Lush Rimjob hospitalized in serious condition

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?

That hurts the poor more than the rich.

The only truly "fair" tax is a flat rate that starts to accumulate once above the poverty level.

go read fairtax.org

National sales tax with a monthly prebate based on number of dependants. Family of 4 gets more than $500/month to cover the sales tax they'll pay on essential items.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,063]

>National sales tax with a monthly prebate based on number of
>dependants. Family of 4 gets more than $500/month to cover the sales
>tax they'll pay on essential items.

Odd way to do it but similar result, with the exception that there's less incentive to spend (thus decreasing money velocity) and more incentive to "live off the government." How about instead of a check for $500, you send out a debit card at the beginning of the year with $5000 on it, and the debit card can only be used to eliminate the tax on purchases? If you want to get fancy restrict it to food, clothing and housing, and/or give it only to people below the poverty line.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

go read fairtax.org

Already have... didn't like what I saw.

  Quote

National sales tax with a monthly prebate based on number of dependants.

And in the process create the LARGEST govt program ever created. With that plan you would have EVERY taxpayer getting a govt check EVERY mth.

My idea would be REDUCE the size of the IRS, not make it larger than ever before.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

the plan discusses the size reduction of the IRS and it's savings by doing so. Adding the prebate check processing (which will be highly automated), but at the same time eliminating tax return processing (which isn't nearly as automatable). Would result in a net reduction in size.

It's understandable if you don't believe me. I don't really care. FairTax will never get implemented anyway. Too many people knee-jerk at the sales tax aspect of it and don't take the time to understand it. Including the lying cheating politicians we elect. (oops... there I go being redundant again)

--
Rob

[Ron 10]

  Quote

the plan discusses the size reduction of the IRS and it's savings by doing so. Adding the prebate check processing (which will be highly automated), but at the same time eliminating tax return processing (which isn't nearly as automatable). Would result in a net reduction in size.

The fair tax plan says people have to, "register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member."

Now, who do you think will be the 'sales tax administering authority'?

Anyone that supports smaller Govt should have a problem with the fair tax plan as written.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

the plan discusses the size reduction of the IRS and it's savings by doing so. Adding the prebate check processing (which will be highly automated), but at the same time eliminating tax return processing (which isn't nearly as automatable). Would result in a net reduction in size.

The fair tax plan says people have to, "register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member."

Now, who do you think will be the 'sales tax administering authority'?

Anyone that supports smaller Govt should have a problem with the fair tax plan as written.

what, you think that I believe that fairtax would eliminate the IRS? come on. I'm not that stupid, and you're not that non-observant.

And the state authorities that already oversee sales taxation would take a large part in overseeing this tax collection.

it changes the role of the IRS. it shrinks in size. It costs less to run.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

>on an absolute value basis, they will generally spend more.

Agreed. But on a RELATIVE basis they will spend less.

To put it another way, give a rich guy a $10,000 tax break, and some of that will show up in the economy. Some will just go in the bank. Take that same money and use it to give tax breaks to 20 people just above the poverty line, and all that money will show up very quickly at Wal-Mart, Safeway and Midas.

So if you have $10,000 in tax breaks to give out, and you want to stimulate the economy quickly, giving it to lower income people is the way to go.

yes, I believe I stated something very similar in another thread. If only we were talking about handing out tax breaks instead of why or why not a national sales tax is regressive or not. I still say it's not.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

  Quote

How ever we get there, taxes need to be increased, esp for the rich. As I've asked before, show me a major fed tax cut that led to + things. So I don't care how we stack it, what we call it, the country does better under higher taxes.

what you really seem upset about is all the deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small business.

What about a system with no deductions? How about a system designed by economists, not politicians?

You ficticiously bring in small businesses as a way to discredit me. I have never mentioned it and I am for small business. WHat the RW wants to do is to falsely bring this is to turn off the LW agenda to make RICH people pay more, not struggling small businesses.

Nice try - not - try again.

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

  Quote

The Ron Paul ref was. And flat tax is code for less tax, let's be real here, Bill.

so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong)

How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?

Ahhh, the 'fair' argument; what took so long? We can dice fair around all day and we can include the unfairness associated with the only indust nation w/o soc meds of some kind. Instead, intelligently, I asert that we use what works rather than some subjective 'fair' argument.

Low taxes do not work, pls show me in US history where they have worked for any extended period of time.

