# Fair tax



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am still reading things about the fair tax that Bobm keeps bringing up. I was surprised that some people who are against it then state what they would like. The description of what they like is the fair tax. I have not made up my mind yet, but have few reservations left. The reason I am posting this is not to talk anyone into it, but to tell you it is exactly what some of you want, but have not given it a serious look. Think whatever you wish, but read it. I could use some opinions and serious discussion. This is a very important decision and something we should at least consider. Let's be careful not to shaft ourselves because we dislike liberals or conservative base values.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Plainsman I'm sure you are thinking of me when you say some have said "they are for it then aginst it", with what I posted in another topic that for some reason was locked? I think political discussion should be open and constructive not exclusive and lecture. My mistake was that I didn't go into detail about what type of flat tax I did and didn't agree with. There are many versions. I also stated that the Republicans were in favor of a flat tax which was a blanket statement. That was not correct, not all are. However it is safe to say more R's agree with a flat tax than D's, I know, I've asked.

For the record I like the idea of a flat / fair tax, whatever you want to call it. I will not refer to websites such as fairtax whatever as fact like some do. I don't care if I agree with them 100%. people make mistakes and wesites are created by people, there is a lot of crap on the net, would you disagree? Websites are not fact, they may contain facts but that doesn't mean everything is true. They are a means or method to transport information and opinion. Was it opinion or information that had people believing the world was flat at one time?

My idea of a flat tax, social security, everything but state and local tax would be to combine, the whole lot. Minimum living statndard would have to be established for a bottem end of course. say for instance it was 25k.
Everybody who is able to work would contribute to a social fund that would replace ss. You would pay in regardless of what you make to a certian point a max of say $2500 a year. you pay in if you make 5k or 50k anything over the minimum living standard everybody pays the same %. No deductions, none! no incentive for marrige, kids nothing.

WARNING The above is the opinion of Tail Chaser, in no way is it to be considered true or fact. Do not mention in the presence of extreme consrvatives, will result in increased blood presssure and inhability to think with an open mind. :lol:

I didn't know some would get so upset over a politcal discusion in another topic, its not that big of a deal they are opinions after all. I won't say what I think of corp taxes, I want Bobm to be able to sleep the next few days. 

TC


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TC
I'm not sure who locked the other thread or why. It wasn't that productive anymore, but this one is off on a good foot. So many misunderstandings. I would agree you don't know what your getting on the net. I was explaining that on another thread talking about these PETA people and such, and guess what. Part of it (25% perhaps) was aimed at a person on this site, 75% was not, but he thought it all was.

As for the FairTax site. I don't find time to go over the whole thing at any one time. Also, there are some questions I have that there are no answers to on the site. I signed up for their on line news letter, but have received nothing. In short I don't think it is the cats meow, but it has potential and could be tweaked.

I agree people should not have to pay taxes below $25K . Everyone has a right to a decent living. That said I think the minimum wage should stay low. I think this because how are first time job seekers ever going to find work with no experience. What business man wants to hire a high school kid with no experience and pay $10/hr.? Perhaps the answer is allow a low minimum wage for 12 months. Think of it as a training where you get paid.

I don't know a good way to make everything fair. A man digging a ditch and a football player making multiple millions per year is a social problem, not a business problem.

Anyway, this is something I am still in the formative stages on so appreciate all the ideas. I see Bob's point and yours.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I'd love to hear your genious on corporate taxes because (heres a little secret for you to dwell on) corporations don't pay any taxes now. If you ever have the priviledge of running one you will understand why. God knows you have declared you won't study the issue so you can't find out that way.

The fair tax is not a flat tax, don't read about it, why change your style and be informed?

This forum would be a lot of fun and interesting if you guys ( I dont mean everybody just some of you) would read and study these topics before you form opinions. Don't form your opinions on some thirty second sound bite, read! After all those opinions really do matter if they are based on falsehoods. You will vote for the rest of your lives on things like taxes ( no other issue has more impact on your financial future) so go ahead, mock being informed. 
If you think there is fault in something, some policy, why not pose your point as a question instead of an uninformed rant, try saying specifically why you think that some issue is incorrect, being specific will force you to read about the issue and learn about it( which may actually change your opinion if you become fully informed). And if you learn about the issue we could then discuss it, this forum is often nothing but a bunch of idiotic insults, there is nothing wrong with a little dry sarcasm when its accompanied with some intelligent points. Its makes no sense to just say all blacks are criminals, all Nrs poach, all republicans hate the middle class, all democrats hate national defense ect. If you feel that way fine I won't lock threads or censor anyone that makes a statement no matter what my personal feeling are, if you support your statement with a factual argument to back it up. When you lay out the facts that support your argument then the opposition can say why you're incorrect about something in a logical fashion, and point out the fallacy in your arguments with facts of their own. The thread that says the Republicans are attacking the middle class was idiotic, most (at least 80 to 90 %) of republicans are the middle class so ask your self what sense does this make?? None and its a waste of time. Additionally a lot of you guys seem to think I'm a Republican and on their side because I strongly supported George Bush, well I'm not a Republican and I disagree with the republicans often. My support of Bush was a practical decision based on the two candidates available and my personal opinion( and very extensive research something all of you should try). I am fed up with the republican congress but find my respect for Mr. Bush is steadily increasing I'm pleased to say. His middle east policies seem to have created a sea change in that area of the world and if it continues ( a big If) he will be regarded by historians in the same light as FDR and Reagan, the rare presidents that actually lead and changed the world for the better. Please try to be informed and specific in the future, I don't like locking threads. Those are going to be the guidelines from now on. Don't just say something is, add why you think it is. Thanks


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I agree people should not have to pay taxes below $25K .


As you know the Fair tax does just that!



> Everyone has a right to a decent living.


I'm sorry my friend, this "right" doesn't exist, we have the right of freedom to persue a decent living but its our individual reponsibility to do so.

And you get paid what your worth its a capitalist market economy. Even though its illogical on its face its there are a lot more people that can be good teachers than pro football players so football player make the bigger bucks,supply and demand, even though teachers have a more important role in society in my opinion. Its not a perfect system but its the only nation in the world that everyone else in the world wants to immigrate to, so it has a lot of value. Our freedom is what is unique and why so many countries either hate us ( jealousy) or fear us (dictators). Socialism has failed every where its tried. Unfortunately utopians think that if they just tweaked it a little it would work, denying human nature.
Well that enough out of me back to the dog forum :lol:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm, I'm not sure what issue it is you want everyone to study as I'm not sure what cite you are referring to. A search on Fair Tax brings up several cites that simply conflict with each other so maybe a specific cite ( I probable missed the one you had in mind) would be of help. I very much disagree with you that people are uninformed just because they do not agree with your point of view. Equally fair, they could say the same thing about you. Nobody is a expert or well informed on every subject and they really need not be to express their opinion. If you feel someone is uninformed on a subject, step up to the plate and present the facts as you know them which you feel they should know.

More to the subject though, I'm in favor of a Flat Tax but I don't agree with the minimum cut off earnings such as $25,000. If it is going to be fair it should be straight across the board. I also think that all charitable organizations and churches should come under the flat tax on all overhead expenditures which includes salaries. I believe this would cut down on the fraud that seems rampart in charity groups at the present. I'm also in favor of all over seas employees paying taxes on their salaries provided the country they are in is not collecting earnings taxes on them which I believe but not sure that none are. Corporate welfare should be stopped completely. To me it is just another loop hole that drains the economy.

The truth is a flat tax would be more harmful to me personally than the present system. I don't mind that though if all the present loop holes can be shut down and everyone, and I do mean everyone is taxed equally across the board. To me that is a fair tax.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I'm sorry my friend, this "right" doesn't exist


I hate to admit the bitter truth, but you are right.

Perhaps a rewording is in order. This is what I think all frills aside. If you work hard you deserve a decent wage. The right that you have is to be treated fairly. In this context I don't think anyone would be making less than 25K. I realize that dictating an income would be socialistic. Also, to dictate what someone must pay is socialistic. I still believe that people who work hard should be ensured a decent living. I do admit I don't know how to get to that point without crossing the line. To dictate it is good for the worker, but it robs the freedom of the employee. Catch 22 that I haven't solved in my mind. Anyone have answers?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I very much disagree with you that people are uninformed just because they do not agree with your point of view


I never said that and never would, I like disagreement its what makes this forum. But this is a perfect example of the inaccurate statements made that I'm going to try to stop. *IF* you had made the statement with a quote from one of my posts that backed up your statement then you would have a point to discuss.



> Nobody is a expert or well informed on every subject and they really need not be to express their opinion


.

An opinion that is not based on facts should be based on what then??????
Heres one for you, everybody named Gohon is a gay dwarf with warts on his face or heres another, the world is flat. Now with these two ridiculous positions I'm further going to tell you I'm not going to read about it. No matter what you say or do no matter what factual evidence you give, say a picture of you and showing your actually in the NBA and have a wife and 10 kids or a photo of the earth from outer space showing its round. I'm going to say I'm right. How do we discuss anything like that??????
If you have an opinion about something thats fine until you start telling everyone else that opinion is correct *without being willing to support your position *and that there is no room for discussion then is not fine its stupid!
If you take a position on this board then you better be prepared to back it up with the reasons why you think its correct.
This PC stuff that everybody has a right to a opinion is not going to fly with "rights" come responsibilities and on this board the responsibility is to to tell why they think its so, how hard is that anyway? Its the difference between discussion and just babble. And why would anyone want to make a statement about a topic they know little or nothing about other than in the form of a question? With a couple key strokes anyone can research anything nowadays.

