut were extended due to the threat by the GOP to cut off unemployment benefits to those that had lost their jobs, remember? YOu are wrong, there was a vote. They would have expired if there had not been a vote, and a majority of Democrats voted against extending the tax cuts for the wealthy.

You think Americans will forget that the GOP used American's unemployment benefits as blackmail to continue the tax cuts for their clients???
 
I'm talking about this:

What exactly are you having a hard time under standing try reading my reply again paying attention to the area I bolded for you

Where did I dream it up, if it's not totally obvious to you why Bin Laden attacked the twin towers then you and EX President Bush must lunch together, Bin Laden knew he could not take us on militarily but he had just seen the economic melt down the soviet union suffered so why not see if he could not use the same economic warfare on the USA, How could he know that ex President Bush would use the opportunity to invade Iraq. What could be better then President Bush over throwing Sadam and spreading the USA combat forces into another war front , remember Sadam and Bin Laden were not buddies. And now look at the mess ex President Bush created by removing Sadam again remember Iraq and Iran were not friendly. We removed a dictator Sadam who if nothing more could control Iraq keeping it a nation that Bin Laden and the Al Quida were not welcome in and a Sadam in power controlled Iranian influence in Iraq.

Did you say were did I dream it up, I say wake up and take a look at our economy and then tell me exactly what the two wars accomplished that made America a safer and more prosperious nation

I'm talking about this:


Originally Posted by EarlzP
What brought the soviets down was Osama Bin Laden...
 
Where'd you dream that up? :rofl

In case you have forgotten...Afghanistan milked the Russian empire of whatever treasure they had left...they were quagmired there for years and lost miserably and were weakened financially and militarily considerably...kinda like we are...only were not losing like they were...its just costing us alot more
 
Well you've got to figure a certain percentage of what i refer to as trailer park republicans who vote against their own economic interest because they have been fooled into believing that someday, maybe another 30 years or so, some of that extra money they have been paying in their taxes for tax cuts for the wealthy will come back to them.

Why can't they just be people who live in a trailer park that don't want to live on government hand outs?
 
It is apparent that you do not see, Being an American gives me the right to think for myself...

No one including myself said that you don't have the right to think for yourself. More like questioning if that is the case. There is a difference.

not just fall for any BS that flows from the mouth of anyone

And according to liberal talking points, one could easily conclude that your statement that closely follows along with liberal anti war talking points during the Bush administration would be exactly falling for BS. Your line that I addressed is nothing new and quite interchangeable with 7 years of those spewed by that crowd. True thinking on your own I would think, bring much more thoughtful retrospect, rather than one liners.

Our reason for invading Afghanistan was to kill or capture Bin Laden or was it?

That was one facet of the mission yes.

If so what took so long and why are we still there?

That is a whole different thread, however, the short answer is that OBL was not the only objective for going in.

Why did we invade Iraq? for what purpose?

Again, different thread, and one that has been beat to death. If you need to re hash yet again, there is a search option, I am sure that there are at least 500 threads discussing the subject.

These were wars prolonged long after the mission accomplished banner should have brought the troops home.

I am no fan of 'nation building' either, however, situations are never static.

I don't need to apologize for my view points. I was not drafted I volunteered for Viet Nam I served my country and then watched as they pulled us out after losing 58,000 american men and women.

I can only thank you for your service, and say that the feeling you have about not being able to complete the job, and the disgust you obviously display about pulling troops from VN negating the cost of life of your fellow soldiers there, should not be reason to repeat that retreat.

The only people who should be apologizing for thier actions are the ones who are afraid to speak up and the ones like you who would demean them for speaking out.

I see, so if others don't agree with you that is an attack? Only you have the right to your opinion? Is that how it works? No one demeaned you, that is a sign of insecurity on your part.