[Lucky... 0]

ME: - Made fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's

RUSHMC: This is a mischaracterization a best a lie a worst. It is what your hate Limbaugh media said he did but it was more a shot a Fox himself. You really should do better than this

MY EVIDENCE: http://www.youtube.com/...&feature=related

____________________________________________________

ME: - Made a racist remark about McNabb saying he isn't good, just the media wants to support him due to his color/race

RUSHMC: This one is totally wrong. This was a shot at the MEDIA and had nothing to do with McNabb at all except he we the center of the point. It WAS about McNabbs race, but not about McNabb. Two lies in a row sir

MY EVIDENCE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iueJLjF-WtM

Saying McNabb isn't good, just cause he's black he get's credit is attacking McNMabb on all kinds of levels. I do understand how you cannot see that tho.

_______________________________________________________

ME: - Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be one

RUSHMC: He was addicted to pain pills for pain. Far step from a druggy. You are stretching here

MY RESPONSE: Michael Jackson, Elvis and so many others weren't druggies either. Booze is a drug, if you are an alcohilic, you're a druggy. Just because your drug dealer wears a tie instead of hangs around street corners doesn't change the user's addiction. And to denounce drug addicts while being one is hypocrisy cubed.

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

You ficticiously bring in small businesses as a way to discredit me. I have never mentioned it and I am for small business.

let me clarify since you don't use that section of the tax code.

you seem pissed off about schedule C deductions one can get by running a small business. You Mentioned deductions that Rush might take due to expenses while travelling didn't you? Well, those would be schedule C business expense deductions.

And there's no need to discredit you. Enough people here view your posts as entertainment value only. I don't need to throw wood on that fire.

  Quote

WHat the RW wants to do is to falsely bring this is to turn off the LW agenda to make RICH people pay more, not struggling small businesses.

Nice try - not - try again.

so if instead of saying small business, I say schedule C deductions, then I stand by my original statement.
What you really seem upset about is all the schedule C deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small (or what some might call) personal business (and to clarify I'll add) as a means of tax avoidance against their primary income sources.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone. I was trying to get your thoughts on the possibility of a system without schedule C deductions.

But take it as you will.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

Low taxes do not work, pls show me in US history where they have worked for any extended period of time.

catch up.

we're talking about the tax proposal referred to by it's authors as the "fair tax proposal" (fairtax.org) not being fair or unfair to anyone.

and as it is written and when it was written, with the numbers it uses, it actually increases tax revenue to the US govt. Isn't that what the higher taxes you want are all about really? Increasing the tax revenue?

--
Rob

[kallend 2,106]

  Quote

  Quote

The Ron Paul ref was. And flat tax is code for less tax, let's be real here, Bill.

so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong)

How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?

FAIR? Define "fair" in this context.

Tax protocols and rates are set to give the maximum revenue with fewest complaints from supporting voters. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

what, you think that I believe that fairtax would eliminate the IRS? come on. I'm not that stupid, and you're not that non-observant.

You are supporting the largest entitlement program ever considered. You would have EVERY adult over the age of 18 getting a govt check.

  Quote

And the state authorities that already oversee sales taxation would take a large part in overseeing this tax collection.

Except you completely ignore the FEDERAL GOVT is the one cutting all the checks.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

The Ron Paul ref was. And flat tax is code for less tax, let's be real here, Bill.

so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong)

How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?

FAIR? Define "fair" in this context.

Tax protocols and rates are set to give the maximum revenue with fewest complaints from supporting voters. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

the only time I used the word "fair" was in a question. "Is it not fair that they're making more money?" I was asking why those with more income should pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. so my context of the use of the word "fair" is regarding income, not tax. You and other posters have put that word in my mouth with regards to tax rates.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

what, you think that I believe that fairtax would eliminate the IRS? come on. I'm not that stupid, and you're not that non-observant.

You are supporting the largest entitlement program ever considered. You would have EVERY adult over the age of 18 getting a govt check.

well, every household with a tax payer in it. To offset the taxes they pay on essentials for their family. The difference between that and what we have now is that now, rather than getting a monthly prebate, if you're entitled to deductions for you, and your family, you're letting the government hold your money until the end of the year when you take your deductions on your income tax and get your refund. It's the same bottom line. Either you pay them, and they pay you back, or they pay you, and you pay them back. The difference is that now, you pay tax based on your income, not how much you spend. If you really can't afford it, don't spend it.