Read the Fair tax, fairtax.org is the official site. Its addresses every concern you've mentioned( and many that you haven't) and is a lot better idea than a flat tax for a lot of reasons. Its will take some effort and study all good things do, make the effort and then we can discuss the pros and cons otherwise I might as well discuss it with my dog. My dog hasn't read it either so right now you're on equal footing with him, I'm certain you can do better. My dog is too lazy to read it but then again he doesn't pay taxes, you and I will for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I still believe that people who work hard should be ensured a decent living.


Plainsman we are both getting to be old farts in your experience have you ever seen anyone that truly studied hard in school, made good lifestyle decisions, and worked hard not make a decent living. I sure haven't! We are all right where we are because of the cumulative decisions we have made. 
That is the beauty of America, and precisely why so many foreigners have tried to come here. They see opportunity not available in their own countries while that very opportunity is lost on we spoiled Americans. Our society is becoming a bunch of pessimistic crybabies. Our economy by every standard has been getting stronger since 9-11 yet the naysayers complain
The sad part is that increasingly when people realize that they have made the wrong decisions they get jealous and decide they should get some benefit from the ones that lived their life correctly, and that is the basis for the various income redistribitution policies that in the long run favor no one but the politicians they empower.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we can agree about 99 percent here Bob. Right now I have friends who think I am dumb because I purchased long term care insurance. Their plan is to wait until they are about falling apart, give everything to their kids, then let the government pay for their nursing home. With this attitude "the government" will go broke. No one wants to pay in, but everyone would like to take out.

I mentioned that I think everyone who works hard should be ensured a decent living. In other words they should be able to afford food, and a roof over their head. If they don't work hard, then they deserve what ever happens. I am not promoting $10 and hour for some lazy jerk that thinks your and my taxes should take care of him. Everyone is capable of hard work, even if it is digging ditches, there is no shame in any job as long as you work hard. I far more respect someone with a menial job over welfare. To many people think some jobs are beneath them, but have no qualms about welfare. I don't understand that.

One thing I whole heartedly agree with you on is that our society is becoming a bunch of pessimistic cry babies. In my book the only reason someone should not be able to support themselves is physical disability, or they are so dumb they can't find their a$$ with both hands. That being said I fully realize that there are those few that get dealt a bad hand, and I have no animosity towards them for accepting a helping hand. Most make bad decisions, but some are shot down through no fault of their own. I guess I have no time for those that don't try, but at the same time great compassion for those who try their best.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Plainsmen,



> Their plan is to wait until they are about falling apart, give everything to their kids, then let the government pay for their nursing home. With this attitude "the government" will go broke. No one wants to pay in, but everyone would like to take out.


I think they better talk to an Attorney now. If I am not mistaken you need to give it away 5 years ahead of going on Government assisstance. Therefore the kids could be in for a rude awakening.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That is correct. It had been two or three years, but a couple of years ago they extended it to five years. I would guess simply because so many people had been doing just that. Sometimes I get discouraged, and wonder who the stupid one's are. But, then I think they may find themselves living in a cardboard box if everyone thinks that way and the government can't help. On the other hand I would like to actually leave my children with something.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> In my book the only reason someone should not be able to support themselves is physical disability, or they are so dumb they can't find their a$$ with both hands. That being said I fully realize that there are those few that get dealt a bad hand, and I have no animosity towards them for accepting a helping hand. Most make bad decisions, but some are shot down through no fault of their own. I guess I have no time for those that don't try, but at the same time great compassion for those who try their best.


I agree if we limited our help to people that really have disabilities or get hurt through things like women with kids that have accidental loss of husbands that would be fine and very affordable. I'm all for helping the truly needy and kicking the lazy in the rear.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm said:


> > I never said that and never would, I like disagreement its what makes this forum. But this is a perfect example of the inaccurate statements made that I'm going to try to stop. *IF* you had made the statement with a quote from one of my posts that backed up your statement then you would have a point to discuss.
> 
> 
> Well lets start by taking a look at the way you started the post I was referring to. You said,
> ...


Now you are just being silly and contradicting. If you wouldn't read something giving as fact on a comment or opinion then you have no right to cry and accuse others of not reading YOUR facts. If you are going to argue a point, then make your point. Whether or not I choose to read your cited source would depend on your making a valid point. You haven't done that so far. In my case and everyone else no one has tried to make a point by declaring something better than another but have simply stated a opinion. You are the one trying to make a point, so do it.......


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> "I'd love to hear your genious on corporate taxes because (heres a little secret for you to dwell on) corporations don't pay any taxes now. If you ever have the priviledge of running one you will understand why. God knows you have declared you won't study the issue so you can't find out that way".
> You certainly didn't identify who you were talking to or what was actually said that was a reference to your post but still you rant here about quotes..


If you actually read the previous posts then it will be abundantly clear who I was talking to. I try not to make this stuff personal which is why I rarely state names, but sometimes its hard when someone not only doesn't know what they are talking about but actually says they won't read about it " because topics on website are written by people( well duh) and people make mistakes". Why limit yourself to the web if you don't believe it. The fact is hes talking about a subject he knows little about and that I know a good bit about. Corporations don't pay taxes this is one of the greatest slight of hands the Congress has ever managed.



> You really think two opposed opinions can be based on fact without one of them being wrong? Please explain......


I never said that did I, but let me explain what I did say once again. If you make a statement about a topic on this board you must be prepared to show factual reasons from whatever sources you chose to defend your position, or at the very least state what you think the reasons are. Once again if you, I or anyone else just says something is so and refuse to say why which is what happened in the "middle class assault thread", where does the conversation go from there. *I'll tell you, it degenerates into a mindless pissing match and as moderator of this forum I'm trying to improve the quality of the debate.* After all, The point of political debate is to make a point and have reasons to support it in the hopes of convincing the other side to reconsider their position. This is impossible if the other side won't tell you why they have a position. Especially because in the case of many of them they don't even know why they have a position. I hope to force them to at least do a little research and find out.



> Now you are just being silly and contradicting. *If you wouldn't read something giving as fact on a comment or opinion then you have no right to cry and accuse others of not reading YOUR facts.* If you are going to argue a point, then make your point. Whether or not I choose to read your cited source would depend on your making a valid point. You haven't done that so far. In my case and everyone else no one has tried to make a point by declaring something better than another but have simply stated a opinion. You are the one trying to make a point, so do it.......


I have never refused to read anything but I cannot just simply accept something as fact, once again IF YOU STATE AN OPINION ON THIS BOARD AND SOME ASKS YOU WHY YOU FEEL THAT WAY THEN YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THEM WITH YOUR REASONS PERIOD. WHY? because I'm the moderator and I say so, I hate to put it that way but I guess I have to. GoHon, you're relatively new here and this forum was originated by me I've watched threads and the forum in general degenerate into a bunch of mindless ranting and I've decided to do something about it. Thats the real point I'm trying to make, get it? The " middles class assault "thread is the first one I've ever locked, even though many many times the situations got out of hand in the interest of avoiding censorship I've let a lot of stuff go. And the other moderators criticize me for it, thats fine I can deal with that, but the reality is they are correct about the quality of the posts and all of you will have to raise your standards of participation which I sincerely hope with make this a better and more interesting forum. Gohon I don't really see why you have such a problem with this you always defend you positions well and don't hesitate to do so when asked, the people this is aimed at know full well who I'm talking to and they are nothing but flamers and I'm not going to allow it anymore.
Thanks


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm wrote:


> the people this is aimed at know full well who I'm talking to and they are nothing but flamers and I'm not going to allow it anymore.


Thanks for those comments Bob. I was feeling that way myself, but hesitated because I thought that people would think I did it for spite, and not to improve the form. I had one in mind that I should have booted long ago. Nothing but a trouble maker. I also did not want to sensor people, but if they can't grow up I will in the future. I was unsure of how tough I should be on people, but I certainly will not let it degenerate to where it had been before. We appear to be out of the pit we were in and we are not going back period. If I state that before hand no one can cry if they are cut off. 
Later, have to go do Sunday things.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I was feeling that way myself, but hesitated because I thought that people would think I did it for spite, and not to improve the form.


Thanks, Me too, I've let a lot of stuff go I shouldn't of for the same reason.

I don't want to put a damper on discussion and I do like opposition view points they make me think and sharpen my understanding of the issues.

This could be a great exchange of ideas, and will be :beer:

Thanks to all for trying to play by some rules, we should all strive for better quality.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm said:


> If you actually read the previous posts then it will be abundantly clear who I was talking to.


Well, I guess thats the same thing I thought when you accuesed me of not posting a quote from you.



