It would also put more control back in our hands. Why are there so many peole who think they should be carried through life and not have to do a damn thing. Its like with the health care situation. Why would you want to put your health in the governments hands. They have dropped the ball on so much what makes you think they could handle that. Have you ever been in a government run health clinic. It is horrible. We need to take control of our own lives and stop expecting other people to fix everything for us. If we have this tax then you decide when you pay it. If you really need that tv or ipod then you pay the tax but it will make you think twice about it and maybe people will start saving money. With this tax you would get a check every month to make up for the tax you pay on the neccasary things and the only thing you would pay taxes on is the stuff you really dont need but want.

Reply | Edit | DeleteReply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, November 30, 2007What does income have to do with ability to pay? If a person makes a million a year, but has $1.1 million in debts and expenses he has LESS ability to pay than someone who makes $20,000 a year but only $10,000 in debts and expenses.

People with incomes in the 30-60K and have a family have very little ability to pay more taxes. ANYONE with incomes in the hundreds of Thousands or more can afford to pay a little more. If THEY HAVE DEBTS AS YOU SUGGEST THAT IS TOO BAD. No one needs to have debts like that. You never address the issue that there should not have been a tax cut for the wealthy because there was NO SURPLUS to return to them. Bush said because we had the surplus we were over taxing well now that we have a deficit we need that money back.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Friday, November 30, 2007Gene's biggest problem with the "fair tax" is it doesn't discriminate against "the rich". Bigots are always pissed off when they can't discriminate against their target group.

It gives another tax cut to the wealthy we can not afford!

Wrong again.

I seriously doubt you have any clue how anyone in that income range lives.

sorry you mis understood

the answer to your question is


because.

It shouldnt be the responsibility of the people who are in the upper class bracket to get this country out of debt. I have worked my way through every tax bracket and when I was in the lower under 60,000. With all the write offs and Earned Income Credit I ended up making more money back on my taxes then I paid in. Now when I was up to 100,000. I paid out 1800 a month just in federal and state taxes and maybe got back 3000 on my tax return. We pay plenty in taxes.

Ta-Da!

Gene, you have unwittingly disclosed the "secret" to becoming "wealthy." The secret that over 75% of the wealthiest 500 people in the US (that self-made segment you so despise) discovered long ago. You know, those Smith-Barney types: the ones who earned it.

As you know perfectly well, the proposed "fair" tax would not apply to basic needs such as food, shelter and health care. But it sure as hell would apply to an iPod, and rightly so. A consumption tax, properly devised, would be far preferable to the income tax, which, when rates were high, spawned a huge income-tax avoidance industry, an industry that served none of the people you so passionately care about.

A consumption tax would apply fairly to all. The people you call rich might or might not decide to spend some of their money based on consumption-tax considerations, but to hear you tell it, they can sure as hell afford to pitch in more in income taxes, so why would they give a second thought to paying a 30% tax on their new yacht? Especially if it was in lieu of a 50% tax on the income it represented. If they chose not to "spend" it & make it subject to the consumption tax, just exactly what do you think would happen? All that money would just suddenly disappear from the economy? Of course, not - that money would get invested in jobs (directly or indirectly, all invested monies ultimately are invested in job creation - without it, there's no "return"). Just because you believe the economy is a zero-sum game, does not make it so. The other beauty of a true consumption tax is that I would then know exactly what all levels of government are confiscating from me, every time I buy a consumer good - something that is far from obvious in the current patchwork system of taxes & "user fees."

I would gladly pay a 30% sales tax, inclusive of all local, state & federal taxes, for whatever the purpose, if it meant only one thing - avoiding the agony of maintaining the records needed to support and to file an annual income tax return, the regulations applicable to which weigh in excess of 150# (and growing). The problem is the inertia in the current system and the self-interest of those currently feeding off of it - the accountants and lawyers will never let it happen, no matter how "fair" or more efficient it might be.

The mechanism for collecting the tax is already in place, though. The way state & local sales taxes are collected & distrubuted is straightforward - all that would be needed would be to change the rates on the forms & the filing addresses. Sure, there are administrative issues that would need to be sorted out, since we've not done such a thing before, and the rate would be different from state to state, depending on "need" (you should like that, Gene. Just as an aside, Gene, are you aware that there are some states which levy no income tax?). But there is no real obstacle to implementation of a federal sales tax. There was no basis in the Constitution for implementation of the income tax, after all, so there is no reason it couldn't be done - only a matter of will.

There would be fraud & abuse, of course, just like there are fraud & abuse now, but there would be true transparency to our tax burden and there would be some hope of an end to class warfare (though as long as people like you are around, demanding control over a portion of my income and how it should be spent, class warfare will continue, I'm afraid).

As an afterthought, your arrogance in "knowing" what people "need" - as opposed to letting their own choices determine that - is monumental.

Reply By: Island DogPosted: Friday, November 30, 2007 People with incomes in the 30-60K and have a family have very little ability to pay more taxes. Wrong again.I seriously doubt you have any clue how anyone in that income range lives.

You are a COMPLETE IDIOT. Every time you post something you demonstrate just how incompetent you are about just about EVERYTHING!

It shouldnt be the responsibility of the people who are in the upper class bracket to get this country out of debt.

Yes it is for two reasons-- The long term economic health of this country is essential to them keeping the wealth they have in the future. Second, they are the people that got the bulk of the money from the tax cuts that have helped create the added debt. As The Comptroller General demonstrated, for every dollar in tax cuts we only gained fifty cents in new tax revenue from growth resulting from the tax cuts. That is like selling something that costs a $1.00 to make for only $.50!

no this is like selling somet6hing that costs a dollar and makeing 1.50.


stop trying to do math you can't add 2+2.


unless your trying to do new math

Oh, so now it's up to YOU to decide what is a legitimate "debt" and what isn't?

You say that Bush is arrogant. HE has Nothing on the arrogance and pompousness you display in that one comment alone.

Who are you to decide what other people should and shouldn't do with THIER money!

Using your logic, Gene, YOU should be paying 3 times more than me, since you make at least 3 times MORE then I do.

Are you willing to pay 3 times more than I do Gene? If not, SHUT YOUR ARROGANT GOB!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 01, 2007 . That is like selling something that costs a $1.00 to make for only $.50! no this is like selling somet6hing that costs a dollar and makeing 1.50.stop trying to do math you can't add 2+2.unless your trying to do new math

What is taking place is that we cut tax revenue by a dollar with the tax cuts and those tax cuts created growth that adds back $.50 in new tax revenue. It is like selling some that has cost to make of $1.00 for $.50 and loosing $.50 on EVERY SALE! That is what the Comptroller General has shown. It is just like when Reagan told us his tax cuts would cause the GDP to grow at a rate of 6% and that would replace the lost tax revenue from his tax cut. What happened is we got only 3% GDP growth as a result of the Reagan tax cuts added $3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt during his 8 years as President!

if we had lost 50 cents per dollar they would have used the word LOST.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 01, 2007 $.50 in new tax revenue if we had lost 50 cents per dollar they would have used the word LOST.

We have a deficit and need more tax revenue to balance the budget. No matter how many times you post your BS, the ONLY way to balance the budget is to cut spending where we can and increase the tax revenue. The tax cuts were to return the Bush Surplus that did not exist and the tax cuts need to end!

This from the AP Feb 24, 2001:

(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means. Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold.

The Democrats were CORRECT!

Well, tax revenues were increased but Congress still increased spending beyond the incease in revenue. BTW, in case you haven't pulled your head out long enough to notice, the deficit was down for the 3 quarters posted for this year. To hear your constant monotone crap, it's never been higher.