You are Funny girl.
It was a great Northern victory, but it was not realised at the time.
Atlanta is all that mattered, so the action at Mobile was overlooked at the time
Taxes
-
Our current tax code drives up personal debt spending.
Perhaps if the code punished rather than rewarded debt, our citizens would have more of a reason to get debt free.
-
Wow…… 100,000 pages?
-
I think the biggest problems with an end user tax would be:
- Determining who the end user is. Many companies resell a lot of their purchases, so who pays the tax? How do you prove it? How do you enforce it?
- Keeping the black market out. You know the instant you have to pay $200 tax on a television someone will be offering it to you at a discount off the back of a van, tax free.
-
Which is no different than the black market WAGE economy we have now, except that Illegals are not the primary beneficiary of it.
The Fair Tax is a win all the way around:
Illegals pay taxes
The poor are exempt
It encourages savings
It discourages consumption
It encourages recycling
Only those with a demonstrated ability to pay (by choosing to buy new goods) pay taxes.Not sure what anyone sees as the downside on this…
-
It discourages tourism
The rich will buy their products over seas and avoid the tax
A black market for lower echelon goods will appear and be the new “drug” that the police have to intercept.Not saying it cannot be done, but have those concerns been addressed yet? If not, how would you address them?
-
For goods purchased overseas, it would be just like high dollar goods purchased out of state from states with high sales taxes… collect the tax upon transfer of the item to the US.
As for a massive black market…
I just don;t see it happening. You would need collusion at so many levels that it would be impractical. And what is there to gain for cooperation with the effort to evade the tax? Cash? More than a small amount, and the black market item becomes more expensive than the legal item.I really would encourage folks to check out Fair Tax.org. Considering that 9 Republican Presidential Candidates have stated that they will sign the Far Tax Bill if passed by congress, it might be worth while to check out the info from the experts.
Just a thought…
-
I can certainly get behind a simpler tax system. I can also get behind one that doesn’t seem to punish me for not having a family.
my father was at Omaha beach to protect familyless scum like you. from hells heart I stab at thee. JK :lol:
-
I like a tax plan that reimburses working families who are financially stable for having children and providing labor for the next generation. Our population is dwindling, and not only because of abortion, but also because it’s almost impossible to function on one paycheck these days. That means two working parents and the cost of day care is so high statements from people like Hillary Clinton asking the national government to take over and run day cares to save parents money are actually being entertained, by me too!
However, if parents who have proven that they are not a burden to society (no bankruptcies, no felonies, no criminal issues worse then traffic tickets etc, not on unemployment, not on welfare, not on disability, etc) should get paid by the government to be able to afford a stay at home parent. There have been a myriad of studies that show that stay at home parents raise, generally, law abiding children.
Now, I’m not saying to pay the stay at home parent what they are worth. That would be over $100,000 a year each! No. But how about $5,000 for the first child (0-17y, 364d, 23h, 59m) and $1,500 for the next 3 children. Any children after that would add $600 each.
It’s just enough to pay for food and used clothing for the children. Which is all a family needs to survive on one paycheck.
Then, if you tax exempt food, water and medicine (the necessities for life) a flat sales tax would be a great idea.
-
Sorry, I already pay a boat load of money every year for other people’s children…
Most notably about $12,000 a year for Government Schools in Wake County, NC
Then add in Welfare, AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, Head Start, that child health insurance thing that Congress is looking at expanding as I type this, ad infinitum add nauseum…The Dugger Family should NOT get over $17,300 just because the two of them are popping out children so fast that they have their own series of Discove4ry Channel specials.
Here is a clue… do NOT have children you cannot afford, just like it has been throughout history… even before effective contraceptives.
-
@ncscswitch:
add in Welfare, AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, Head Start, that child health insurance thing that Congress is looking at expanding as I type this, ad infinitum add nauseum…
S-CHIP I believe you are referring too, and the stipend for stay at home parents would be to replace all of these programs, and the ones we forgot about. :P
-
@ncscswitch:
Sorry, I already pay a boat load of money every year for other people’s children…
Most notably about $12,000 a year for Government Schools in Wake County, NC
Then add in Welfare, AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, Head Start, that child health insurance thing that Congress is looking at expanding as I type this, ad infinitum add nauseum…The Dugger Family should NOT get over $17,300 just because the two of them are popping out children so fast that they have their own series of Discove4ry Channel specials.
Here is a clue… do NOT have children you cannot afford, just like it has been throughout history… even before effective contraceptives.
Rich dad Poor Dad’s Robert Kiosaki in a later book expressed that having children is a primary investment vehicle for the poor.
The middle and upper classes will invest in the children that they have, but not in having more children. -
The only way to make the ponzi scheme of our socialist programs work is to reward people who are not on these programs for their children. Currently we are in a population reduction. Less and less people are having kids and those have kids are having less of them. That means we will have too few indians paying into the system to support the chiefs reaping the benefits.