> You really think two opposed opinions can be based on fact without one of them being wrong? Please explain......
> 
> I never said that did I, but let me explain what I did say once again. If you make a statement about a topic on this board you must be prepared to show factual reasons from whatever sources you chose to defend your position, or at the very least state what you think the reasons are.


I'm sorry but you did with "An opinion that is not based on facts should be based on what then??????" An opinion is just that, a opinion. It can be based on fact or just gut feeling, what they heard in church, on the street corner or even what aunt Betty told them. If you feel someone's opinion is wrong, by all means challenge it. Peoples minds are often changed by presenting facts or persuasive arguments, but don't simply tell them they are full of BS because they haven't any facts.



> IF YOU STATE AN OPINION ON THIS BOARD AND SOME ASKS YOU WHY YOU FEEL THAT WAY THEN YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THEM WITH YOUR REASONS PERIOD. WHY? because I'm the moderator and I say so, I hate to put it that way but I guess I have to.


I also am sorry to see you put it that way as it severely limits freedom of expressing a opinion. Saying "because I'm the moderator" is very troubling to say the least. That is something I would expect to hear in another country. Yes, I am new around here and so far I have only seen one person posting that I would consider a trouble maker and unfortunately I allowed myself to engage him when I knew better. But, to limit a conversation to one persons standards or rules smacks of dictatorship. That is a opinion............... I just recently saw one thread locked for reasons someone decided by themselves without explanation and that is scary to say the least. Now, I don't know anything about running a site like this but it would seem to me there would be means to just lock out a members post to that particular thread if it was thought they were being disruptive. Other than that the only thing accomplished was to stop the exchange of ideas and opinions of others.

Now back on topic. I have read parts of the cite you posted "fairtax.org" and though I haven't read it word for word I will sometime later today give my opinion as to why I not only think it is not a factual site but how dangerous I believe the consumption tax it proposes is dangerous and misleading. That will be my opinion...........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Now, I don't know anything about running a site like this


yep!



> just lock out a members post to that particular thread if it was thought they were being disruptive


Can't short of banning them totally from the site



> Other than that the only thing accomplished was to stop the exchange of ideas and opinions of others.


I asked the person who started the thread to explain his position and he refused thats when the exchange of ideas stopped. Not when I locked it.



> I have read parts of the cite you posted "fairtax.org" and though I haven't read it word for word I will sometime later today give my opinion as to why I not only think it is not a factual site but how dangerous I believe the consumption tax it proposes is dangerous and misleading. That will be my opinion...........


Good thats exactly what I am asking people to do, read things so they know what they are talking about, before they discuss them, so we can have intelligent discussions. 
I'm thrilled you finally get it
Thanks


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I asked the person who started the thread to explain his position and he refused thats when the exchange of ideas stopped. Not when I locked it.


I see.............. so you didn't like the answer or lack of a answer you received so you locked it on the pretense the exchange of ideas had stopped. Well there certainly isn't any exchange of ideas now is there......... how sad.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

When I first started reading Fairtax.org I figured I'd pick out several topics and comment how I felt about each and in which direction. It didn't take long to realize this was a impossible adventure. The information on this site is so full of holes and funny math, I was amazed it was even in print.

To be fair I don't consider this a credible site for the simple reason it is a lobbyist site for the fairtax organization. They even solicit donations for their cause so without question it is biased heavily towards their agenda. Their reference material is sketchy and they even rely on commentaries from people working in different fields, nothing more than personal opinion.

Some of the loop holes and head ache's.

1. There will be no tax on manufacture profits. The rich get richer.

2. Food will be taxed. Not all states tax food but some do so this 
means there will a double tax in some states on food.

3. Used items won't be taxed &#8230;&#8230;.. guess what the price of used 
items will do. Go up of course.

4. A lot of retirement checks are not taxed by Social Security. 
In effect, they will be now under this program.

5. Services will not be taxed. Sounds good but, just give a 
contractor a check to cover material and his labor and have him 
build the end product. Just saved a 23% tax on same product 
bought on the market.

6. On the item of food again &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; road venders that sell truck 
garden vegetables and fruit should do a booming business as you 
avoid the 23% tax charged at the grocery store.

7. Present taxes on special projects will no longer be 
controllable. Example, Pittman-Robertson Act that guarantees funds 
to wildlife restoration, or the present Gasoline Excise Act 
that earmarks money for the Highway Funds. There is no way 
to hold congresses feet to the fire as to where money can be spent. 
It is bad enough at present but impossible under this plan.

8. This system does not do away with the IRS. They will still 
exist, however on a much smaller scale.

9. Buy a home and not only do you pay interest on the loan 
but you will pay interest on that 23% sales tax just added.

10. Charitable organizations are turned free to be accountable 
to no one but don't try to deduct what you give them. 
If you are taxed at 23% do you really think you will feel 
like being so charitable? Ditto for churches.

I won't keep going as it serves no purpose and as silly as some of these sounds, in the grand scheme of things they add up to a lot. The entire premises of the Fairtax agenda is dependent on the good will of the
of corporate America to have a good heart and lower prices and interests rates and for other countries (what? we want other countries to outsource jobs) to invest and build in America. Absolute nothing guarantees this will occur.


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Ok, I just spent way to much of a weekend looking at a worthless website fairtax.org, for the 2nd time. Bobm If you recall I never said I wouldn't look at the website, in fact I had before. I said I would not accept what they say as fact. In the site itself one of the authors said the fairtax is a type of flat tax, yet you continue to resort to name calling and say I don't know what I am talking about?

I disagree with the idea of a consumer tax/national sales tax because it further shifts the tax burden of the country to the lower class. I find it funny how they come up with the numbers that they do, but then again I can find experts on the net that say "we never landed on the moon" or " humans were never ment to eat meat". Just becuase its on a website I'm to think it is fact? They say the economic forcast would be nothing but growth, how? The numbers don't make sense. Its ironic that one of the first links you see on the home page is to an article by the Cato institute? You are somewhat correct when you say corps don't pay tax they push the burden on to people/consumers, thats their choice. I gather you think corps should not pay any tax? Under the fairtax how is it people could compete with corps? What if I wanted to buy the same property as a corp how is that fair? Maybe owners of rental property should be exempt from tax since they shift the burden onto the renters? What if the property is vacant? I find this idea one that started with good intent and then morphed into just another way to keep $ in the pockets of a few, mostly the corporate world.

What about income earned though interest? Do you think that should be taxed? Once again the rich get richer and the lower class feel the burden because the pool of wealth ends up in the hands of fewer people. Taxes would continue to go up and up because money would continue to held by less and less people. I don't see how the Fairtax would encourage investment into anythng? We are a nation of consumers, this plan would provide an incetive to change that drastically.

What do I think about corporations? I feel they should pay the same taxes as people, after all they have the same rights as people. They can own land, they can seek legal action, there is nothing they can't do except vote. With the way things seem to be going that's probably next. I think all corps should have to be run the same way not for profits are by being required to show a yearly end balance of no profit. Then they could avoid paying tax. If not they pay as you and I, this would encourage them to put the money back into the hands of people/investors the public. People would have power not an entity with no soul and who's only reason for existing is to aquire money. Why can't the share holders aquire the money instead? Its ironic that you and I probably agree the current tax structure is garbage, just for different reasons.

I agree with Gohon, I don't find it to be a creditable site but Bobm its okay if you do. Thats the beauty of opinions your entilted to yours and I'm entilted to mine, even if I don't need a website to back mine up.

Tail chaser


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

First Gohon, I'd like to thank both you an TC for taking the time to at read the site. This allows all of us to have a reasoned conversation. Let me further say that you will need to further study both that site and other issues about taxes to fully understand the nuances of this plan. I couldn't absorb in one weekend either and I've beed studing taxes for some time.
But you did make the effort and for that I'm grateful. I'lll try to answer your points one at a time



> 1. There will be no tax on manufacture profits. The rich get richer.


 This is no tax on manufacturers now. Heres why, if you will accept the fact that virtually all manufactures are corporations for liability issues.
Corporations are not anything but a legal document they don't eat sleep or pay taxes. They do however collect taxes from three entities the owners( stockholders), the employees( lower wages), and principally from their customers. Everything you buy has a tax component in its cost. Harvard economists estimate that to be approx 20 - 23 %. All addtional taxes are paid by stock holders in lost profits and dividends. Currently roughly 70% of the people in this country are invested in the stock market though 401K plans, IRAs ect. They are the owners of the corporations and they are normal everyday middle class working stiffs like you and I. So to sum it up, when you hear some congressman railing about evil corporations should pay more taxes remeber they are really talking about the consumers( you and I) and citizens investors of this country. Congress is fully aware of the slight of hand but know full well most people fall for the rhetoric because we are a econaomically ignorant society.



> 2. Food will be taxed. Not all states tax food but some do so this
> means there will a double tax in some states on food.


No its isn't, the reason is that everybody in the country recieves a rebate check for the value of the tax on all necessities including and especially food ( note the point of this tax is to relieve all tax burdens including currently hidden ones on everybody up to the level of necessities.)



> 3. Used items won't be taxed &#8230;&#8230;.. guess what the price of used
> items will do. Go up of course.