You don't have to agree with me

Obviously, considering the body of your post above, I do, otherwise in your eyes I am doing something wrong by challenging your words. Your argument, and or opinion is not infallible just because you think you are right. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

but you or no one else has the right to accuse me of hating my country because you have a different opinion then I do

When you make a post speaking from the enemies POV, speaking like you have some insight into what OBL, or any other enemy of this country was thinking, all for the sake of undermining the mission of the troops sent on our behalf to do a difficult job under fire every day while you moan from your easy chair then yes I will question your motive. Service record or not. See I served too. And had family in harms way in Iraq.

j-mac
 
No one including myself said that you don't have the right to think for yourself. More like questioning if that is the case. There is a difference.



And according to liberal talking points, one could easily conclude that your statement that closely follows along with liberal anti war talking points during the Bush administration would be exactly falling for BS. Your line that I addressed is nothing new and quite interchangeable with 7 years of those spewed by that crowd. True thinking on your own I would think, bring much more thoughtful retrospect, rather than one liners.



That was one facet of the mission yes.



That is a whole different thread, however, the short answer is that OBL was not the only objective for going in.



Again, different thread, and one that has been beat to death. If you need to re hash yet again, there is a search option, I am sure that there are at least 500 threads discussing the subject.



I am no fan of 'nation building' either, however, situations are never static.



I can only thank you for your service, and say that the feeling you have about not being able to complete the job, and the disgust you obviously display about pulling troops from VN negating the cost of life of your fellow soldiers there, should not be reason to repeat that retreat.



I see, so if others don't agree with you that is an attack? Only you have the right to your opinion? Is that how it works? No one demeaned you, that is a sign of insecurity on your part.



Obviously, considering the body of your post above, I do, otherwise in your eyes I am doing something wrong by challenging your words. Your argument, and or opinion is not infallible just because you think you are right. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.



When you make a post speaking from the enemies POV, speaking like you have some insight into what OBL, or any other enemy of this country was thinking, all for the sake of undermining the mission of the troops sent on our behalf to do a difficult job under fire every day while you moan from your easy chair then yes I will question your motive. Service record or not. See I served too. And had family in harms way in Iraq.

j-mac

The parts of your reply that I have bolded above are nothing more then a lame rhetorical effort on your part to silence anyone who would question the legitiamacy of our need to go to war,putting american fighting men and women into harms way for any reason not related to protecting our country against an enemy should not be supported by any american who loves his/her country.

To support your point of view please tell me what the end goals were and what we accomplished that could not have been accomplished without committing America's fighting men and women to war. Some people just blindly follow because they do not have the knowledge and or the capacity to think for thier selves, some do it because they are just to lazy, some do it to achieve other then thier stated intent in other words they lie to achieve a goal and in doing so sacrifice the lives of those who defend the country with thier blood.

The problem I have with you and those like you is that you are intelligent enough to know when you are being lead by your nose and are willing to not only defend any action taken by our governement but have the gall to rhetorically attack the character of any one who disagrees with you.

I do not hate any one or any thing, I will not be silenced by your rhetorical talking points. I am a true American I will fight any enemy foreign or domestic to protect America for my children and grand children.
 
No one including myself said that you don't have the right to think for yourself. More like questioning if that is the case. There is a difference.



And according to liberal talking points, one could easily conclude that your statement that closely follows along with liberal anti war talking points during the Bush administration would be exactly falling for BS. Your line that I addressed is nothing new and quite interchangeable with 7 years of those spewed by that crowd. True thinking on your own I would think, bring much more thoughtful retrospect, rather than one liners.



That was one facet of the mission yes.



That is a whole different thread, however, the short answer is that OBL was not the only objective for going in.



Again, different thread, and one that has been beat to death. If you need to re hash yet again, there is a search option, I am sure that there are at least 500 threads discussing the subject.



I am no fan of 'nation building' either, however, situations are never static.



I can only thank you for your service, and say that the feeling you have about not being able to complete the job, and the disgust you obviously display about pulling troops from VN negating the cost of life of your fellow soldiers there, should not be reason to repeat that retreat.



