Welcome to Obama’s America:
“…To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare… can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month…”
The above is a quote from Lucy, a 32 year old female whose parents were on welfare and now she is on welfare and loves it. She intends to stay this way and pass it on to her kids.
It’s ironic isn’t it? She receives $1,250 a month from the “fools” who actually earn a living and is actually taking home more than the fast food working making a little under 9 bucks an hour minimum wage. She sits on her ass all day while the other works their ass off.
Sad….
This is the welfare state and will lead us to our demise sooner or later.
See author page
@Smorgasbord:
I’ve read the book and had many debates over the Fair Tax theory. I still don’t support it. I don’t support “consumption” tax which is just another sales tax.
The problem is that sales taxes are a prime source of revenue for states, and if you think the states are ever going to be willing to give that source up, you’re dreaming. Also, it punishes commerce, and I already have a problem with paying sales tax. Why should I be punished with a tax for engaging in commerce?
This is the age of computers, right? And employers are required to submit to the IRS what you are paid using your Social Security number. It is simple to fill out a one sheet return. All that has to be done is run the earnings reported against the taxes paid using that SS#. If you don’t pay them, well, you have the same problems you have today.
Really? And people buying on the black markets, which will mushroom under the Fair Tax, are going to pay the consumption tax? I don’t think so. Why do you think internet sites like Ebay and Amazon are so popular? No taxes, and changing the name of a sales tax to a “consumption” tax doesn’t make it any more popular. And tacking on an extra 5% “consumption” tax to goods and services is not going to hurt the elderly and the poor how? Oh, yeah, there is that convoluted system of “pre-bates.” What silliness.
@Smorgasbord: #47
Nice to see someone else understands the Fair Tax.
So many people don’t seem to understand that corporations pay NO taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business, and as such are added to the price of everything that they sell.
We, the people who purchase items for our own use, pay all taxes.
End all other taxes, and the prices we pay will come down.
Yes, you naysayers, they will. It’s called “competition”. It’s the reason for companies not jacking up their prices now, and it would be the reason for their lowering them once they are no longer forced to collect taxes from us for the government.
With the present system, no one can know how much of their income goes to the government.
With the Fair Tax, our total tax payment would appear on every sales receipt.
@This one: #33
Why is it liberals ALWAYS resort to the most foul language when stating their causes? EVERY liberal rally includes foul language, threats, fights, and lots of police. EVERY Tea Party rally I attended resulted in NO foul language, NO threats, NO fights, and very few police, because they knew we were going to be peaceful. Please explain how using the offensive name you liberals use for Tea Partiers helps your cause, and gets people on your side. Do you know what the term means. I wish I didn’t. I suggest anyone with high moral standards who doesn’t know where the term coms from, not find out.
@retire05: #51
“Also, it punishes commerce, and I already have a problem with paying sales tax. Why should I be punished with a tax for engaging in commerce? ”
And corporate, excise, property, inventory, transportation etc. taxes don’t tax you for engaging in commerce?
The costs of a massive army of tax accountants and tax lawyers maintained by corporations don’t?
They do. You just don’t see them because the companies are paying for it all, then passing the costs on to you in the form of increased prices to cover the burden.
Or do you think that corporations pay their myriad of taxes out of their profits, and don’t pass them on to you?
Hint: Exxon, the company so hated by the left for making such a large profit, paid over twice as much in taxes as it made in profits. Not including fuel taxes there, either.
You remind me of a man that I met in a truckstop. He opined that fuel taxes on diesel should be raised, because trucks damage the highway. My response was, “Go ahead. We won’t pay them, you will.”
He could not understand that raising the costs for transportation of goods would raise the price he paid for those goods in the store. I finally gave up on trying to explain it.
“Oh, yeah, there is that convoluted system of “pre-bates.” What silliness. ”
What a concise and erudite comment. Destroys the entire concept of the Fair Tax in one sentence. Sheer genius! sarc/off
“I’ve read the book and had many debates over the Fair Tax theory. I still don’t support it. I don’t support “consumption” tax which is just another sales tax. ”
And then you make false statements about what the Fair Tax is and how it works. No, you haven’t “read the book and had many debates over the Fair Tax theory.” Stop lying. Those of us who actually have read the book and understand the subject will spot the lies and call you on them in a heartbeat.
@Petercat:
And you really believe that if a company is now getting $10.00 for a product that by reducing the taxes they pay, they will also reduce the cost of their product to you? You’re a dreamer if you really believe that. If the market bears the $10.00 cost, there would be no reason for the company to reduce its prices to reflect a lowering of their tax liability. It will only give companies a greater profit margin.
And don’t treat me like I am stupid. I own an F250. It has two 20 gallon tanks and I understand that when I fill it up, the federal government gets 18 cents for every gallon I pump.
And just who the hell are you to tell me that you know I haven’t read the book? Do you work for the NSA and you are spying on me and know what books I buy and what books I don’t buy?
So now you’re calling me a liar? Who died and made you God?
You sound like one of the Paulbots I have encountered, unpleasantly, I might add.