First with the exception of autos and things that are registered that vast majority of "used" goods sold have no tax on them now. If you go to the want ads in you local paper and buy a shotgun do you send a tax check to the gov? No, and prices wont go up they won't everything will sell for what its value is now supply and demand.



> 4. A lot of retirement checks are not taxed by Social Security.
> In effect, they will be now under this program


. No they wont because like every citizen retirees will be reimbursed up to subsistance level. Retirees will actually pay few total taxes than they do now because they tend to consume less than the rest of us.



> 5. Services will not be taxed. Sounds good but, just give a
> contractor a check to cover material and his labor and have him
> build the end product. Just saved a 23% tax on same product
> bought on the market.


This is just plain wrong Read it again they are taxed, look at the FAQ section.



> 6. On the item of food again &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; road venders that sell truck
> garden vegetables and fruit should do a booming business as you
> avoid the 23% tax charged at the grocery store.


These types of operations under report their income and evade taxes now, under the fair tax system they will pay taxes. Ditto for all forms of blackmarket and cash sale type businesses. These "underground" folks make money to consume goods just like the rest of us and the fair tax catches up to them, the current system does not.



> 7. Present taxes on special projects will no longer be
> controllable. Example, Pittman-Robertson Act that guarantees funds
> to wildlife restoration, or the present Gasoline Excise Act
> that earmarks money for the Highway Funds. There is no way
> ...


This tax is designed to be revenue neutral in order to get BI partisan support. I reject that anything is impossible, but I will admit that its a good point and I will have to talk to the originator of the plan and ask him how they intend to deal with that issue and get back to you. I don't know it all :lol:, but I will find out .



> 8. This system does not do away with the IRS. They will still
> exist, however on a much smaller scale.


This is another good point but if you see any plan that does let me know. What it does do is radically restrict the IRS and its need to know everything about us, and more importantly it makes it impossible for the congress to pit one group of citizens against another.



> 9. Buy a home and not only do you pay interest on the loan
> but you will pay interest on that 23% sales tax just added.


You pay the interest now so I don't know why that matters, if your talking about writeoffs people do not buy houses to get a write off they do it for a place to live. And remember with this plan you will get all your check, so you will have more money to spend. According to the Harvard economic departments study, the imbedded taxes in all goods will disappear from competitive pressures in less than one year so the prices of houses and all goods will be approximately what they are now including the 20-23% sales tax.



> 10. Charitable organizations are turned free to be accountable
> to no one but don't try to deduct what you give them.
> If you are taxed at 23% do you really think you will feel
> like being so charitable? Ditto for churches.


Refer to the last answer, price of goods will be the same they are now, and you will get your whole check so I think people will still be charitable. They will have more discretionary income to spend.



> I won't keep going as it serves no purpose and as silly as some of these sounds, in the grand scheme of things they add up to a lot


Please do continue to find any objections, it gives me an opportunity to clear up misunderstandings about the plan. You might want to keep studying it, its a complex issue and it took me a lot more time than one weekend to understand it. As for the the site being biased of course it is, its written by people that believe this is better than our current system but all the info is there explain the plan as opposed to a lobbyist thats trying to make some special interest group get some advantage over some other citizens in this great country, thats the problem this plan seeks to eliminate.
Thanks


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

TC thanks for reading it I'll try to answer your points as best as possibile if you and anyone else that might decide to post could organize your posts in question form in the same manner as Gohon it would be helpful



> I disagree with the idea of a consumer tax/national sales tax because it further shifts the tax burden of the country to the lower class.


 No it doesn't the poor pay no taxes at all on this system and it eliminates the 23% imbedded taxes we all pay now especially hurting the poor


> I find it funny how they come up with the numbers that they do, but then again I can find experts on the net that say "we never landed on the moon" or " humans were never ment to eat meat". Just becuase its on a website I'm to think it is fact? They say the economic forcast would be nothing but growth, how? The numbers don't make sense.


If you think that Harvards' economic dept isn't credible OK. I think they are. The growth is primarily from three sources additional available capital do to the elimination of the cost burden all businesses bear complyiny with the IRSs complicated rules, increased trade overseas due to these lower costs of ou goods with the elimnation of this burden, and the application of capital to its best advantage ( under the current system a lot of capital is tied up due to current tax law so its not put to its best use)



> Its ironic that one of the first links you see on the home page is to an article by the Cato institute?


 Whats your point?



> You are somewhat correct when you say corps don't pay tax they push the burden on to people/consumers, thats their choice. I gather you think corps should not pay any tax? Under the fairtax how is it people could compete with corps?


I mean no sarcasm, you are correct corps don't pay it now, we do!! its a hidden tax that we all pay because congress knows full well that there would be a tax revolt if everybody didn't have the same impression you have about corp taxes and understood the reality that we citizens are paying the tax.



> What if I wanted to buy the same property as a corp how is that fair?


 All taxes on property would be the same no matter who purchased it, just no longer hidden.



> Maybe owners of rental property should be exempt from tax since they shift the burden onto the renters?


 Noone is exempt from this tax??? but renters are generally lower income people and they would not pay anytax at all on housing so what are you talking about????



> What if the property is vacant? I find this idea one that started with good intent and then morphed into just another way to keep $ in the pockets of a few, mostly the corporate world.


 Your hatred of corporations is because you don't understand them, the owners of corporations are your neighbors and you, if you have an IRA or 401K. All I can say is you really need to study corps to get a better handle on the topic



> What about income earned though interest? Do you think that should be taxed?


 This plan taxes consumption only, people with more income consume more and pay more tax.



> Once again the rich get richer and the lower class feel the burden because the pool of wealth ends up in the hands of fewer people. Taxes would continue to go up and up because money would continue to held by less and less people.


Whew! this plan lowers taxes( actually totally eliminates them) on the poor, and eliminates the 23% embedded tax everyone in the middle class pays now on goods plus you get your whole check!! There is no pool of weath its not a zero sum game the economy( total wealth) is steadily expanding over time.



> I don't see how the Fairtax would encourage investment into anythng? We are a nation of consumers, this plan would provide an incetive to change that drastically.


Domestically people will have much more money to invest in 401K and IRAs, corporations will not have the economic burden to comply with the tax code so they will have alot more money to invest in capital thus creating jobs. 
Internationally US corporations will have a big price advantage overseas because they have a lower cost with the elimination of the embedded tax which will help our balance of trade and further stimulate employment levels here.



> What do I think about corporations? I feel they should pay the same taxes as people, after all they have the same rights as people. They can own land, they can seek legal action, there is nothing they can't do except vote. With the way things seem to be going that's probably next. I think all corps should have to be run the same way not for profits are by being required to show a yearly end balance of no profit. Then they could avoid paying tax. If not they pay as you and I, this would encourage them to put the money back into the hands of people/investors the public. People would have power not an entity with no soul and who's only reason for existing is to aquire money.


 Hopefully if you read the above about corporations you will realize why this makes no sense 
( no sarcasm intended) again corporations are really your fellow citizens.



> Why can't the share holders aquire the money instead?


Thats exactly what happens now, you really need to try and give up this hatred of corporations because its based on misunderstanding the reality of how they work.



> Its ironic that you and I probably agree the current tax structure is garbage, just for different reasons.


 You nailed this one :lol:



> I agree with Gohon, I don't find it to be a creditable site but Bobm its okay if you do. Thats the beauty of opinions your entilted to yours and I'm entilted to mine, even if I don't need a website to back mine up.


 Gohon doesn't yet understand the plan and neither do you. Go to any source you want, just go study these issues, opinions are fine but its always good to know the truth before you state them. I really do appreciate you taking the time to look at this plan, this type of discussion is what this forum really should be about.
Thanks


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

As I have stated before in previous posts, the fair tax does have some problems and I agree with Gohon and TC on some of their points. First, as pointed out, exise taxes on fishing equipment, arms and ammunition support a huge number of wildlife and fishing programs across the US. Will fair tax eliminate exise taxes and if so, then where will funding for fishing and wildlife come from? Second, when I buy a home using the current tax structure, I do not pay 23% sales tax on the price of the home. I do not see the price of homes dropping 23% anytime soon to remove that supposedly hidden value that would counteract the 23% sales tax. Third, for most well to do/wealthy, their philanthropy is driven by two things, their support for certain charitable causes and the tax write off. They are the major contributors to many charities or non profits across the political spectrum. Even with more disposable income, I do not see where charitable contributions will remain at same level if fair tax is implemented, particularly for wealthy individuals. Fourth, although not fully recoverable, most of the underground economy money (e.g. roadside stands) do pay some taxes on that money through their purchases of other goods and services and the associated sales or exise taxes, albeit not at the 23% rate.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> This is no tax on manufacturers now.


Aren't they taxed on profits earned?



> No its isn't, the reason is that everybody in the country recieves a rebate check for the value of the tax on all necessities including and especially food


California has no state tax on food. Oklahoma does have a state tax on food. Does the Fairtax remove all state taxes? If not then I will pay 23% Federal and 8% State tax on food items for a total of 31%.