That's the other reason fairtax won't get enacted. Right now to hasten economic recovery, we need people to spend.

  Quote

  Quote

And the state authorities that already oversee sales taxation would take a large part in overseeing this tax collection.

Except you completely ignore the FEDERAL GOVT is the one cutting all the checks.

I did not ignore that. I thought you already knew that and I wouldn't have to explain it to you. Clearly I was right.

and it would increase tax revenue to the fed. Decrease cost of running the tax revenue programs, and make the way we gather taxes constitutional.

--
Rob

[JohnnyD 0]

  Quote

What you really seem upset about is all the schedule C deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small (or what some might call) personal business (and to clarify I'll add) as a means of tax avoidance against their primary income sources.

I'm not trying to discredit anyone. I was trying to get your thoughts on the possibility of a system without schedule C deductions.

But take it as you will.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this makes zero sense to me on a couple of levels.

[rhaig 0]

he seems pissed off that people like Rush Limbaugh who operate their lives as part of a small business get schedule C income deductions.

He claimed I was trying to discredit him by saying he didn't like small business. I was not. So I clarified myself.

--
Rob

[JohnnyD 0]

  Quote

he seems pissed off that people like Rush Limbaugh who operate their lives as part of a small business get schedule C income deductions.

He claimed I was trying to discredit him by saying he didn't like small business. I was not. So I clarified myself.

???
Do you seriously think Rush is filing a Sch C?
There is no way in hell that's happening.

[Ron 10]

  Quote

I did not ignore that. I thought you already knew that and I wouldn't have to explain it to you. Clearly I was right.

So you do support the creation of the largest entitlement program ever created.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

All you have to do is use the guys real name, are you able to have a real discussion? Or do you just prefer the childish BS?

So are you admitting you are unable to cut the BS since it has been several days since I first asked?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Lucky... 0]

  Quote

All you have to do is use the guys real name, are you able to have a real discussion? Or do you just prefer the childish BS?

So are you admitting you are unable to cut the BS since it has been several days since I first asked?

If I thought you didn't care, I might. First spell nanny, now name-corrector-nanny? What's next?

Now, explain why I should use his name. How's this:
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, as in Rock Hudson. Why not, he draws attention to Obama's middle name, why can't we just call him Hudson?

See, this way when you complain about me using, 'Lush Rimjob' you can avoid talking about how he makes fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's....at least you have your priorities straight

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

  Quote

All you have to do is use the guys real name, are you able to have a real discussion? Or do you just prefer the childish BS?

So are you admitting you are unable to cut the BS since it has been several days since I first asked?

If I thought you didn't care, I might. First spell nanny, now name-corrector-nanny? What's next?

Now, explain why I should use his name. How's this:
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, as in Rock Hudson. Why not, he draws attention to Obama's middle name, why can't we just call him Hudson?

See, this way when you complain about me using, 'Lush Rimjob' you can avoid talking about how he makes fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's....at least you have your priorities straight

Same lie, different time

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhaig 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I did not ignore that. I thought you already knew that and I wouldn't have to explain it to you. Clearly I was right.

So you do support the creation of the largest entitlement program ever created.

ah... wordsmithing now are we???

see, I disagree that it's an entitlement program. An entitlement program, as you're using it refers to programs like welfare that hand out benefits that are never paid back. A prebate tax check ala fairtax proposal is paid back with taxes paid on essential items for family needs (food, clothing, gasonline etc...)

So no. I don't support creating more entitlement programs (of any size). But I would support the fairtax proposal should it come up in a political arena (however unlikely that may be for the reasons I've previously stated).

--
Rob

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

All you have to do is use the guys real name, are you able to have a real discussion? Or do you just prefer the childish BS?

So are you admitting you are unable to cut the BS since it has been several days since I first asked?

If I thought you didn't care, I might. First spell nanny, now name-corrector-nanny? What's next?

Now, explain why I should use his name. How's this:
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, as in Rock Hudson. Why not, he draws attention to Obama's middle name, why can't we just call him Hudson?

See, this way when you complain about me using, 'Lush Rimjob' you can avoid talking about how he makes fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's....at least you have your priorities straight

Same lie, different time

Its amazing that you can't see anything wrong that your gay doper fringe right racist mysogynist pied piper has uttered from his disgusting pie hole. How are all of us supposed to feel about that hmmmm?????