@Petercat:
Go tilt at another windmill, Bubba. Your opinion holds no importance for me and your threats ring hollow. Kinda like your head.
@retire05: #46
The problem with the Flat Tax is that the ones who are paid cash, like the illegals, won’t be paying any taxes. I am a retired trucker, and a lot of places have lumpers who load or unload the trailers for the company who hauls in the load. The trucking company pays the lumpers to unload or load. If the trucking company doesn’t have an agreement with the receiver, then the driver pays the lumper cash and gets a receipt. There is a Social Security number on the receipt, but it isn’t the person’s who signed the receipt.
Lumpers can get $700 to $800 per day, depending on how long they work that day, and don’t pay one penny in taxes. In fact, I heard one lumper talking with another lumper about his welfare check.
When you figure how many billions of dollars are spent on welfare to keep people from working, the way the Fair Tax takes care of it makes sense to me.
Another advantage of the Fair Tax is that the corporations would bring back their headquarters to the USA, since they won’t be paying any taxes. They moved away because of the high corporate taxes. The Flat Tax would still keep them away if another country has lower taxes. With no corporate taxes, other country’s businesses would come to the USA for their headquarters.
Again, with the Flat Tax, you will still have the IRS with their auditing ability, like they are doing to others who are complaining about obama or obamacare. The Fair Tax gets rid of them.
Another advantage of the Fair Tax is that if the government sees that revenues aren’t as much as they should be, they can raise the tax overnight, instead of waiting until the end of the tax year to find out how much they will have. If there would ever be a tax cut, it would be overnight too.
Under a Flat Tax the welfare recipients would still be receiving their money. The billions of welfare dollars being spent now will continue. The Fair Tax will ELIMINATE ALL WELFARE AGENCIES. With the Fair Tax, Lucy can go out and earn any amount she wants to without any penalty. She might even like the idea of having extra money to buy things she couldn’t before, and start up the work ladder to higher wages so she can have more stuff.
Can anyone name any other type of tax system that doesn’t penalize welfare recipients for earning extra money, and collects money from EVERYBODY that buys stuff?
@Smorgasbord:
I don’t know about “lumpers.” But I do know this: if you are paying a “lumper” in cash, and getting a receipt, that payment is a business expense and you are required to show it on your tax return, along with the Social Security number of the person it was paid to. If you did not do that, you were in violation of tax return laws.
Which would require Congressional legislation. Do you really think the Swamp would ever lower taxes? And what chaos would it create on businesses to not know from day to day what the taxes they had to charge were going to be?
And you think it is desirable to allow welfare recipients to continue drawing welfare AND a paycheck? I want to eliminate welfare, not encourage it.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #50
I have no problem with the federal government helping people because of the bad economy. The problem is that the government is causing the bad economy.
It used to be that the poor were taken care of locally. If someone needed help, they were given food, and possibly a place to stay for a short time. The community would also help the person or persons find work. If the person didn’t want to work for a living, the community knew it, and the bum had to go elsewhere.
On one of the Fox News shows, one man showed a chart of the employment rare over many years. The chart showed that when federal unemployment was available, the unemployment rate was high, but when the benefits ran out, the chart went almost straight up for number employed after EVERY time the peoples unemployment benefits ran out. As long as some people can get free stuff for not working, they will take it, but when the free stuff ends, they go out and get a job.
I just thought of a great way to eliminate unemployment in states that want to. Give free rides to states that give great benefits for not working. Those who want to be paid for not working will get a free ride to a state of their choice that is on the list.
@Smorgasbord: You got it. Lazy, obese people and smokers SHOULD pay Much Higher insurance rates. Thet think incessantly going to DRS. is their right.
Agree on Fair Tax—abolish the IRS.
O5 —on corporate greed – World Com and Enron were poster children of greed—Lehman Bros. and G.E. as well.
Callimg BHO a Socialist with the rich getting richer?? Dow 16,ooo— RE booming. Capitalism is thriving.
Repubs. won’t buy removal of mortgage write off.
Bees Absolutely believe we should help our homeless Vets FIRST.
Mercy For Animals—They deserve a voice.
@Smorgasbord:
Economies go up, and economies go down. It is not the place of the government to take care of people except to defend our nation and our borders, which it does not do. That is the only Constitutional requirement for “taking care” of anyone.
Where did you get it was the “community” that took care of people. It wasn’t the “community”, it was churches and the charitable organizations of churches. Catholics, Methodist, Baptists, all build hospitals, orphanages, old folks homes. They had “poor” houses where people could stay until they found jobs. And it was individuals, not communities, that donated to those charities that allowed the charities to help people.
And what have I been saying all along? When people get hungry, they will find work to pay for their food. It’s just that simple.
@Richard Wheeler:
Are you saying Eric Holder should prosecute Jeffrey Immelt? Never happen. He donated too much money to the Democrats.
So the man who can’t even get a website correct by spent over $600 million in taxpayer dollars is now responsible for the market? Get real, RW.
If animals were intended to have a “voice”, God would have given them voices. Instead, he made humans carnivorous.
But here’s a suggestion for you, RW: sell everything you own and give it to the SPCA.