> First with the exception of autos and things that are registered that vast majority of "used" goods sold have no tax on them now. If you go to the want ads in you local paper and buy a shotgun do you send a tax check to the gov?


I wasn't speaking of items purchased through newspaper ad's which is more or less underground sales, but of items sold in places such as pawn shops, used appliance centers and so on.



> No they wont because like every citizen retirees will be reimbursed up to subsistance level. Retirees will actually pay few total taxes than they do now because they tend to consume less than the rest of us.


I've looked at the subsistence level chart you refer to and that is in no way is going to offset (in my case) expenses. I will beg to differ with you that retirees consume less than others. As a retiree, unless I choose to live like a hermit it costs me just as much as you to live.



> These types of operations under report their income and evade taxes now, under the fair tax system they will pay taxes.


I'm not speaking about the venders themselves but people like myself. I will seek out these venders and buy from them just to save 23 cents on the dollar. I suspect most others will do the same. The guy next to me truck farms 15 acres every year and sells his vegetables from the front of his property. It's a cash and carry operation and I doubt he reports any income from these sales even now. It will be a booming business for him under the Fairtax plan.



> You pay the interest now so I don't know why that matters


But I'm not paying intrest on a 23% intrest added tax. Let's say I buy a new truck now and the sales tax is 9% which is rolled into the loan. thats a far cry fron a 23% sales tax rolled into the loan.

One other point I forgot to mention is the fact that every time you open your wallet under the Fairtax plan you are slapped with a tax that eats up 1/4 of what is in that wallet just from a Federal tax, not to mention State taxes which will move the bite to 1/3 of that beautiful green stuff in your wallet. With present system and as bad as it is, at least the tax burden is spread out enough that the impact isn't so harshly felt. Taxes may be hidden in prices at the moment but it at least is more palatable to the average consumer.

The rebate part is the most troubling part of the whole plan. Why have it? Just have a lower tax rate to start with. With this part of the plan there is another bureaucracy now to mail out checks every month to hundreds of million of people. Who pays for this little section. Why should I now become dependent on the government to mail me a little check each month to make up for what they took from me in the first place. Not to mention the government would be making earning interest on my money instead of me. The poor already don't pay taxes so why is something needed there. I have a nephew that didn't work a single day in 2004 and his wife earned less than $10,000 at a fast food place. With three kids they got a $4,000 check tax refund under the earned income tax credit from the stupid system we now have. I won't even go into the $400 a month in food stamps, free day care center service, free food commodities, and even free diapers from social services. Why should I want another system that continues to give away MY money to no load bums like my nephew.

I want a fair tax system but I want on that is really fair and right now a straight across the board flat tax is the only way I can see that everyone is treated equal. I don't care if the rich make more money and I don't care if the poor make less.............. equal is the only way to be fair. From there we can work, train, and educate the poor to be more successful in making a better living but first lets have a equal playing field and stop making some people responsible for others. End of rant.................


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

If you look a the cirular flow of income though this may make a little less sense to you, that is the taxation issues.

If you look at a household, defined as the owners of all factors of production in the economy, in return for their participation in the economy Households recieve wages, rent, interest and profits.

Businesses provide goods and services to these Households, in which households pay from their wages, rent, interest and profits. This of course affects both Household non-discretionary and discretionary income levels on a supply and demand based influence.

Any large scale imbalance in this process sends enormous fiscal waves that at the beginning spread out in deadly silence only noticed as their enormous power recedes the shoreline surf and then with thunderous momentum crashes inland destroying the infrastrucure of a nation. All from an anomaly.

Lets look at one of these anomalies. The Zero-Tax Filer populaiton has increased a record pace of 50% over the last 4 years to 58 million households that will have a zero-tax obligation last year in 04'. With 75.4% being under 19,999 dollars of taxable income as a household and having 97.1% of all non-filing individuals being in this earning class.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/zerotaxfilers.html

Another enormous anomaly is the deficit, which with the recent tax cuts seems to be growing from that reason a decrease in annual tax revenue, but actually upon further analysis you will see that the % change in tax revenues rose in 04 by 9%($2.057 trillion) but it was overshadowed by governmenn spending which increased by 5.8% ($2.425 trillion). It is of course an anomaly that has been debated to great lengths whether government spending stirs the economy and of course it does to some extent if it uses the proper mechanisms.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/cbo-forecast.html

So I challenge the fact that a flat tax would improve upon the treatment of this earning class or the system as a whole. The largest burden is already on the upper class per average tax rate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

I am interested in your thoughts on this. I am in no way trying to be rude or pretencious, I am simply looking at it from a FACT based point of view and hopefully inticing all to express their ideas and respectful opinions.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you guys would please put your questions in list form it would be a lot easier to answer them, thanks



> Will fair tax eliminate exise taxes and if so, then where will funding for fishing and wildlife come from?


I don't know the answer to this one yet as I said this am I will try to find out I want to know also.


> Second, when I buy a home using the current tax structure, I do not pay 23% sales tax on the price of the home.


According to Harvards economic dept study and other studies, yes you do pay the 20 - 23% its imbedded in the price of everything we buy


> I do not see the price of homes dropping 23% anytime soon to remove that supposedly hidden value that would counteract the 23% sales tax.


 Again according to Harvards economic department competitive pressure and the removal of the costs of meeting IRS rules will lower the prices of all goods by the same amount as the tax. Please take time to read the studies, I think they are linked to the site.


> Third, for most well to do/wealthy, their philanthropy is driven by two things, their support for certain charitable causes and the tax write off.


 Not necessarily everytime their has been tax cuts charitable contributions have risen in this country under this plan all of us will have more discretionary income and there will be full employment which will drive up wages at all levels as companies are forced to compete for the workers available. Most charitable contributions are given out of the goodness of peoples hearts or a sense of Community/citizenship not for the deductions.
Indsport, This plan by the way is not a Republican originated plan it is from a Libertarian that got John Linder and others in Congress to support it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Quote:
> This is no tax on manufacturers now.
> 
> Aren't they taxed on profits earned?


No they collect the taxes from us read the corporate tax discussion again



> Quote:
> 
> No its isn't, the reason is that everybody in the country recieves a rebate check for the value of the tax on all necessities including and especially food
> 
> California has no state tax on food. Oklahoma does have a state tax on food. Does the Fairtax remove all state taxes? If not then I will pay 23% Federal and 8% State tax on food items for a total of 31%.


First unless you totally reject Harvards assertion that there is an imbedded tax the price of all goods ( including food) will drop when its removed, second no one will pay any tax up to the governments level for the necessities which will vary depending on family size. So you will pay nothing up to that level and if harvards correct approximately the same as you are now for the rest.



> Quote:
> First with the exception of autos and things that are registered that vast majority of "used" goods sold have no tax on them now. If you go to the want ads in you local paper and buy a shotgun do you send a tax check to the gov?
> 
> I wasn't speaking of items purchased through newspaper ad's which is more or less underground sales, but of items sold in places such as pawn shops, used appliance centers and so on.


If its sold at retail I think they will be taxed but I'll have to double check this one also



> Quote:
> No they wont because like every citizen retirees will be reimbursed up to subsistance level. Retirees will actually pay few total taxes than they do now because they tend to consume less than the rest of us.
> 
> I've looked at the subsistence level chart you refer to and that is in no way is going to offset (in my case) expenses. I will beg to differ with you that retirees consume less than others. As a retiree, unless I choose to live like a hermit it costs me just as much as you to live.


First, You will pay nothing up to subsistance levels per the governments guidelines, you now pay the imbedded 23% so you will save there. Second most retirees own the own homes and are past the consumption part of life where you have to buy everything they see they've been there and done that, they are not big consumers compared to the other segments of our society, they are past the aquisition portion of their lives and this is well documented. They are also much smarter consumers on balance. 


> Quote:
> These types of operations under report their income and evade taxes now, under the fair tax system they will pay taxes.
> 
> I'm not speaking about the venders themselves but people like myself. I will seek out these venders and buy from them just to save 23 cents on the dollar. I suspect most others will do the same. The guy next to me truck farms 15 acres every year and sells his vegetables from the front of his property. It's a cash and carry operation and I doubt he reports any income from these sales even now. It will be a booming business for him under the Fairtax plan.


I'm sure you will admit, there will always be tax cheaters in our society and in the end most of them get caught. The rest of us and the economy as awhole should not be burdened under our current ridiculous system just because of some cash vegetable stand. And whos to say they won't comply make the punishment harsh and fewer will chance it.



> Quote:
> You pay the interest now so I don't know why that matters
> 
> But I'm not paying intrest on a 23% intrest added tax. Let's say I buy a new truck now and the sales tax is 9% which is rolled into the loan. thats a far cry fron a 23% sales tax rolled into the loan.


If the price of the car goes down by the 23% its a wash. The 9% is a state tax and not part of this equation. And you get your entire paycheck!!



> One other point I forgot to mention is the fact that every time you open your wallet under the Fairtax plan you are slapped with a tax that eats up 1/4 of what is in that wallet just from a Federal tax, not to mention State taxes which will move the bite to 1/3 of that beautiful green stuff in your wallet. With present system and as bad as it is, at least the tax burden is spread out enough that the impact isn't so harshly felt. Taxes may be hidden in prices at the moment but it at least is more palatable to the average consumer.