I see, so if others don't agree with you that is an attack? Only you have the right to your opinion? Is that how it works? No one demeaned you, that is a sign of insecurity on your part.



Obviously, considering the body of your post above, I do, otherwise in your eyes I am doing something wrong by challenging your words. Your argument, and or opinion is not infallible just because you think you are right. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.



When you make a post speaking from the enemies POV, speaking like you have some insight into what OBL, or any other enemy of this country was thinking, all for the sake of undermining the mission of the troops sent on our behalf to do a difficult job under fire every day while you moan from your easy chair then yes I will question your motive. Service record or not. See I served too. And had family in harms way in Iraq.

j-mac

The parts of your reply that I have bolded above are nothing more then a lame rhetorical effort on your part to silence anyone who would question the legitiamacy of our need to go to war,putting american fighting men and women into harms way for any reason not related to protecting our country against an enemy should not be supported by any american who loves his/her country.

To support your point of view please tell me what the end goals were and what we accomplished that could not have been accomplished without committing America's fighting men and women to war. Some people just blindly follow because they do not have the knowledge and or the capacity to think for thier selves, some do it because they are just to lazy, some do it to achieve other then thier stated intent in other words they lie to achieve a goal and in doing so sacrifice the lives of those who defend the country with thier blood.

The problem I have with you and those like you is that you are intelligent enough to know when you are being lead by your nose and are willing to not only defend any action taken by our governement but have the gall to rhetorically attack the character of any one who disagrees with you.

I do not hate any one or any thing, I will not be silenced by your rhetorical talking points. I am a true American I will fight any enemy foreign or domestic to protect America for my children and grand children.
 
Seriously? What mosque do you go to?

What religion or whether or not I practice any religion is none of your business, are you familiar with the Bill of Rights? Let me help you with the first amendment

The 1st Amendment protects the people's right to practice religion

• to speak freely
•to assemble (meet)
• to address the government (petition)
•the press to publish (newspapers, tv, radio, Internet)

If you need to refresh your knowledge you can go to

PowerPoint Presentation - The Bill of Rights The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution
 
In case you have forgotten...Afghanistan milked the Russian empire of whatever treasure they had left...they were quagmired there for years and lost miserably and were weakened financially and militarily considerably...kinda like we are...only were not losing like they were...its just costing us alot more

No, the Mujas--trained and funded by the United States and were never lead by UBL--along with the natural flaws of communism brought down the Soviet Union.

At no time did UBL bring down the Soviets.
 
The parts of your reply that I have bolded above are nothing more then a lame rhetorical effort on your part to silence anyone who would question the legitiamacy of our need to go to war,putting american fighting men and women into harms way for any reason not related to protecting our country against an enemy should not be supported by any american who loves his/her country.

To support your point of view please tell me what the end goals were and what we accomplished that could not have been accomplished without committing America's fighting men and women to war. Some people just blindly follow because they do not have the knowledge and or the capacity to think for thier selves, some do it because they are just to lazy, some do it to achieve other then thier stated intent in other words they lie to achieve a goal and in doing so sacrifice the lives of those who defend the country with thier blood.

The problem I have with you and those like you is that you are intelligent enough to know when you are being lead by your nose and are willing to not only defend any action taken by our governement but have the gall to rhetorically attack the character of any one who disagrees with you.

I do not hate any one or any thing, I will not be silenced by your rhetorical talking points. I am a true American I will fight any enemy foreign or domestic to protect America for my children and grand children.