@Richard Wheeler:
Wow, RW, you don’t believe in obamacare? Everyone can’t be denied or charged a higher price for pre-existing conditions. I’m so disappointed a Obamite is not a believer…..
@Richard Wheeler:
We’ve already established that the stock market is not related to the economy. It makes money in good and bad economy. Some people make money when stocks go down, some make it when stock goes up. You already lost that argument once.
@retire05: #51
I have said that it should have been called the National Sales Tax, because that is what it is. Which is better, a CONSUMPTION tax, where you pay a percentage tax on products you buy, or an INCOME TAX, where you pay the government up front? I should mention that the Fair Tax would only be on NEW products. If you sell something used, there will be no tax on it, but under a Flat Tax you legally would have to pay an income tax on ANY sales, unless you don’t report it. With the Fair Tax there is no reporting to be done.
The Fair Tax won’t affect the state sales taxes, just like the Income Tax doesn’t. The states taxes will stay in effect, for those that have them.
Why should you be punished with a tax for having an income?
What costs $100 before the Fair Tax will cost $100 after the tax. You either didn’t read the book, or you forgot that the tax is 23%, and it isn’t tacked on. ALL OF THE FEDERAL TAXES WILL BE ELIMINATED. No tax on fuel, tires, Social Security, income, or any other federal tax. The ones who did the figuring figured we pay 23% in federal taxes when they are all added up. Since business won’t be paying the taxes, their expenses will be less. Imagine how much a trucking company can save without paying federal taxes on fuel, road use, tires, oil, etc. When I was a driver, it cost about $10-15,000 per truck per year in taxes. This means they can charge a lower price and still make the same profit.
Since ALL of the federal taxes will be been removed from the product, the item that cost $100 before the tax will now cost $100, which includes the 23% tax. There is no ADDED tax. ALL of the federal taxes will be eliminated, and all of the agencies that are responsible for collecting them. This will result in many billions of dollars saved.
There will be an adjustment period where businesses will try to keep the prices up, but the small businesses will come in with lower prices to draw customers away from the bigger businesses. That is how the Free Enterprise system works. If the federal government enacts the Fair Tax, it could mandate a percentage price drop, since all businesses will be operating at a much less expense. Just a suggestion.
Businesses won’t need their accountants to keep trying to figure out how to pay the least amount of taxes they can. It is estimated that corporations spend 25% of their time in meetings trying to figure this out.
One way to see if the Fair Tax would work is to ask a small state to volunteer to use it and see how it goes.
As I said earlier, it is the stupidest idea I have ever heard of to take care of the poor, but it eliminates ALL of the welfare agencies that nobody seems to know how many there are, and the unknown billions of dollars they spend, and the wages and benefits of the employees, and it lets people earn as much as they want.
Imagine getting a paycheck and getting to keep ALL of it. Wouldn’t that be nice?
@Redteam: I don’t care about Obama care one way or the other.
I do think physically lazy, obese people should pay more. Smokers should pay much more.
How many people have you known that made money when stocks went down?
I was a stockbroker for over a decade and saw almost no investors cheer a market decline. Pure gamblers–about half cheered a decline.
If the markets were down 50% rather than up 100% in last 5 years do you think BHO would be taking heat?
@Petercat: #52
Even if we don’t go to the Fair Tax, for years I have said the businesses shouldn’t pay taxes, since, like you said, they just collect taxes. For many years I fell for the politicians, “I won’t raise taxes on individuals” con game. Only raising taxes on business mean only raising the price on the products they make. This also makes it harder for businesses to compete in other countries. If they wouldn’t have to pay taxes, the prices would be a lot lower, and they could compete more effective in other countries.
Let’s look at it a different way. Those of you who are so thrilled with the credit cards that pay you back, who do you think pays that money? The credit card company doesn’t. They make the retailers pay it. Do you think that the retailers figure that it is just a cost of doing business? Most businesses operate on a low percentage income (except for Comcast, which make over 40% profit), and the extra 1-5% could bankrupt them. They have to raise prices.
How many of you are old enough to remember the Gold Bond and Green Stamp con game where you got stamps for purchases. If you save enough stamps you could turn them in for stuff. The shoppers finally figured out that since the stamps cost the stores money to buy them, the stores were just charging enough extra to pay for the stamps.
Richard Wheeler
I refuse to target the obese people,
don”t you think it”s going too personal and too far on a population?