Again, If the imbedded hidden taxes( 20-23% of your greenstuff in your wallet) are removed, prices will be generally what
they are now including the 23% national sales taxand you will get your whole paycheck without any money deducted. State taxes are not part of this discussion this is a plan to eliminate the Federal income tax and has no bearing on the state taxes thats between the residents of each state and their elected officials.
*There is a great advantage in having people really understand exactly how much they do currently pay in taxes so they can make better judgements about the cost of goverment, right now its hidden they have no idea and thats no accident.*



> The rebate part is the most troubling part of the whole plan. Why have it? Just have a lower tax rate to start with. With this part of the plan there is another bureaucracy now to mail out checks every month to hundreds of million of people. Who pays for this little section. Why should I now become dependent on the government to mail me a little check each month to make up for what they took from me in the first place. Not to mention the government would be making earning interest on my money instead of me. The poor already don't pay taxes so why is something needed there. I have a nephew that didn't work a single day in 2004 and his wife earned less than $10,000 at a fast food place. With three kids they got a $4,000 check tax refund under the earned income tax credit from the stupid system we now have. I won't even go into the $400 a month in food stamps, free day care center service, free food commodities, and even free diapers from social services. Why should I want another system that continues to give away MY money to no load bums like my nephew.


A)You aren't getting it back now ever
B)The poor do pay taxes they are paying the hidden taxes at 20-23%
C)I agree with you that the current system is crazy, thats why I am trying to get support for an alternative, one that works and does the best possible. The truly poor are paying taxes and our country can cut them some slack! We are not a third world country and I will not stand for people starving in the streets and I doubt you or many Americans will either. Your nephew is a bum but take heart with many the near full employment this plan would create maybe he will get off his butt and finally get a job.  I have a nephew thats a bum too we have alot more in common than we know.



> I want a fair tax system but I want one that is really fair and right now a straight across the board flat tax is the only way I can see that everyone is treated equal. I don't care if the rich make more money and I don't care if the poor make less.............. equal is the only way to be fair. From there we can work, train, and educate the poor to be more successful in making a better living but first lets have a equal playing field and stop making some people responsible for others. End of rant.................


It will never fly politically and its a bad idea for these reasons among others
1)it keeps the IRS in its current status and in our hair because they have to know every detail about our income, thus its keeps the costs of compliance and loses all the many many benefits of lowering the embedded taxes(jobs, balance of trade ect.)
2)*the current tax system that we both know sucks started out as a flat tax at 1 1/2 % look how it ended up.* The national sales tax removing the direct link between taxes and income makes it much more difficult for the government to screw us all and makes the taxes we pay as citizens very transparent. 
Politicians will finally have to be accountable for a change. Right now with hidden embedded taxes and withholding most of our economically ignorant population has no clue how much they work for the cost of government. It kills me to see the idiots I work with tell me how they didn't pay any taxes they "got some back", they are clueless and whats worse when you explain it to them they start yawning. :eyeroll: 
Again this is not a perfect plan but once you really study it you will begin to see its brilliance compared to anything else I've seen. 
Thanks


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> First unless you totally reject Harvards assertion that there is an imbedded tax the price of all goods ( including food) will drop when its removed,


And who is going to guarantee that happens? That is nothing more than speculation



> second no one will pay any tax up to the governments level for the necessities which will vary depending on family size.
> So you will pay nothing up to that level and if harvards correct approximately the same as you are now for the rest.


That's not true ........ I'll still pay it up front then have to wait for that little rebate check. Your twisting facts now to suit your side of the debate. There's that word "if" .............. you want to vote on something that is based on a "if"?



> First, You will pay nothing up to subsistance levels per the governments guidelines, you now pay the imbedded 23% so you will save there. Second most retirees own the own homes and are past the consumption part of life where you have to buy everything they see they've been there and done that, they are not big consumers compared to the other segments of our society, they are past the aquisition portion of their lives and this is well documented. They are also much smarter consumers on balance.


There's that mysterious embedded 23% tax again that no one seems to be able to qualify. Just because a Harvard study says it exists in certain area's of the economy doesn't mean it really does and certainly not in all parts of the economy.



> I'm sure you will admit, there will always be tax cheaters in our society and in the end most of them get caught. The rest of us and the economy as awhole should not be burdened under our current ridiculous system just because of some cash vegetable stand. And whos to say they won't comply make the punishment harsh and fewer will chance it.


So now we make a new law to force some low income vender selling potatoes on the street to start charging taxes and keep records so he can take what he earned to hire a tax consultant to figure out what he has to send to the government. Let's get real here..............



> If the price of the car goes down by the 23% its a wash. The 9% is a state tax and not part of this equation. And you get your entire paycheck!!


There is that "if" again .................. as I said before the entire idea of Fairtax is based on speculation of ifs, that prices will fall on all goods. It's not going to happen..............



> The truly poor are paying taxes and our country can cut them some slack! We are not a third world country and I will not stand for people starving in the streets and I doubt you or many Americans will


What does the tax situation have to do with people starving in the street. How much better can it get for someone if they pay zero taxes and still get a $4,000 rebate.....



> either. Your nephew is a bum but take heart with many the near full employment this plan would create maybe


Is this another hidden "if"? where is the connection or proof that employment is going to drop to near zero. You can't employ those that don't want to work and those that do want to work need only to open the want adds of the news papers. Strange that illegal Mexicans in the city can get work each and every day despite the fact they are unskilled or speak no English. Not the kind of wages I would want to work for but I wouldn't starve either. No, the majority of the starving in the streets do not have to be there.



> 1)it keeps the IRS in its current status and in our hair because they have to know every detail about our income, thus its keeps the costs of compliance and loses all the many many benefits of lowering the embedded taxes(jobs, balance of trade ect.)
> 2)*the current tax system that we both know sucks started out as a flat tax at 1 1/2 % look how it ended up.* The national sales tax removing the direct link between taxes and income makes it much more difficult for the government to screw us all and makes the taxes we pay as citizens very transparent.


You're assuming I believe the present tax system is okay..... I don't but either a flat tax or a revamp of the present tax system and closing all give away loop holes would be better in my opinion than the Fairtax idea.

BTW, why not just have a constitutional amendment that all taxes proposed by congress must be voted on in the national election and approved by 60% of the people before it can become law. Maybe go so far as to have a vote on all present taxes in the first tax election year......... I like that.

Personally I believe the present federal tax system on the average day person isn't all that bad despite needing work done on it. It is the taxes on corporations that are driving up these hidden taxes you speak of, and for that matter driving them overseas, not the cost of cheap labor everyone likes to blame it on. Those little hidden state taxes is far worse than anything that is hidden by the Federal system. Some clown in Florida wants to put a 3 cent tax on every roll of toilet paper sold to finance sewage treatment plants. A guy on the news a few months ago said he was closing his restaurant in the San Francisco Bay area and moving it to Nevada .................. the reason ............ workers compensation insurance tax in California was over $200,000 a year for him. In Nevada he will pay $37,000 a year.

Allen Greenspan said just a few days ago that a consumption tax is a good idea but not as promoted by Fairtax.org. If any one person in this country has a grasp of taxes and this countries economy I suspect it is he.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was doing some woodwork tonight and half the cuts I was doing were wrong. I think I wasted $$$$ worth of oak. Likewise my mind isn't absorbing this tax stuff this evening.
I could use simple tonight. For starters where is that 23% tax on cars hidden now? Is the dealer paying it and putting it in the sticker price? Does anyone know? This all sounds good, but I would like to know enough details to build up some trust. This would be a big change, and darn serious.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I was able to obtain a copy of Dale Jorgensen (HARVARD) testimony as well as his PhD dissertation and his conclusions only address producer costs (the infamous 23%). It does NOT address the value of existing homes nor the 23% sales taxes I would have to pay to buy an existing home. Secondly, even if a new home would cost 23% less at some time in the future, I saw nothing on the fair tax site or in the harvard study that addresses two items. First, if a new home of the same size, location and keeping all other valuations the same and now costs 23% less than the existing home next door, how would property tax assessments be equalized? Since assessments for property tax are made on the average value of all property, and all the new homes in a neighborhood would cost 23% less, that would devalue all the other homes in the neighborhood. How many homeowners would stand for the value of their investment be lowered by 23%? Second, how would local and state governments deal with property tax collection that now was based on property that was devalued 23%? Yes, I understand the argument that it is only dealing with federal taxes, but the unintended consequences are not very well thought out, either in the harvard study or on the website.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I was able to obtain a copy of Dale Jorgensen (HARVARD) testimony as well as his PhD dissertation and his conclusions only address producer costs (the infamous 23%). It does NOT address the value of existing homes nor the 23% sales taxes I would have to pay to buy an existing home. Secondly, even if a new home would cost 23% less at some time in the future, I saw nothing on the fair tax site or in the harvard study that addresses two items. First, if a new home of the same size, location and keeping all other valuations the same and now costs 23% less than the existing home next door, how would property tax assessments be equalized? Since assessments for property tax are made on the average value of all property, and all the new homes in a neighborhood would cost 23% less, that would devalue all the other homes in the neighborhood. How many homeowners would stand for the value of their investment be lowered by 23%? Second, how would local and state governments deal with property tax collection that now was based on property that was devalued 23%? Yes, I understand the argument that it is only dealing with federal taxes, but the unintended consequences are not very well thought out, either in the harvard study or on the website.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

*Plainsman *you should stick to rifles while you still have a trigger finger :lol: The 23% is the cumulative cost that auto maunfacturers and all the businesses that supply them now incur just complying with the current complicated tax code, the accounting paper work ect.