Thus, it only makes sense to pay people to have kids.
And, since we know that day care and preschools and no parent at home after school breeds evil children (at least according to all the articles and propaganda being spewed by the various organizations out there) it makes sense that we need to pay a parent to stay home to raise these kids, to reduce crime and thus the burden of warehousing criminals.
No?
Hence, why I said we need a stipend for stay at home mothers who raise their own children without being a burden on society (aka are not on a socialist program.)
-
Absolutely not.
Have children you can afford, period end of sentence. If you cannot afford children, do not have them, period end of sentence.
And it IS possible to have kids (a LOT of them) and not be on welfare or need social support. I mentioned the Dugger Family above. They now have SEVENTEEN CHILDREN, and they receive ZERO direct government benefits (other than driving on roads, national defense, etc.) And all 17 kids are home schooled, so not even using the government education system.
So you CAN have a boat load of kids, and on a single income (Mrs. Dugger is a stay at home mom) and still be debt free and not on the government teat.
You do not encourage that by handing out MORE cash for popping out kids.
-
But Switch, you are SO cruel! Won’t you please think about the children!!!
Obviously you want to see children starving to death in the street, right? You are such a cruel conservative! Have you no heart?
(In case you all are missing it, I’m using the classic liberal arguments to spread the influence of government.)
Basically, my point is, if welfare is needed, then we need to pay parents to stay home and raise their kids. After all, the best parent for a child is the child’s parent, not the state.
-
And if families drive used minivans instead of new Lexus SUV’s, if they do not have the 5 bedroom 7 bath house in the highest tax, highest cost area of town; if they do not eat out 5 times a week, etc., etc. then they can afford their kids.
Otherwise, don;t come bawling to me for more cash so that you can pop out kids and dump them off in government schools with government breakfast and lunch, and government after school programs, and government transportation to and from, and government health care.
-
Switch,
You cannot expect imperialist American pig-dogs to live within their means! That’s just cruel! Every room must have a television with it’s own satellight receiver, every child not only with a personal cell phone, but also with unlimited minutes and text messages! Each person over the age of 16 has to have their own car!
-
LOL!
I love the sarcasm.
I grew up lower middle class. My first vehicle was a bike (a gift for Christmas). When I destroyed it (mountain bikes had not been invented yet, but i could have used one), it was up to me to buy the replacement (thus the strawberry picking at ages 11 and 12). My first motorized vehicle was a used Honda 80 dirt bike when I was 16. My first street legal was a Kawasaki KZ250LTD (used of course) when i was 17. To pay for THAT I had to put 20 square of shingles on the family home. My first car was a 1976 Olds Omega that I bought from my grandfather when I was 18.
I am 38 years old and I DO NOT OWN A CELL PHONE. I have a company issued one for work, and Angel has a pre-paid. Our “new” cars are both 4 years old, and we are going to drive them a while yet. We live in a modest home (about 1300 square feet) in a modest sub-division. We both work a LOT of hours, and we have little debt (almost none excluding the house). If we WANTED a child, we could afford one.
But we don;t, so instead we have been helping Angel’s younger sister with her expenses as she prepares to give birth, so we help keep her off government assistance.
You seeing a trend here? I was effectively BRED to be a Libertarian (actually i was bred to be an American of the old school, which means Libertarian in today’s political verbage).
The modern republican wants to CONTROL THE ACTS of the people who live down the street.
The modern democrat wants to CONTROL THE CASH of the people who live down the street.
The modern libertarian wants to be able to control their own acts and their own cash, and let the neighbors do the same.It worked for over 150 years. Damn shame we gave it up as a nation.
-
I know. I just wanted to play the liberal for once, can you blame me?
Hell, where I grew up originally we made choices between having apples or having toilet paper. Screw phones and television! We had a television in the town hall, it had 2 channels, the entertainment channel and the news channel. Guess which one we watched?
That’s why I’m fed up with all these subsistence programs. Nothing drives a person to succeed better then success. If you make life easy for the unsuccessful, they will remain unsuccessful.
If we need programs like this, then I think we are rewarding the wrong citizens. It should be the middle classes, the backbone of America’s economy, that gets the rewards, not the upper crust of lower dredges.
-
I don’t see any option in the poll that could be classified as a progressive tax scheme, eg. where you pay a higher percentage in a higher income tax bracket.
Which incidentally I don’t think would dissuade anyone from trying to earn more money, even though they’ll pay higher taxes on those extra dollars.
But this is running dangerously close to PD. Just making a point about the poll options. All the options are flat, aren’t they?
-
I don’t see any option in the poll that could be classified as a progressive tax scheme, eg. where you pay a higher percentage in a higher income tax bracket.
Which incidentally I don’t think would dissuade anyone from trying to earn more money, even though they’ll pay higher taxes on those extra dollars.
But this is running dangerously close to PD. Just making a point about the poll options. All the options are flat, aren’t they?
thats why i don’t think i voted.
Suggested Topics