YES , because if you start and some have already begun like planes,
who will be next, and if you see a person aging and pick up some weight
it”s normal for some people, we just begin to find why some do and other don”t.
yourself who has gone to a warzone and come back and exercize from what you say, could later gain, ON THE MUSCLES
and nothing you can do is going to change it,
YOU’RE PUTTING ANOTHER EXCUSE ON THE FEDERALS, WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE DONE TOO MUCH,
ON OUR PERSONAL BEING,
YOU WANT THEM TO GET OFF YOUR LIFE AND LEAVE YOU ALONE,
THEY HAVE OVER REACH ALREADY,
AND THAT IS ANOTHER REASON TO DEFUND THE OBAMACARE, YOU TOUCH IT RIGHT ON THE NAIL,
THEY WOULD USE THAT TO DOUBLE THE PRICE OF CARE FOR A PERSON WHO HAS OVER WEIGHT, AND OSTRASIZE THEM,
TO MAKE ANOTHER DIVIDED GROUP IN THIS SOCIETY,ALREADY
CUT IN MANY PIECES
A PEOPLE IS MADE OF MANY SIZES AND SHAPE AND FORMS,
NO GOVERNMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO
MAKE THEM FEEL BAD FOR ANY PHISYCAL FLAWS, YOU WILL MAKE THE LIVES DIFFICULT ON ALSO THE MILITARY WHO PICK UP WEIGHT AFTER THEY COME BACK AND ARE NOT DOING EXERSIZE ENOUGH STUCK IN AN OFFICE FOR EXAMPLE,
BECAUSE OF THEIR HEIGHT ARE IN HARMONY WITH THEIR BODY,
WHAT WOULD COME NEXT, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO QUESTION AN OBESE PERSON,
AND I DON’T SAY THAT BECAUSE I AM OBESE, I AM NOT,
THEY WENT TOO FAR ALREADY,
THEY DON’T OWN THE CITIZENS BODY AND SOUL WHICH THEY STARTED ON THEIR SOUL ALSO, TRYING TO TAKE OUT CHRISTIANITY, THAT’S THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT YOU HAVE, UN AMERICAN TO THE MAXIMUM,
AND NO ONE HAVE A RIGHT TO CRITISIZE HIS NEIGHBOR FOR HIS SHAPE OR FORM,
i CANNOT BELIEVE THIS, YOU ARE SETTING THE FUTURE OF THE USA TO BE AS DARK AS CAN EVER BE,
IT REMIND ME OF what MATA HARLEY SAID ONE DAY,FROM BOOK SHE HAD, I AM CHANGING THE WORDS TO FIT HERE,
THEY CAME FOR THE CHRISTIAN AND I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING, THEY CAME FOR THE BLACK AND I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING, THEY CAME FOR THE ELDER AND I DID NOT SAY ANY THING,
THEY CAME FOR ME ,AND THERE WAS NO ONE
TO TALK FOR ME,
I NEVER FORGOT THAT ONE AND I CAN FIT IT IN MANY WAY,
and more of: there is many super intelligent people in that
big size category which we mostly need in this USA,
THEY ARE MORE NEEDED THAN OBAMA AND BLOOMBERG,
@retire05: #58
That isn’t how it works. It isn’t MY expense. It is the company’s expense. Most companies give drivers a sum of money to pay for truck expenses. The driver gets a fuel card, but usually no other, so the lumper fees, tolls, etc. are paid by the driver, and the driver turns the receipts in to the company and gets the money back.
That is why I put the qualifier in my comment.
I just made the comment as a possibility. The government would decide on when and if the tax would be raised. Personally, I would like to see the tax at a much lower rate and see how it goes, because, as you and I fear, the government won’t lower it if it is bringing in more than expected, and can raise it as needed.
Are you saying you want them to receive welfare OR a paycheck? You don’t want them to have both, like workfare would do, where they get welfare if they take a job?
It ain’t welfare if EVERYBODY gets it. Would you rather keep the many different welfare agencies and many billions of dollars paid out to recipients who shouldn’t be getting it, and from several different agencies that don’t know the recipient is getting welfare from multiple agencies? Let’s also add in the worker’s salaries and benefits, including very generous retirement benefits, the many buildings the welfare agencies rent or own and pay for upkeep and other expenses. The Fair Tax eliminates all of that, plus the IRS and its auditing authority. There won’t be anything to audit.
The Fair Tax does eliminate welfare, and all of the agencies and buildings. The feds could sell the properties and take in a lot of money.
@retire05: #61
I go along with that. One exception I have is if someone is born with a defect that requires constant attention, and even medical insurance doesn’t cover the expenses. I would’t have a problem with a federal program that helps someone in a situation like that. I also wouldn’t have a problem requiring anyone getting assistance to pay it back when they get on their feet again.
It was easier to say “community” instead of listing all of the things you did. Isn’t a “community” made up of all or some of the things you listed?
@retire05: #55
The reason that I am certain that you lied about having read the book is not that I am involved with the NSA, but because you said many things that are not true about the Fair Tax that you would have known were not true if you had indeed read the book.
The most damaging claim to your credibility was your statement that the fair tax would be 5%. As Smorgasbord says in comment #65, the fair tax would be 23%. Had you read the book, you would have known that, and used it, as it is a much larger number.
Your other statements about the way that the Fair Tax would be implemented and operate show a level of ignorance impossible to anyone who had actually read the book and debated it.
So you either lied about having read the book and debated it, or you are lying about what the Fair Tax is. Either way, you are lying.
I am so sick of people who misrepresent an idea, then argue against their misrepresentation instead of the idea itself. If you want to debate the Fair Tax, then debate the Fair Tax, not your own made-up fantasy of it.