So, anyone that doesn't fall in line with what you believe are "enemies" in your own words. I am not here to change your mind, and I certainly hope that you don't think that through innuendo, and insult that you will change mine on the subject of wars that we have been involved in now for more than ten years. Anyhow, this thread is not in the slightest about Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is however about taxing one segment of this society more so than others out of sheer self indulgence of jealous greed, and it is IMHO, unjust. So what do you say we get back on topic before either of us ends up with dings.

j-mac
 
So, anyone that doesn't fall in line with what you believe are "enemies" in your own words. I am not here to change your mind, and I certainly hope that you don't think that through innuendo, and insult that you will change mine on the subject of wars that we have been involved in now for more than ten years. Anyhow, this thread is not in the slightest about Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is however about taxing one segment of this society more so than others out of sheer self indulgence of jealous greed, and it is IMHO, unjust. So what do you say we get back on topic before either of us ends up with dings.

j-mac

When you make a post speaking from the enemies POV
,

Was that you above accusing me of supporting the enemies point of view?

speaking like you have some insight into what OBL, or any other enemy of this country was thinking

I did n't know What OBL was trying to accomplish when he brought down the twin towers but you did right?

all for the sake of undermining the mission of the troops sent on our behalf to do a difficult job under fire every day while you moan from your easy chair then yes I will question your motive.

The mission of any soldier is to carry out the orders of his commander having served I am sure you are aware of that, the mission of every US citizen is to ensure that our military is not used to settle private disputes or to be put in harms way without a clear objective, my motive is to up hold the oath I took when I enetered the service and that is to protect my country from any enemy domestic or foreign.

Service record or not. See I served too. And had family in harms way in Iraq
.

Thank you and your family for serving OUR country. My time protecting what I think is the the best course of action for OUR country did not end with my discharge, I have a grandson I want to do what ever I can to make sure that he will only be put in harms way to protect America. By speaking out I use my first amendment rights to express my opinion based on the facts available and common sense

Back to the thread at hand I think taxes should be raised across the board why? The poor will still not pay, the working poor will still not pay, those earning minimum wage will still not pay, in fact most of those not paying or paying very little will see no change in taxes. An across the board raise in taxes may actually help the poorest in our country by keeping existing programs for the poor intact
 
,

Was that you above accusing me of supporting the enemies point of view?



I did n't know What OBL was trying to accomplish when he brought down the twin towers but you did right?



The mission of any soldier is to carry out the orders of his commander having served I am sure you are aware of that, the mission of every US citizen is to ensure that our military is not used to settle private disputes or to be put in harms way without a clear objective, my motive is to up hold the oath I took when I enetered the service and that is to protect my country from any enemy domestic or foreign.

.

Thank you and your family for serving OUR country. My time protecting what I think is the the best course of action for OUR country did not end with my discharge, I have a grandson I want to do what ever I can to make sure that he will only be put in harms way to protect America. By speaking out I use my first amendment rights to express my opinion based on the facts available and common sense

Back to the thread at hand I think taxes should be raised across the board why? The poor will still not pay, the working poor will still not pay, those earning minimum wage will still not pay, in fact most of those not paying or paying very little will see no change in taxes. An across the board raise in taxes may actually help the poorest in our country by keeping existing programs for the poor intact


Flat or fair tax?

J-mac
 
Flat or fair tax?

J-mac

I don't think a flat tax would work, I I like the fair tax concept but would have to see what items would be considered essential.
 
I don't think a flat tax would work, I I like the fair tax concept but would have to see what items would be considered essential.

Food, shelter, and clothing.


In my opinion, anyway.
 
Essential items are the things purchased for the first 12k one spends (the poverty line) on retail items. Each person can decide that for themselves; each person gets a rebate for the retail sales tax on that amount, even if they buy nothing retail or do not even spend that amount total for the year. There is no tax on used items.

So, when we speak of essential items in the fair tax, we speak of the first 12k spent on retail goods... not exactly essentials, as there is no property tax.



ps. Never heard of the 1st Amendment;tl;dr

And anyone who thinks OBL brought down the USSR is:
a. Anti-war to the point of certifiable delusion.
b. Crazy.
c. Brainwashed.
d. Muslim and c.
e. d. and b.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a flat tax would work, I I like the fair tax concept but would have to see what items would be considered essential.

Guns should be tax free.
 