*Indsport *heres part of the answer about how this plan would affect housing issues 
What about the home mortgage deduction? The FairTax has positive effects on residential real estate far beyond this narrow question. 
Today's homeowners, if they itemize (and 70% do not), pay their interest with post-Social Security/pre-income tax dollars. They then pay their principal with post-SS/post-income tax dollars. Those who do not itemize get no advantages at all. Under the FairTax, all homeowners make their entire house payment with pre-tax dollars.
With the FairTax, mortgage interest rates fall by about 25 percent (about 1.75 points) as bank overhead falls; this is a huge savings for consumers. For example, on a $150,000, thirty-year home mortgage at an interest rate of 7.00 percent, the monthly mortgage payment would be $999.12. On that same mortgage at a 5.25 percent interest rate, the monthly payment would be $830.01. Over 30 years, the 1.75-percent decrease in interest rates in this instance would result in a $60,879 cost savings to the consumer. 
Finally, first-time buyers save for that down payment much faster, as savings are not taxed.
Under the FairTax, home ownership is a possibility for many who have never had that option under the income tax system. Lower interest rates, the repeal of the income tax, the repeal of all payroll taxes, and the rebate mean that people have more money to spend, and have an increased opportunity to become home owners.

*Go here for more info on housing * http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/homebuilders.html

*Gohon *you asked about used goods, used goods are not taxed because they have already been taxed once - when they were new.
And your concerns about seniors are here
*What about senior citizens, retired people, and anyone on a fixed income?* As a group, seniors do very well under the FairTax. Low-income seniors are much better off under the FairTax than under the current income tax system.

Some erroneously believe that people who live exclusively on Social Security pay no taxes. They may not know it, but with corporate income taxes, they are paying hidden taxes averaging 22 percent (for goods) to 25 percent (for services) on everything they buy. Under the FairTax, they break even from the very beginning because they only pay $0.23 out of every dollar they choose to spend on new goods and services, rather than anywhere from 20 to 30 percent in hidden taxes. And note, they elect to pay these taxes through their lifestyle choices.

It gets better from there. Seniors, like everyone else, receive a monthly rebate, *in advance of purchases*( so you won't be waiting for it and you get the interest not them), for taxes paid on the cost of necessities. If seniors choose to work, they are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax on wages, and the compliance burdens associated with each. They pay no more hidden taxes on goods or services, and used goods are tax-free. There is no income tax on their Social Security benefits.

The income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals is repealed. Pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans had assets of $6.5 trillion in 1994. An income tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal but will not be required to do so under the FairTax.

All owners of existing homes experience large capital gains due to the repeal of the income tax and implementation of the FairTax plan. Seniors have dramatically higher home ownership rates than other age groups (81 percent for seniors compared to 65 percent on average). Homes are often a family's largest asset. Gains are likely to be in the range of 20 percent.

*North Dakota is a farm state go here to see how this system will help farmers*
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/ag_ranch.html
Under the current system farmers are not doing as well.

The real beauty of this system is that its simple and understandable, noone and I mean noone including Greenspan understands the current code. He might understand the economics of it but he doesn't understand the laws and rules. Our current system is ridiculously complicated how many hundreds of pages long, full of contraditions and interpretations that lawyers have to argue about the meanings of in court.

*To me the real question I have to ask why we wouldn't want to just trash it and start over with something that is understandable * This plan can be explained in less than 10 pages, a lot less. And if a dumb *** like me can grasp it, anyone can if they give it a shot. well everyone except Plainsman  ( just kidding brother)


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Your arguments are correct about interest rates, possibility of home ownership etc. etc. etc, but fails to answer my questions and neither does the fair tax web pages. It still does not answer the question of the valuation of existing homes under the consumption tax,and does not answer the question of unintended consequences to state and local government taxation. My own case would be appropriate: no mortgage and even when I had one, never was able to deduct mortgage interest or itemize. Since an estimated 22% of all homes in the country are owned free and clear with no mortgage (representing somewhere around 28 million homes), the question of valuation and/or investment must be addressed as well as the economic dislocation for state and local governments. I fully agree that the system would work (as stated on the website and in the publications) but only after a 30 year period which is how most of their projections are done.

Second, Roth IRA withdrawals are tax free for principal plus interest/dividends, and regular IRA withdrawals as taxed only on the interest/dividends as a capitol gain. However, I do agree with the fair tax argument that earnings on savings and investments should be tax free. I recall some 30 years ago that the current income tax system used to have an exclusion for savings interest and dividends up to a certain amount. Guess what, savings rates by Americans were much higher than they are now particularly in the lower income groups.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

What about the losers?....It seems to me that I keep reading about all the money that everyone is going to save by going to the fair tax system. This sounds great but in reality raises up a red flag because if it is so great for everyone where do the savings come from and who are the losers going to be? Everyone cannot be winners because there are always winners and losers.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

What about a Roth IRA? I opened a Roth IRA and have already payed the taxes on this so if I make withdrawals on my Roth IRA and spend it and now have to pay a fair tax on what I spend, I in fact have not gotten the tax break I was guaranteed when I opened my Roth IRA because now I will be taxed on what was not supposed to be taxable.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

For those that can't find any reruns of Leave it to Beaver and need something to do, here is the entire text of the proposed HR25.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c ... c109hPs9Rh

The following section caught my attention ................ what is the real tax going to be after the year 2007? Can someone explain it....... Another question is what is so magical about the 23%. Why does it have to be that high? I see where Japan has a consumption tax but at 5%, Canada is at 7%, and Australia is 10% .......................

SEC. 102. INTERMEDIATE AND EXPORT SALES.

`(a) In General- For purposes of this subtitle--

`(1) BUSINESS AND EXPORT PURPOSES- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any taxable property or service purchased for--

`(A) a business purpose in a trade or business, or

`(B) export from the United States for use or consumption outside the United States, if, the purchaser provided the seller with a registration certificate, and the seller was a wholesale seller.

`(2) INVESTMENT PURPOSE- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any taxable property or service purchased for an investment purpose and held exclusively for an investment purpose.

`(3) STATE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS- No tax shall be imposed under section 101 on State government functions that do not constitute the final consumption of property or services.

`(b) Business Purposes- For purposes of this section, the term `purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business' means purchased by a person engaged in a trade or business and used in that trade or business--

`(1) for resale,

`(2) to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services, or

`(3) in furtherance of other bona fide business purposes.

`(c) Investment Purposes- For purposes of this section, the term `purchased for an investment purpose' means property purchased exclusively for purposes of appreciation or the production of income but not entailing more than minor personal efforts.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Indsport the housing issue is covered in the web site I remeber reading it. I'll try to find it.

DJ, Neither your roth money or any savings 401K Ira ect. type money is taxed until you spend it on retail goods but according to the economists the price of eveything will go down 20 to 25% then the tax will bring prices back up to what they are now so you will actuall pay the tax but it won't increase the prices beyond what we pay now for goods. AS the system is currently Right now you are paying a 20% hidden tax on goods and a 25% hidden tax on services That means you will be taxed again on your Roth money when you spend it, the Damn goverment just hides it so you don't realize it.
All this complicated BS would be gone from indsports post


> Second, Roth IRA withdrawals are tax free for principal plus interest/dividends, and regular IRA withdrawals as taxed only on the interest/dividends as a capitol gain. However, I do agree with the fair tax argument that earnings on savings and investments should be tax free. I recall some 30 years ago that the current income tax system used to have an exclusion for savings interest and dividends up to a certain amount.


And this would happen at a greated rate which is good for all of us.


> Guess what, savings rates by Americans were much higher than they are now particularly in the lower income groups.





> This sounds great but in reality raises up a red flag because if it is so great for everyone where do the savings come from and who are the losers going to be? Everyone cannot be winners because there are always winners and losers.


Your so negative cheer up! :lol: this is one of the best things about the plan, is it is a win win, the savings that make all this possible are due to making the system by which we pay taxes much much more efficient the burden our economy is suffering from under the current system is estimated to add 20% to the cost of all goods you buy and 25% of all the services you buy that burden will be gone. These costs are what its currently costing this country just to comply with the current ridiculously complicated tax laws.

Gohon the 23% number is designed to be revenue neutral, meaning the government gets the exact same amount of tax dollars

Insport this statement is half right it will work but much faster than you think


> I fully agree that the system would work (as stated on the website and in the publications) but only after a 30 year period which is how most of their projections are done.


Estimates are that prices would spike somewhat for less than 6 months (but that would be balanced by the fact that there would be no withholding and everyone would get their whole check) and the whole thing would settle down in less than 1 year, it would not take anywhere near 30 years (it would take less than 1 year) and common sense would support this the mechanisms needed for collection are all ready in place in most states because they have state sales taxes and market forces on prices react very very fast to changes in costs. Look at the way gasoline changes prices overnight with a change in cost, its not a direct comparison but its a good example of how markets react quickly.

Insport what are you asking or stating here??


> the economic dislocation for state and local governments.


 I need some clarification
Thanks all.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Hmmm...

"according to the economists the price of eveything will go down 20 to 25% then the tax will bring prices back up to what they are now so you will actuall pay the tax but it won't increase the prices beyond what we pay now for goods."

Nice rhetoric! Sounds great in la, la land but this is reality and "economists" who crunch numbers can lead you in any direction you are willing to follow. I will not risk my roth IRA on the logic you present.

"Your so negative cheer up! this is one of the best things about the plan, is it is a win win"

"Step right up a winner every time" When I hear that......I know one thing and that is I lose.

"Estimates are that prices would spike somewhat for less than 6 months (but that would be balanced by the fact that there would be no withholding and everyone would get their whole check) and the whole thing would settle down in less than 1 year"

Spike and then return to normal in less than a year....Yeah right! I can believe that!

I also wonder what the tourism industry thinks about this when all their customers from other countries are going to have to help pay to run our country. Sorry but I'm a long way from being convinced.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Bobm: For the Roth IRA example I cited, I was responding to what you posted, "Pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans had assets of $6.5 trillion in 1994. An income tax deduction was taken for contributions to most of these plans. All beneficiaries and owners of these plans expected to pay income tax on them upon withdrawal but will not be required to do so under the FairTax. " I was not questioning whether the fair tax would work, but your statement about the current system requiring beneficiaries and owners expected to pay income tax. As to the state and local income dislocation, read my original post from Monday about assessed value of existing home property dropping, which begets drops in local property tax revenue which will result in higher taxes by local entities to make up for the lost revenue. Note: this is also stated as an unsolveable problem in his PhD that will require some other mechanism. The fair tax site is being selective as to what they chose as a benefit versus a cost when you read the original research and documentation.

Again, I am not arguing against the fair tax, but believe that a fair and balanced discussion and evaluation of the facts and data underlying any website claims is always in order.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Indsport thanks, My gut feeling is that the positive economic results of simplfying the tax system and alleviating the cost burden of complicance would spur a lot of investment and that would offset the problems with realestate tax revenues. I'm not so sure that values would go down though because interest rates would go down and that historically raises property values in the market.

I do think it wouldn't be totally without some glitches but all of them would just have to addressed as they crop up. If there is a shortfall in state revenues they will have to decide state by state how to do so. I believe goverment at the state level is much more responsible to the voters and therefore much more flexible and capable of making adjustments. Our current way of paying for the cost of federal government is so ineficient thats its really hurting our economy. Thats a huge reason in favor of the fair tax. I like it :lol: but I guess thats obvious.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050328/D893N13O0.html

One more reason for the retail sales tax

The Imperial Federal Government of the United States, always on the hunt for new sources of revenue, has set its sights on one of the new, untapped sources of income in this country: people selling stuff on eBay, the online auction site. Whether it be junk in your attic, basement or garage, millions of people are buying and selling online. And now the federal government wants their cut.

People are starting to realize that the IRS rules for reporting income include everything from gambling, bribes and money earned from illegal activity. Of course, that includes money made from selling on the Internet. With 135 million people registered buying $34 billion worth of merchandise, the IRS is going to have their hand out....fast.

It's not going to be long before the tentacles of politicians of both parties will reach the Internet...ready to shake you down and take their cut. Same thing for buying stuff out of state...you might not have to pay sales tax now, but give them time. The government always gets their cut...eventually.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> One more reason for the retail sales tax
> The Imperial Federal Government of the United States,


No it's not. The article is nothing more than one dumb woman crying the sky is falling. If this was the IRS or the government saying they were going to do this or that, it might mean something, Further more, the acidic comment "The Imperial Federal Government of the United States" is a total turn off for me to even listen to you any more with your obvious blind agenda. You just lost this listener...........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Just one dumb woman ??? Right!


> If this was the IRS or the government saying they were going to do this or that, it might mean something,


OK den....read this
http://news.com.com/Congress+proposes+t ... 55385.html
and this
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082401.shtml
and this
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_temp ... ue_id=1748


----------



## goosehtr4life (Dec 16, 2002)

Bob, if we want something simple, a flat tax would do. Say at about %15 percent. Everyone and I mean everyone pays the same. That is fair as can be and the IRS would be reduced to a room full of employees with nothing to do.

I can't back this consumtion tax for the simple reason there is no guarantee we will save 20-23% on items we currently purchase. That is an assumpton and I can't risk that. Also this type of tax would not encourage people to spend. It would encourage people to really look at every purchase carefully. I know it would me...


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Sorry Bob, your cites were nothing more than a committee member proposing a option in a report on a 3% tax on the end user. It went no where................ even if it did that means if you have a $20 a month dial up fee there would be 60 cents added onto it....... big frigging deal. No, as I said your comment of "The Imperial Federal Government of the United States" is a red flag to me, a very serious red flag telling me your agenda is far greater than just a tax change. I have no intentions of debating you any further on this issue and I'm no longer interested in your cites which so far have proved nothing. Have a nice day....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Sorry Bob, your cites were nothing more than a committee member proposing a option in a report on a 3% tax on the end user.


Every proposal in congress starts in a commitee and the idea is growing momentum


> It went no where................ even if it did that means if you have a $20 a month dial up fee there would be 60 cents added onto it....... big frigging deal.


Thats the same thing evreybody said about the income tax when it was first introduced *AT 1.5%* look where that went up to 70% at times. You let the govenrment get its nose under the tent and they will keep raising it.



> No, as I said your comment of "The Imperial Federal Government of the United States" is a red flag to me, a very serious red flag telling me your agenda is far greater than just a tax change.


My "Adjenda" :lol: :lol: :lol: You're right you found me  out I'm really a secret agent hell bent on the destruction of the USA everyone that dare criticize the feds and all its unconstitutional tampering with our lives is :eyeroll: Keep your eyes open we are coming to get you.........


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The deadline to file your taxes with the Imperial Federal Government of the United States is fast approaching -- April 15 is a little over two weeks away. With this in mind, the IRS weighed in yesterday with a handy reminder about "paying your fair share." Usually, whenever you hear this, it means you should grab your wallet and run. But when the IRS, an agency with the ability to put you in jail, speaks up, it's worth listening.

According to IRS Commissioner Mark Everson, the gap between taxes paid and taxes owed is $300 billion. He says this is even after enforcement efforts and collections of late payments. So who owes the money? According to the IRS, it's individuals, not businesses. The largest source of this uncollected amount comes from underreported business income, such as those who are self-employed, money from rent, royalties, etc. He didn't mention eBay this time.

At any rate, near the end of his remarks, Mr. Everson said something quite interesting. He said that despite increased audits, "No one should think we can totally eliminate the gap. That would take draconian measures and make the government too intrusive." What he means is that in order for the IRS to recover every penny owed, they would have to monitor every financial transaction, something that people wouldn't tolerate. So what's the answer?

The answer is the Fair Tax plan. As long as the federal government taxes income and relies on voluntary compliance, the system is going to be very inefficient and people are going to pay as little of their taxes as they can. But there is another way. Instead of taxing income, the feds should tax consumption.

What if when you got paid, you actually received the gross amount on your paycheck, with no deductions for federal income tax? Then, when you spent money, you would pay a 23% sales tax on goods and services, with a monthly rebate check coming your way for taxes on goods and services. You would file no yearly income tax return, there would be no IRS to speak of, and compliance would be at or near 100%.

Read more about it at Fairtax.org, then contact your Congressperson and tell them to support the FairTax Act.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

http://economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3861190


----------



## the_rookie (Nov 22, 2004)

> (heres a little secret for you to dwell on) corporations don't pay any taxes now. If you ever have the priviledge of running one you will understand why


thats whats killing our country if the cooperations had to pay tax we would be fine


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Yeah rookie if coorporations had to pay more taxes we would be just fine and out of a job cause they would relocate in Mexico. Dont Bite the hand that feeds. althought it looks like they all are going anyway.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You are both missing the real point which is that corporations COLLECT taxes from their customers its built into the price of everything we all purchase. You pay, I pay, we all pay and when some politician says screw those evil corporations knowing full well that he is really saying screw the citizens of this country, you should kick him out of office.

Corporate taxes and the costs of the associated accounting that the business has to keep track of the taxes they collect are all passed on to the consumer. If you ever hear anyone say "raise the taxes on corporations" ask them where they think that corporation gets the money to pay those taxes they are so happy to see raised, it doesn't fall from heaven. It comes from his pocket as a consumer! This is one of the greatest slight of hands that congress( government) has ever slipped on us and so many people don't understand it because of the abysmal state of economic education in the (government) schools.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Getting back to SS, here is a link to what some those who oppose personal accounts invest in. Sad but alot more could have the same chances.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157091,00.html


----------