Your argument that Corporations would not lower their prices when their costs go down is a hollow argument, anyway. It’s called competition. The only way that prices rise on an item is when something increases the cost of doing business for all companies involved in that product. By your logic, we would all be paying $5.00 a gallon for gasoline today, as the past has shown that the market will bear that price. But the marketplace just doesn’t work that way. You don’t think that Ford would lower it’s prices to grab more market share when it’s costs go down? Or that GM wouldn’t lower it’s prices to prevent that?
I realize that I’m not going to convince you of the advantages of the Fair Tax. Nor am I going to convince you to quit lying about it. And, I realize that my opinion doesn’t matter to you. I am not writing this to convince you. I am writing this for the thinking people who read both our comments, in the hope that some of them will want to know the facts and will research the book and/or the vast amount of information from the original source on the internet (fairtax.org) and not be fooled by your
liesmisrepresentations.@ilovebeeswarzone: I didn’t suggest obese, smokers shouldn’t have rights. I said they should have higher insurance premiums.
Push away from the chips and TV and take a long walk.Go to the gym and you’ll spend a lot less time going to Drs.
@ilovebeeswarzone: #68
Good post, Bees.
One quick point before I get on the machine tools:
Smokers, obese people, and those who life unhealthy lifestyles already pay more for their health insurance, based on the increased risks of a claim as seen by the insurance companies. What I object to is the government mandating increased rates based on a number pulled out of his hat by a bureaucrat who wants to use the power of government to modify behavior. Are we lab rats now?
@retire05: #55
“And don’t treat me like I am stupid. I own an F250. It has two 20 gallon tanks and I understand that when I fill it up, the federal government gets 18 cents for every gallon I pump.”
If you honestly believe that 18 cents is all that the federal government gets from every gallon of gas sold, then, sorry, but you are stupid.
Or are you ignoring all of the other taxes that the fuel companies pay that are also added to the price of a gallon of fuel? Payroll taxes, property taxes, corporate income taxes, inventory tax, this tax, that tax?
If you include state and local taxes, the government’s share adds about 60-80 cents to the price of every gallon of fuel sold.
@Petercat:
You said:
Perhaps you should invest in a reading comprehension course before you jump into the mud calling people liars and thinking you are going to clean their clocks over what they said. This is what I said:
Not a fan of the Fair Tax theory. I still support a flat tax that would work like this:
Income: XXXXX
5% of income: XXXXX
Pay this amount: XXXX
The 5% FLAT tax is a percentage that has been proposed by a number of economists. It could be 7% or even as low as 3%.
Obviously, your reading abilities are so pathetic that you cannot distinguish between fair and flat.
And you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartner. Go find another windmill to tilt at.
@Petercat: Note– O5 was suggesting a 5% FLAT TAX.
@Richard Wheeler:
I’ll agree with that……with one caveat. They aren’t allowed to live like that off the sweat of someone else’s brow. A person that refuses to even attempt to help themselves should be removed from the welfare dole. That is not how it was intended to be used. If said person has children, the children should be removed from that environment. I’ll take heat that this sounds uncaring, but the fact of the matter is, people that use the system like this are much more uncaring. They are taking money from families that could otherwise use it.
The federal government makes no money. All revenue is derived from people that work their butts off. That money should not be squandered on people like Lucy. I have charities that I give to, charities that actually work, charities that do things I believe in. Neither I nor anyone else should be forced to provide one thin dime to a person with an attitude like Lucy.
I like FSU vs Auburn. And Auburn does deserve to go……great finish.
@Petercat:
Agreed. Great book, great concept.
@Smorgasbord:
Then where would be the incentive to purchase a new product? If I can buy a used Book Nook that has been refurbished, with the same lousy one year warranty, what is the advantage to buying a new one? Then there is the problem of parts; do I pay the “Fair” tax on the new parts used for refurbishing? Why should I buy a new vehicle? Why not buy a used one and not pay taxes on it? If I buy a new F250/diesel under your plan, I would not only pay my states 6 1/4% tax on that $40,000 but an additional $9,200.00 in Fair Tax for a total of $11,700 in up front taxes. If Ford can commant $40K for a F250 now, why should they lower their price?
So who does that money go to? There has to be a federal agency that keeps up with the Fair Tax that was collected.
What makes you think that companies will lower their costs when they are commanding a certain price now? It seems like wishful thinking on the part of you Fair Tax proponents.
How so? Sending someone a check for money they did not earn is, in the purest form, welfare as we currently know it.
I don’t agree. I had a sister that was born handicapped. My parents never received one dime from any governmental agency to assist in taking care of her. Family took care of her. She had seven operations just to allow her to be able to use crutches. Not one dime came from the taxpayer to pay for those surgeries. She was a patient at Shiner’s Crippled Children’s Hospital, a true charitable hospital. She was never a burden to anyone. What you are suggesting is what we have now; government replacing family.
“Community” denotes local, not national. It has only started being used in recent times to describe entire groups nationally (black community, gay community) as part of our march to politically correctness.
@Richard Wheeler:
Thank you, Richard.
Petercat
YES THAT IS TAKING POWER OVER PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN BODY,
THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS TO HEAR IS FROM SOME CONSERVATIVES MENTIONING THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PUNISH THEM, BY TAKING IN THEIR POCKET , HOWEVER FAT THEY ARE, IS NOT THE FUCKEN BUSINESS OF ANYONE , OBAMA OR BLOOMBERG OR ANY OTHER TO CROSS THE LINE OF PRIVACY,
ON ANY INDIVIDUALS, HEY , THIS IS AMERICA, NOT A HOLE IN THE GLOBE SOMWHERE IN LOST COUNTRIES, WHERE THE PEOPLE ARE YES THE RATS, AND FEED THEIR LEADER,
THE GOVERNMENT HERE IS TEMPTING THEIR LUCK,
THEY HAVE BEEN PUT THERE BY THE PEOPLE, THEY CAN AS FAST GET THROWN OUT OF THERE
BY THE SAME PEOPLE ANYTIME,
THEY BETTER GET OUT OF THE PEOPLE PRIVACY AND PRIVATE BEHAVIOR,
YOU PEOPLE ARE MASTER IN YOUR HOUSE, AND NO ONE WILL TELL YOU TO STARVE OR EAT A DOUBLE PORTION,
IF YOU WANT IT,
@ilovebeeswarzone: You don’t want to subsidize the poor. I don’t want to subsidize the obese who are walking- or sitting- heart disease. Huge medical bills. Same with smokers and their COPD and emphysema.
Fair enough?
People should have more self discipline when it comes to their health.
Richard Wheeler
LETS CUT THE GOVERNMENT AT MINUS THE SAME NUMBER OF WELFARE PEOPLE,
WHAT YOU GIVE TO THE WELFARE , TAKE THE SAME JOBS OUT OF GOVERNMENT
SO TO GIVE IT TO THE WELFARE,
SO IT’S NOT ONLY CITIZENS PAYING FOR BOTH WELFARES,
ONE IN GOVERNMENT AND ONE IN THE POORS SOCIETY,
EACH POOR ADDED IS ONE JOB TAKEN FROM GOVERNMENT,
SO THE TWO WELFARE ADMINISTRATIONS ARE EVEN,
THIS IS JUST TO START,
WHEN THIS IS DONE, WE DE-ESCALATE SLOWLY ON BOTH SIDES TO GET TO THE POINT OF WHAT THE CITIZENS CAN WORK FULL TIME JOBS AND BE PAID VERY WELL SO TO RISE TO THE NEXT LEVEL TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE WELFARE WHO RISE TO THE UPPER LEVEL GIVEN TO THEM WITH JOBS INCLUDED,
LIKE THE GAME PLAYED AROUND THE TABLE OF I GIVE YOU A PRESENT TO PASS IT ON ALL AROUND AND WHEN IT COME BACK TO YOU, YOU JUMP ON A HIGH ER NEW SHAPE CIRCLE, LEAVING A SPACE ON THE LAST ONE, AND ON AND ON PASS IT ON,
UNTIL THERE IS 12 CIRCLES COMPLETED
@Richard Wheeler:
Aw, RW, so you’re saying Obamacare is not such a good idea. Since it’s whole basis is getting people with very low risk or no risk to sign up and pay much more than they would have to under the existing system, just to subsidize those obese smoker drug addicts that don’t work and don’t have insurance.
@Redteam: I’ve said I’ve got no skin in Obamacare.
I believe people who take care of their health: rich,poor,working or unemployed should be rewarded with the lowest insurance premiums.
People who count on insurers to cover their self induced heart attacks and COPD are a major concern to the overall functionality of the system.
@Richard Wheeler: #75
This is what was said at the bottom of #75:
@Aqua: #78
The Fair Tax bill has been introduced into the house and senate. Unfortunately, the congressional rules say that the speaker of the house, and the speaker of the senate are the only ones who decide if a bill goes out for a vote. Neither one wants it, so they will never allow a vote for it. Those two need to be voted out, and the rule needs to be changed so that bills are voted on in the order they are introduced.
Richard Wheeler
have we reach the point of neglecting our own, to save the GOVERNMENT moneys?
THIS MONEY THEY TOOK FROM YOU AND OTHER AND THEY SPEND AS IF THERE IS NO LIMIT,
IS THAT WORTH TAKING THE LIVES OF YOUR BROTHERS?
THOSE BROTHERS WHO ARE THE WARRIORS FOR MANY,
AND OTHER WHO MADE WEALTH AND DISTRIBUTE A WHOLE LOT OF IT TO CREATOR OF SO MANY USEFUL THINGS TO BETTER YOUR LIFE AND OTHER,
AND NOW THEY HAVE AGED AND LOST THEIR WAIST LINE, YOU FEEL THEY ARE EXPANDEBLE,
AND YOU WILL CHOOSE OVER THEM ANY CREEP LOUD MOUTH PLANNING TO CONTROL YOU AND THE CITIZENS INTO A PEOPLE SERVING THEM,
SO MANY OBESE YOU CALL THEM ARE READY TO SAVE YOUR ASS FROM THE CREEPS,
YOU HAVE MADE A VERY WRONG DECISION, YOU WILL GET FAT SOMEDAY AND WILL WALK THE LINE, LEADING NOWHERE,
HITLER HAD THE SAME IDEA,
@Smorgasbord: That quote was not in #75. 05 spoke only of a 5% FLAT TAX ON INCOME.
I prefer Fair Tax to Flat Tax. Abolish IRS.
@retire05: #79
The price of the new items will be the same as they were before the Fair Tax. It took me a long time to believe that too. The book explains it in an easier to understand way.
If they are new parts, then the tax applies, but they will still cost the same amount as if there was no Fair Tax on it.
You keep referring to the Fair Tax as an ADDED ON TAX. It ELIMINATES ALL OTHER TAXES and puts all of the federal taxes in one easy payment plan. When you buy something, you pay your taxes. Even now, when you buy a new item, you pay EVERY tax and expense the company that made it had to pay. Any expenses they have are added onto the final product price. With ALL of the federal taxes ELIMINATED on the company, they can sell their stuff for less and still make the same profit.
The agency only has to COLLECT the tax money. They don’t have to go through hundreds of millions of tax forms to make sure every person and company paid the amount they owe, and NOBODY WILL EVER BE AUDITED. They won’t need the buildings they own or rent to store all of those tax returns that they have to store for a certain number of years. They will only need the space needed to collect the money, and distribute it to the different federal agencies.
It’s called the Free Enterprise system. If you own a company, and you want to keep your prices up at the same price after the Fair Tax in enacted, but one or more companies have lowered theirs, and people aren’t buying as much of your product as the competition, then you will lower your prices to compete. If most of the companies keep their prices up, then the smaller businesses will see a chance to increase their sales by lowering their prices.
A perfect example is my F-150. Why should I buy a new 2012 when I can buy a new 2011 at a greatly reduced price? I bought mine at a perfect time. The economy is down, the dealers had their new 2012s coming in, but they still had 2011s in stock. How do they get people to buy them? By reducing the price. I got my $38,500 F-150 with stuff on it that I wouldn’t have if I ordered it, for about $23,000 with my trade. My trade’s book value was $6,000, but they gave me $9,000 because, as the salesman said, “We’ve got it sold already.”
The people couldn’t afford the new vehicle prices, so they were buying used. Mine was one of the highly rated vehicles, so it was one that people wanted. The price of new vehicles went down, and the price of used vehicles went up because of the new demand. That is how the Free Enterprise system works. If a company tries to keep their prices up after the Fair Tax is enacted, a lot of us will remember which companies lowered their prices and which ones didn’t and not do business with the ones who kept them up.
As I have mentioned before, it was the craziest, stupidest, most lame brain thing I had ever heard of. It has to grow on you. Would you rather keep paying out hundreds of billions of dollars to welfare recipients who don’t deserve them (including the illegals), and the hundreds of billions of dollars to pay the wages of the workers, and their benefits, including very generous retirement benefits, and keep paying the expenses for all of the buildings that the different agencies have? I just realize as I wrote the above that the Fair Tax would eliminate welfare to the illegals, because the checks would only go to AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I never referred to a “community” as a national community. I live in a small town. I consider it my community. If it gets big enough, then it won’t be a community to me.
It seems we are at a point where you are picking at any LITTLE thing you can to win an argument. I never did like to argue. I am just stating my opinion on the Fair Tax and letting each person form their own opinion of it. The Fair Tax has nothing to do with what a community is.
can you believe how much money would be save by eliminating the old Irs which has become a
lethal weapon in the democratic hands,it now has proven that it must be desintegrated,
@Smorgasbord:
If I need a book to explain something to me, it then becomes neither simple or logical. And anything that is neither simple, or logical, will work with any efficiency.
Smorg, I take it you have never been in the manufacturing business since you don’t seem to understand how it really works. Product price is based on a simple equation, price = cost plus markup, generally a keystone percentage. Taxes are based on profit. i.e. the more product I sell, the more profit I make and the higher the percentage of taxes I pay. Many small manufacturers file on their personal income tax so they are subjected to progressive tax rates.
There is an old adage; prices reflect what the market will bear. As to smaller business seeing a chance to increase their sales by lowering their prices, that is almost impossible to do. Smaller businesses do not have the advantage of quantity purchasing from vendors that large companies have. That is why the small “mom and pop” hardware store cannot sell as cheap as Lowe’s or Home Depot.
As to the 2011 F150 you bought after the 2012s were out; you drove out with a vehicle that had already depreciated in value by a year, and the first two years are the largest depreciations on vehicles. The dealer already has about a 20% markup ($7,600), more on accessories. On top of that, he needed to get rid of a vehicle that had already depreciated immensely. I assume that you bought your truck around Aug/Sept 2011. After one year of ownership, your truck had lost two years of value. And trading in a vehicle is never a good idea. You get more for it by selling it yourself.
I don’t know any Ford dealer that would put a vehicle on their used car lot that was worth only $6,000.00 It went to the auction, no matter what the snake oil salesman told you. (Why do I think you’ll come back and “But I saw it on the lot”?)
If things have to “grow” on me, it is because I find them illogical, complicated or convoluted.
They will still have to go through hundreds of thousands of business filings to make sure that the tax collected has been paid to the IRS. Or do you think the federal government is going to just work from the honor system?
I’m not out to win an argument. I just don’t agree with you on the Fair Tax.
@Richard Wheeler: #89
The quote is at the last part of #51. Sorry for the wrong number. Thanks for the correction.
@retire05: #92
In an earlier post you said you have read the book, now you are insinuating that you haven’t. Please read the book or web site before commenting on something you haven’t studied.
If all of their federal taxes are eliminated, then their cost goes down. Every time the feds raise business taxes, prices go up. If there are no federal taxes, there won’t be an increase in price because of higher ones.
If there are no federal taxes on their business, they won’t have to try to decide how to file, because there won’t be any filing.
When I buy a vehicle, I intend to keep it until I have to get rid of it, so trade-in value doesn’t interest me. I can’t believe the auto industry is operating on a 20% markup, but I don’t know that it doesn’t. With the greatly reduced price of the dealership, the $1,000 rebate I received from Ford, and the $3,000 more than the book value of my car, I am not complaining. I live in a small town, and it would be harder to sell her than in a larger city, plus I don’t want to mess with selling it. Most of what you are saying has nothing to do with the Fair Tax issue.
I don’t care what they do with what USED TO BE my car. Every Ford dealer within 100 miles of where I lived said the same thing, “We have it sold already.” People couldn’t afford the newer vehicles, so the ones who had to get another car were buying the best used ones they could. Mine was highly rated. That is why I bought it in the first place.
Are you thinking about what you say before you say it? The IRS has to go through HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of tax forms each year now, and you just admitted that with the Fair Tax that amount will be reduced to hundreds of thousands, and your are still complaining.
As I mentioned above, please read the Fair Tax book, or go to their web site at fairtax.org before you comment on something you haven’t studied. If you do comment, please mention what the Fair Tax book or web site says about it.
WHY QUARREL? FOR A CHOICE OF TAX?
GIVE A TAX ,ONE ONLY TAX, 15/100 FOR EVERYTHING PURCHASED,
NEW AND USED, BE IT ANIMAL OR FOOD OR PILLS, OR BOOZ.
AND 15/100 ON EACH ITEM AS THEY ARE COMING AT THE PORT FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD,
@Smorgasbord:
Perhaps you would like to tell everyone how you know that I haven’t read the book? I mean, do you use a crystal ball, or some other form of peering into my personal life?
The book came out 8 years ago. Yet you seem to think I should remember each passage of a book that was I less than impressed with.
Then how does Home Depot or Wal-Mart report how much tax they have collected on sales?
And you just admitted that the Fair Tax would NOT abolish the IRS, at all.
You have also said that a person, when making a purchase, would know how much tax they are paying. There is
how a receipt would have to read:
Item # toaster $100.00
Applied Fair Tax (23.00)
State/Local Tax 8.25
Total 108.25
Total tax paid $31.25
In my area, state and local taxes come to 8.25%. Do you really think that by putting on sales receipts for a $108.25 purchase that the taxes are $31.25 that is not going to affect the sales of new products? It will.
If you are really interested in lowering taxes, then you need to lobby to abolish all the useless, and redundant, federal agencies that we support just to be able to provide D.C. insiders jobs for their cronies. Stupid agencies like the Department of Education, EPA, et al. Seek a balanced budget amendment. Push for all spending to meet Constitutional muster. End the Marxist system of progressive taxation and require everyone to pay something. No deductions for individuals. It’s not my problem that you decided to have five kids. Pay for them.
@retire05: @retire05: #75
Okay, I have a better idea, maybe you should work on your own reading comprehension. It seems that you cannot even comprehend what you yourself have written! In your previously referred comment #51, you said: ” changing the name of a sales tax to a “consumption” tax doesn’t make it any more popular. And tacking on an extra 5% “consumption” tax to goods and services is not going to hurt the elderly and the poor how? ”
Get that? YOU referred to a 5% “consumption tax”, which means you were talking about the fair tax, as the only other tax under discussion has been the flat tax, which is an income tax. If you still don’t understand the concept, maybe you can visit an elementary school and have someone there explain it to you. The good folks there are used to instructing at your level.
@Richard Wheeler: In his comment #51, he said: ” changing the name of a sales tax to a “consumption” tax doesn’t make it any more popular. And tacking on an extra 5% “consumption” tax to goods and services is not going to hurt the elderly and the poor how? ”
He was talking about the Fair Tax, as the other tax in this discussion is the flat tax, which is not a consumption tax.
@Petercat:
I used “5%” as an example. You do know what an example is, don’t you? I could have just as well used 10%, 23% or 34%. It was a freaking example.
And if you can debate me without lobbing insults, that speaks to your low level of intelligence, not mine.
@Petercat:
So if you pay the tax only on what you consume (purchase) how is it not a “consumption” tax?
If I don’t consume anything, I would not pay the tax, right? If I don’t buy hamburger or steaks, because I raise my own beef, how would the government get to charge me tax on what I didn’t purchase?