Last edited:
And anyone who thinks OBL brought down the USSR is:
a. Anti-war to the point of certifiable delusion.
b. Crazy.
c. Brainwashed.
d. Muslim and c.
e. d. and b.

Same could be said for anyone who thinks Reagan brought down the USSR. :lol:
 
Guns should be tax free.

The patch you are displaying is called a combat infantrymen's badge, the weapon is a rifle a rifle used in combat is not a gun it is a weapon, the purpose of a weapon is to kill an enemy. A gun should be licensed and taxed just my opinion
 
Essential items are the things purchased for the first 12k one spends (the poverty line) on retail items. Each person can decide that for themselves; each person gets a rebate for the retail sales tax on that amount, even if they buy nothing retail or do not even spend that amount total for the year. There is no tax on used items.

So, when we speak of essential items in the fair tax, we speak of the first 12k spent on retail goods... not exactly essentials, as there is no property tax.



ps. Never heard of the 1st Amendment;tl;dr

And anyone who thinks OBL brought down the USSR is:
a. Anti-war to the point of certifiable delusion.
b. Crazy.
c. Brainwashed.
d. Muslim and c.
e. d. and b.

I don't like the fair tax one reason would be that it can be adjusted annually, I would need to see a list of what exactly essential is, for instance is a 5 bedroom 6 bath home essential for a family of 3, is a 50 thousand dollar new auto essential?

The FairTax is a tax reform proposal for the federal government of the United States that would replace all federal taxes on personal and corporate income[1] with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 13) would apply a tax once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[2][3] First introduced into the United States Congress in 1999, a number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the bill; however, it has not moved from committee and has yet to have any effect on the tax system. In recent years, a tax reform movement has formed behind the FairTax proposal.[4] Increased support was created after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005 and additional visibility was gained in the 2008 presidential campaign.

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation for the first year, is 23% of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[5] The rate would then be automatically adjusted annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.[6] With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[3] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[7][8] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class.[5][9] Supporters contend that the plan would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power.[10][11]

The plan's supporters believe that a consumption tax would have a positive effect on savings and investment, that it would ease tax compliance, and that the tax would result in increased economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. competitiveness in international trade.[12][13][14] Opponents contend that a consumption tax of this size would be extremely difficult to collect, and would lead to pervasive tax evasion.[5][7] They also argue that the proposed sales tax rate would raise less revenue than the current tax system, leading to an increased budget deficit.[5][15] The plan is expected to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government, and supporters believe it would have positive effects on civil liberties, the environment, and advantages with taxing illegal activity and illegal immigrants.[12][16] There are concerns regarding the proposed repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, removal of tax deduction incentives, transition effects on after-tax savings, incentives on credit use, and the loss of tax advantages to state and local bonds.

Under the first amendment you are entitled to your opinion of me and truthfully in this format it has little to no effect on me, to me you are just a name calling no body
 
I don't like the fair tax one reason would be that it can be adjusted annually, I would need to see a list of what exactly essential is, for instance is a 5 bedroom 6 bath home essential for a family of 3, is a 50 thousand dollar new auto essential?

I don't think you understand the fair tax or the prebate. The prebate, which provides for "essential items" is based on the poverty line and provides a rebate (at the beginning of the year, thus prebate) for taxes up to that level of expenditure (presuming that expenditure to be in the retail market). Thus, everyone gets a prebate for ~$4000, the taxes (again, assuming retail) up to the poverty line (~12k).


Under the first amendment you are entitled to your opinion of me and truthfully in this format it has little to no effect on me, to me you are just a name calling no body

Figuring that someone is a Muslim is name calling? Why do you hate Muslims. Ok, maybe you're not Muslim. Perhaps you idolize and glorify OBL for some other reason.


Same could be said for anyone who thinks Reagan brought down the USSR.

Personally, I think the biggest factor was mismanagement by the centralized government (the largest mistake being a failure to de-centralize agriculture as China and Cuba did to save themselves). Nonetheless, any sane and educated person would give Reagan more credit than OBL.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom