Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Jeb Bush admits toking at private prep school: 'I smoked marijuana

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe2 View Post
    Ron Paul's political career is dead.

    The Fair Tax is dead.

    One did not cause the other.

    But both are still DEAD.

    No one wants to hear anymore about either.
    The FairTax is not "DEAD", it has more support in Congress than any major bill ever. HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate. HR 25 has 64 Sponsors. Obama care had only 8. So your attitude is uncalled for and unsupported by facts. Ron Paul had nothing to do with the FairTax ... ever, which just shows you don't know very much about the legislation, its status, its workings or how it will benefit our country and citizens.

    And what if I told you no one wants to hear any more about your silly "ICE News Releases"? Oh wow, a $60 billion a year agency arrested some convicts during a traffic stop? What for? Oh, we don't know. Were they illlegal aliens? We don't know. To me, they illustrate how totally ineffective DHS is at dealing with anything they're supposed to do. But would I tell you, that stopping illegal immigration is DEAD"? Would I dare tell you "no one wants to hear about it any more"?

    Nope, I would never do that. The FairTax by itself would do more to stop illegal immigration than all the efforts of DHS combined and do it without guns, arrests, hearings, detention, or forced deportations. But I guess you don't know that, because like so many, you haven't taken the time to understand the FairTax, how it works and how it solves so many problems for our nation, and furthermore, why Republicans shouldn't vote for anyone who isn't a full supporter and advocate of the FairTax and if a member of Congress, a signed on co-sponsor of the FairTax either in the House or Senate.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #12
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    When your comments contain childish immature name calling it makes it difficult for anyone to want to read anything you write and even more difficult to take anything you write seriously.

    EXAMPLE:

    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Wake Up Little Stupid Bunnies, . . .


    @ http://www.alipac.us/f9/gop-house-vo...macare-317215/
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #13
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDoe2 View Post
    When your comments contain childish immature name calling it makes it difficult for anyone to want to read anything you write and even more difficult to take anything you write seriously.

    EXAMPLE:



    @ http://www.alipac.us/f9/gop-house-vo...macare-317215/
    Calling members of Congress names is a God-given right of all Americans, and one widely exercised on this and every forum I've ever read posts on. But, if for some unidentified reason, you find them childish and immature, then please feel free to ignore or disregard them. Any Republican member of Congress who is waiting for the US Supreme Court to save their asses on Obama Care while they twiddle their thumbs and wring their hands are in fact Little Stupid Bunnies, hiding behind the skirts and trousers of the US Supreme Court which can not be relied upon to save the day.
    Last edited by Judy; 01-31-2015 at 10:11 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #14
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/highlights

    FairTax HR 25 and S 155 are the top 2 bills receiving the most support and most activity by a mile on POPVOX. Any Republican member of Congress and some Democrats as well, who fail to address these legislations and get them to the House and Senate floors for a vote are not paying attention to the needs and will of the people of the United States, so in 2016, if you haven't done so, then we'll make changes to find representatives and senators who do.
    Last edited by Judy; 01-31-2015 at 11:21 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #15
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    "The FairTax Effect
    The day the takes effect it will be like joining some weird national game of Monopoly already in progress -- the majority of properties are already sold and have houses and hotels on them - yet you are all supposed to be equal and it's supposed to be fair! Let me say this loud and clear for anyone that needs a ten-word-or-less version of the FairTax plan. "SOAK THE MIDDLE CLASS". Those four words describe it as perfectly as possible because that's exactly what it does.
    The whole logic of the is wrong. It taxes the money that you earned and worked hard for, and makes "free money" like gifts that you didn't work for tax free. Not only is this an incentive to be lazy, it smacks of feudalism and class warfare. It's Communism in its approach (ie: everyone is equal but some are more equal - the ones who inherited money). It goes completely against the founding fathers policy of working hard and being successful. It taxes food, shelter, and medicine while making estates, gifts, and capital gains totally tax free. It also tries to get people hooked on a tiny monthly welfare check from the government. It takes away incentive to be successful and productive while it makes it attractive for people to be lazy.
    Christial Trejbal in an in the went so far as to call the FairTax Plan the "" and said, "one would have to be the sort who believes in elves repairing shoes, gnomes managing Zurich banks and pixies dancing under the full moon to buy into it." This ass-backwards pro-oligarchy plan could ruin America. For a better alternative see the NO-TAX Plan.
    The FairTax increases the size of government making all who sell or trade part of the Big Brother network. This new tax bill gives the government additional powers to rule the poor and literally grants additional rights to the wealthiest people in America. George Orwell would have been proud.
    The FairTax is ANTI-FAMILY. The FairTax penalizes poor families for buying food, clothes, shelter, and medical care by taxing all the basic necessities of life. These things are NOT taxed right now (and shouldn't be) but they ARE HEAVILY TAXED under the FairTax plan. Remember this when you get barraged by a FairTax supporter that says the prebate will give you a portion of this additional tax back and you should be grateful to the new Big Brother Government for giving you anything back. The FairTax bill penalizes those who live paycheck to paycheck taxing every dollar spent to make ends meet while UN-TAXING the rich and wealthy who live off of inheritances, trusts, gifts, and old money.

    What You Lose Under the FairTax
    1. The Home Mortgage tax deduction - no more deduction your mortgage interest - no incentive to buy a house.
    2. The Per-Child tax deduction for dependants - no more help for large families.
    3. The deduction for State and Local taxes - tack on the taxes.
    4. The College Tuition tax deduction - sorry kids.
    5. Roth IRA - will be taxed twice because your money is taxed again when you spend it.
    6. Charitable Contributions deductions - no help for the faithful.
    7. Child Care Credits - no more help for single moms and poor families with kids.
    8. Refinancing Points deduction - no more incentive to refinance.
    9. Health Insurance Premiums deduction - no more help for the sick.


    What You Gain Under the FairTax
    1. New 30 percent tax on every New House or property you buy.
    2. New 30 percent tax on Cars, Boats, Campers, Home Appliances, TV's
    3. New 30 percent tax on Food, Clothing, Shelter, Rent, Electricity, Gas, Phone Service
    4. New 30 percent tax on Medicine, Surgical procedures, Hospital stays, Dental Services
    5. New 30 percent tax on Legal Services, Trial Services, Legal Advice, Legal Winnings and losses.
    6. Double Taxation on Roth IRA's or retirement money you took as a lump sum.
    7. Your consumption is now directly linked to inflation - prices go up - your taxes go up.
    8. Interest on Credit Cards, Loans, and Mortgages now taxed at 30 percent on top of what you owe.
    9. You now have to pay the government for permission to live in America by paying taxes on all you consume.


    Income Tax rate versus Sales Tax rate
    As we said before the clever but dishonest presentations of the FairTax Book never tell the reader that there are two tax rates that the fair tax is proposing. Under the old income tax, your individual tax rate covered you entire income (100 percent) minus deductions. Under the FairTax we have two tax rates: 1. A sales tax rate of 30 percent. 2. An income tax rate that depends entirely on how much you consume.
    While it is true that everyone would pay the same sales tax rate of 30 percent, that rate would only apply to what they consumed - not your income as in the previous income tax. Under the FairTax if one consumed nothing then their income tax rate was zero percent. If they used all their money on food, clothes, rent, health care, and other consumables then they paid an income tax rate of 100 percent. Since estates, gifts, and capital gains are untaxed under the FairTax the rich come out very well when examining the percentage of their income that they pay in taxes. Since the poor spend all their income on necessities, they suffer greatly because they are taxed on everything they have.

    The Ugly Truth about the FairTax
    If you remember nothing else about this entire website just remember this: The ugly truth, the real purpose, and hidden goal of the so-called FairTax is to: completely and forever eliminate the estate tax, the gift tax, and capital gains taxes for the super-rich and shift taxes to the middle class. It is nothing more than an under-the-table money grab. Everything else is bullshit and bickering, smoke and mirrors, senseless squabbling, and distractions and innuendo to keep people occupied and away from the actual money grab. While idiots are endlessly arguing percentages and prebates they are missing the main point - the money grab for billionaires.
    Think clearly now. Why adopt the FairTax? Will it lower taxes? According to AFFT, NO...it will just replace the current system at the same tax level. Even if that was true then why do it? Risk our entire economy on a untried plan that cuts massive amounts of taxes for just the super wealthy and gives no explanation of how that will be made up? It doesn't make any sense. Voluntarily switch to a system that puts new taxes on health care, food, and legal services? It doesn't make sense. Look at it in the clear cool light of logic and it falls apart like the cheap con game it is.
    What the billionaires are counting on is the apathy of liberals and the willing ignorance of the talk-radio audience in helping cut their own throats. It will take only a simple majority in Congress and the President's signature to pass this horrible bill. But that's only the first half of the FairTax plan - the other half is the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. Even Neal Boortz admits that the Sixteenth Amendment would have to be repealed for the FairTax to work as designed.
    You can debate percentage rates and prebates till you're blue in the face. You can make wild-assed predictions about spending habits, what billionaires will do with their newfound wealth, how many people can eat at McDonalds everyday, but it is all secondary to the huge damage this garbage FairTax bill will do to our already faltering economy. Debate and justify the estate, gift, and capital gains tax cuts first then mess with the rest.
    Let's assume the FairTax bill passed. The immediate effect is this: $700 billion in revenue is gone - the super wealthy now have that money. The super rich will now pay only about 5 percent of their income in taxes and it will have never been so good to be rich then since the days of the Pharaohs. Middle class people will immediately notice the spike in prices. Even firm supporters must now deal with a 30 percent tax on houses to health care. Interestingly enough the new media will start "preparing" the citizens for higher tax rates as the politicians find out that the FairTax didn't cover the debt spending or the missing $700 billion. This "preparation" may include news stories about Social Security going bust or other patriotic stories about how the poor and middle class will have to suffer for the benefit of "the country" or "national security" or something as equally absurd.
    It might not fail right away...it may take a few years...but it will fail eventually. The supporters admit that in order for the FairTax plan to work as advertised the Sixteenth Amendment has to be repealed and other tax laws must changed. If they don't repeal the amendment or pass the other laws then the FairTax plan will fail. But let's say it does fail. Some politicians will want to reinstate the old tax system. However, something will have changed....there will be a handful of well funded rich people buying ads and putting their slant into the media that they already own. It will be totally impossible to reintroduce the estate tax, gift tax, or capital gains tax even if the FairTax fails miserably. What that means is that the FairTax is a one-shot deal - it can't be reversed. If it does fail then someone will HAVE to make up the difference and it won't be the super wealthy...which is their goal anyway.
    If the FairTax authors really believed in the FairTax then they should pull out the "elimination of the estate, gift, and capital gains taxes" from the bill and replace it with a guarantee - if the majority of Americans think the FairTax is working as promised after ten years, then and only then cut the estate tax, the gift tax, and capital gains tax.

    How Much is my "Prebate"?
    Probably the saddest part of this scam called the is the prebate. The Tax plan supporters claim it doesn't tax the necessities of life so everyone gets a prebate check in the mail each month supposedly to cover the tax on life's necessities (just the tax). What they don't tell you up front is that the maximum prebate per person is only $187 per month and they are only refunding the "" tax a person at the poverty level would pay. No real tax exemptions. So FairTax prebate = the fairtax a person at the poverty level would pay or $187 a month. Since they are only refunding the minimum a person in poverty would get, then the middle class loses big time. But wait a minute! I'm not at the poverty level...so where's my tax rebate on my necessities that I actually purchased? Answer: You lose it all except $187 under the FairTax.
    The poverty level is ridiculously low and has no basis in reality. Real necessities per month = food + clothes + rent + heat + electricity + gas + healthcare. For a single person living in the ghetto and eating the cheapest foods imaginable and wearing used clothes and the minimum on everything else stacks up like this: Necessities per month = $400 + $80 + $600 + $100 + $50 + $150 + $200 = $1580 minimum per month for basic life support. At a rate of 30 percent that means our true poverty level prebate should be $475 a month to cover the taxes on minimum necessities. It reality it should be as high as $1500 per month for a middle class family to truly cover the minimum costs (not just the tax) of living at the poverty level.
    But oops, there's even more bad news, if the FairTax is passed, all those prices (food + clothes + rent + heat + electricity + gas + healthcare) go up by 30 percent. This means the true cost is this (adjusted up 30 percent): Necessities per month = $520 + $104 + $780 + $130 + $65 + $190 + $260 = $2054 minimum per month for basic life support. At a rate of 30 percent that means our true poverty level prebate (With FairTax) should be $617 a month to cover the taxes on minimum necessities. It reality it should be as high as $1950 per month for a middle class family to truly cover the minimum costs (not just the tax) of living at the poverty level.
    It really amused us to read the comments in one of the FairTax forums on the web. When asked why the real necessities aren't covered by the FairTax prebate instead of the poverty level FairTax prebate of $187, the supporters said that only gluttons would eat that much food or spend so much on necessities and that the poverty level was totally reasonable. Give me a break.
    Because the FairTax gives back billions to the wealthy one would think that the poor and middle classes would get something in return. Not so. The big money conservatives that promote the FairTax deceptively advertise that it will not tax necessities of life. This is a lie. The necessities of a middle class person are much higher than the $187 figure for just the poverty level taxes they pulled out of a hat. Alternatively, the progressive No-Tax Plan makes food, rent, heat, electricity, gas, education, and healthcare tax free to all working people - please check it out.
    Shouldn't food, clothes, rent, and healthcare be tax-free? Not according to the FairTax. If fact, the excuse used in the FairTax Book for not making food tax-free is that it would benefit the wealthy disproportionately. Give us a break. Who do they think they are fooling? You would have to be an uneducated moron to believe that. The provides no exemptions, just a paltry $187 to cover a poverty-stricken persons tax on necessities. The wealthy get back billions under the FairTax. The poor, the middle class AND the wealthy get a tiny monthly prebate check. It doesn't sound FAIR to me.

    The Dirty Little Secret They Don't Want You to Know
    Linder and Boortz both admit that in order for the FairTax to work, the 16th Amendment has to be repealed. They say so right in the book. What they don't talk about is what would happen to the FairTax if the Sixteenth Amendment was not repealed.
    As I said before it will take only a simple majority in Congress and the President's signature to pass the FairTax into law. But then what? What are the odds that three quarters of the states will ratify the repeal? Not very good. We can't get the Equal Rights Amendment (liberal) or Flag Burning Amendment (conservative) passed so chances are it won't be repealed. The billionaires behind this bill are counting on Congress passing it with a simple majority to give the super-wealthy a huge tax cut (estate taxes, gift taxes, capital gains). Then the poor people can worry about the impossible task of getting the Sixteenth Amendment repealed as long as the billionaires get what they want first.
    To put it bluntly, the FairTax was designed so the billionaires get their tax breaks up front. Even if the Sixteenth Amendment is not repealed they still get their tax break. And once a tax break that size is given, they will spare no expense in buying off politicians to make sure it is never enacted again. Once the estate taxes, gift taxes, and capital gains taxes are gone it's unlikely you will ever hear from those billionaires again. They will be away celebrating their new found wealth! Neal Boortz and his cronies of course will blame the failure on the Democrats for not getting the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. The funding will all dry up, the rallies will stop, and America will have been fooled. Hell, Neal may even write a book about it to squeeze a few more dollars out of the American people.
    To make matters worse, many Constitutional scholars now say that the government has always had the right to tax incomes, property, and other forms of wealth. The 16th Amendment isn't really necessary for that to happen. There are where it was decided that the government may tax any form of money or wealth and the 16th Amendment was only needed to avoid taxation by population or land ownership and to be able to tax uniformly. Even if the 16th Amendment is repealed the government can still tax income and property.

    What happened to my paycheck? A.K.A. You're going to cut my salary?
    I'm glad picked up on this little quirk of the FairTax. (See ) In an AFFT funded study, it was theorized that because the taxes paid by everyone in the chain of production are embedded in the cost of goods, prices could decline an average of 20 percent if all those taxes were scrapped. The FairTax book went on and on ad nauseam about this opinion without disclosing a fine print.
    Money Magazine points out that the FairTax Book fails to mention that prices can only fall this sharply if companies cut wages and they illustrate the point with this example: Say your salary is $100,000 a year today, but you take home $80,000 after taxes. Your company is still paying that extra $20,000. In a FairTax world, it will save that money, and be able to lower its prices accordingly, only if it can reduce your salary to $80,000. In other words, your take-home pay is the same as before. Sure, you'd get to "keep 100 percent of your paycheck," as Boortz and Linder repeatedly write, but it would be a smaller paycheck. That's kind of a big thing to leave out.
    "Prices at the store are the same. Your boss stops taking all that money out of your paycheck. Uncle Sam is sending you money instead. And, oh yeah, the government is still up and running. This just can't happen. "It is practically and logically impossible for the government be collecting the same amount of money as before and have everyone suddenly be better off," says Daniel Shaviro, a tax law professor at New York University.
    The FairTax proponents like to begin their propaganda with, "Imagine getting your whole paycheck....", and try to offset criticism of a 30 percent tax on new homes, cars, medical bills etc., by saying, "With your whole paycheck you can afford the 30 percent extra on a new home." The only problem is that unless you have a contract that stipulates a specific amount of money, your salary will probably be cut by the amount that the employer has to pay in taxes. Your $75,000 a year becomes $48,000, with no taxes taken out on your pay stub. Presto - Changeo - Ala-Kazam - you get your "whole" paycheck (and since your employer no longer has to pay unemployment taxes, social security taxes, etc. on you, then they get to pass the savings on to the customer or keep the money).
    On the bright side, if you are a professional or belong to a union and have a signed contract that says you will get that $100,000 then you will get $100,000 no matter what. However, if you are working without a contract you better hope your boss is benevolent and gives you the difference between you take home under the old plan versus the new plan because the law does not specify that they have to. They can keep it. If you make $75,000 but take home $48,000 a year and don't have a contract, then you will probably still take home $48,000 per year depending on the generosity of your employer.

    What Happened to My Social Security?
    The plan calls for people to stop paying social security - both the employees and employers share. That's it...just stop paying it. Just take it out of the general fund. No plan for social security survival. No plan at all...just stop paying social security and Medicare and it will all magically sort itself out. Except that the plan cuts the estate tax, gift tax, and capital gains taxes to the tune of $700 billion a year so the treasury will suffer a major major major shortage of funds. Where will the money come from?
    Take the money out of the general fund? Hold on there. That's not accurate. No matter what they say, taxes will go up or benefits will go down. You can't just take $700 billion out of the budget, give it to the wealthy, and expect this so-called "revenue neutral" plan to run everything like it is today on what is left over. Benefits will have to be cut. After all, we only have a limited budget and do have defense contractors to feed - why should we look out for "special interests" like the elderly?
    Does that scare you? It should. This will hurt your parents, your grandparents, and eventually you. In order to make social security work we need more funds, not less. We need to make the rich pay social security tax on all income - not just up to the cut off point. We need to keep the social security money out of the control of the President and Congress.
    What about your retirement savings? Under the FairTax plan if you have existing money it is taxed twice - once long ago when you earned it and saved it in the bank and once when you spend it under the new FairTax. Got money in a Roth IRA? As soon as you buy something with that money you will pay the 30% FairTax tax. There is no provision for people who already have lots of money in retirement savings and in Roth IRA's - they are simply taxed twice. The elderly will be hit the worst. What's really sad is that health insurance for the elderly is hugely expensive because the elderly need more care - and because medical expenses, surgery, and prescription drugs are 30 percent taxable under the FairTax plan, those few dollars the elderly put away will soon vanish into thin air. The No-Tax plan is an alternative elderly-friendly plan that puts the taxes where they belong - back on the wealthy.

    My House Costs How Much?
    Under the all new homes will have a 30 percent tax added to them. People with a newer mortgage might just burn down their houses instead of selling them so they can start fresh without taxes - thus recouping their 30 percent tax that would otherwise be lost. Because of the gigantic taxes imposed by the , people will no longer be interested in new homes but will instead have to compete for existing used homes in order to avoid the 30 percent tax. This will drive up the demand tremendously. Fortunately for the majority of the wealthy, they own a lot of real estate and will be making a killing selling their junk property. They will, of course, keep the prime real estate in the family by forever passing it on to their offspring tax-free. There will also be massive cheating by renovating. One can see small older homes "attached" to big new homes to avoid taxes.
    Let's get to the crux of the situation. This is what will happen to the people that choose to pay the tax and build a house. Not only will they pay the 30 percent tax on top of the price, they will also experience a drop in value of 30 percent the first year. Yes they will and I'll show you why. Do not listen to supporters telling you that you won't lose money - you will. It's as plain as day that you will. Just read on.
    Imagine two houses - same floor plan, same size, same color, same everything, right next to each other. House A was built one month before the went into effect. House B was build 1 month after the went into effect.
    House A, built in May of 2007, at a cost of $100,000. The buyer put down $10,000 and borrowed $90,000 at 7 percent over 30 years. That's a $598 payment and will cost the owners $215,500 over 30 years. However, having a mortgage interest deduction, the actual interest saved would been $32,340 so the entire cost of the house would have been $183,160 over 30 years. But because the FairTax kills the home mortgage deduction for existing mortgage holders the cost will be $215,500 over 30 years.
    House B, built in July of 2007, at a cost of $100,000. The tax on the house is $30,000 so the sale price is $130,000. The buyer put down $10,000 and borrowed $120,000 at 7 percent over 30 years. That's a $719 payment and will cost the owners $258,667 over 30 years. Since there is no mortgage deduction the price will stand at $258,667 over 30 years.
    Now pay close attention. It's now 2008 and both owners want to sell and move to Florida. They have both made about one years worth of payments and have decreased their principal by about $1000. Since the houses are exactly the same, built one month apart, and located right next to each other they should be assessed at the same market value. The county assessor comes over, looks at the identical houses and says that the fair market value of each house is now $102,000 (One years worth of appreciation).
    The owners of house A (pre-FairTax) will not lose any money when they sell - in fact they gained $2000 in appreciation of fair market value. Since the appraised fair market value of house B (purchased after FairTax) is only $102,000 then the owner of house B will lose $28,000 (part of the 30K paid in taxes) because it is now a used house just like house A and is only appraised at $102,000. People are not going to pay $130,000 for an exact duplicate of a house selling for $102,000 built one month before. It's like driving a new car off the lot and experiencing a 30 percent loss of value in just one day.
    This only makes sense. When you go to the store and buy a television and pay 6 percent sales tax, there is no way you could turn around and sell it for what you paid for it (including tax) because the televisions in the store would be cheaper. Granted, houses do appreciate, but it will take quite a while to make up 30 percent! This is simple economics folks. You can't just magically miracle the fair market value up a few notches. When you sell it it will be used and must compete with all other used homes whether you lost money or not.
    The unfairness of this tax is many fold. The current home mortgage deduction is used by anyone currently buying a house. The takes this away. The home mortgage deduction is an incentive to buy a home and feel like you are part of America and have something to defend. You great-granddad got it, your granddad got it, then your dad got it, so why not you? Because some billionaire want a little extra money so he can build new factories in Mexico? I don't think so. With the price of houses (for middle class and poor) it's unthinkable to buy a house without the deduction. Real Americans will fight this rotten Communist FairTax Plan until it is dead and buried.

    Never Get Sick Again
    One of the most disturbing things about the is the treatment of healthcare. Healthcare is a necessity and shouldn't be taxed, yet someone has to pay for the estate tax cuts. Healthcare services and health insurance are both taxable under the at the rate of 30 percent. Since the FairTax kills employer deductions for contributing to healthcare, there would no longer be a tax reason for employers to provide health insurance and many would drop it as a result. With many more uninsured people straining government healthcare programs taxes would have to go up as a result. Getting sick under the could cause massive bankruptcy, loss of home and other assets, and massive borrowing to pay for already expensive services bloated by a 30 percent tax.
    Healthcare is more expensive in America than in any other country. Why? The main reason is that medical education is controlled and regulated by private industry. Most people don't realize this but the colleges offering medical degrees in the United States will only graduate a fixed number of doctors no matter how many people qualify. Medical students are told during the first days of medical school that only a certain number will graduate no matter what their grade point average. A class could start with 100 students but maybe only 60 will graduate, even if all 100 had a 3.5 GPA or better. By setting the number of graduating doctors low, the salaries can be kept high (although they would say it keeps the quality high).
    Other countries don't have that problem. They graduate many times the doctors that the United States does. They also have different levels of medical professionals. The lesser trained treat the common cold, set broken bones, and treat sickness. The medical schools are regulated by the government and allow anyone who qualifies to graduate. Malpractice Insurance also keeps prices high. In other countries the government handles insuring doctors so the cost is spread out and relatively cheap.
    While a lot could be done to improve healthcare in America, the plan does nothing to provide health care for all. However, it does give the medical profession tax breaks (as if the were providing healthcare to all). is not fair to the sick and disabled.

    Other Goods and Services
    It's not only houses, healthcare, food, rent, and clothing that will be more expensive. Other goods and service will go up with a 30 percent tax added on. That $40 tank of gas is now $52. That cable bill is now $100. Even eating at McDonalds for lunch will be over $10. I pity the poor kids making minimum wage (so much for purchasing power remaining the same). Airline tickets will probably be so high you will cancel your vacation.
    Donations will also be taxable if the FairTax passes. Giving 10% of you income to church with now be taxable so you will now be giving 13.4 percent. You will no longer have a deduction for day care (The underlying message is: you might as well go back to being a homemaker) No more deductions on Insurance premiums. Child Support will be taxed. Unless you are a business (and can show a reasonable profit - not just a hobby) you will not be able to deduct professional expenses.
    Thinking about buying a small used house tax free and making a gazillion home improvements? Those home improvements are no longer deductible. Of course your mortgage interest deduction is gone with the wind. No more credit for state and local taxes. No more credit for property taxes. No more tax exemptions. Yes, your rent is now taxable.
    Hopefully you won't ever get in trouble and require expensive legal services. A 30 percent tax on $300 per hour is a bit much to swallow. Worse yet, if you ever get hurt you will get a lot less of a settlement (if you win) and a lot bigger bill if you don't. Currently, taxes on legal services are not reimbursable if you win.
    Got credit cards and loans? Yep, there's a Fair Tax on those too because it's a service. Because you are paying for a service your interest is taxed. The more money you borrow or the longer you wait to pay it off, the higher your tax is.
    Thinking about selling your house? The Fairtax has it's dirty little fingers in there too. Under the FairTax you must pay taxes on those huge realtor fees to sell your house because it's a service. No more tax deduction. Just a great big new TAX you must pay and boy will this one be expensive! If I were a realtor I would be very scared about my future earnings when people decide to sell their own homes.
    Do you rent an apartment or condo? Simple. If you rent, it is considered a service so you will pay the FairTax as part of every rent check. Will your rent go up? Yes it will. However, if you have rich relatives that can "will" you a house as part of an estate or "give" you a home as a gift, then you will pay absolutely nothing. Fair and Balanced the FairTax way.

    Can't Buy Anything Without A National ID Card
    While the bill does not contain a specific requirement that every purchase be linked to an individual's ID, it has been alluded to by the FairTax proponents as a key control on immigration and making sure illegal immigrants don't benefit from the prebate. We expect that if the FairTax bill passes, a United States National ID card will be required when you buy anything. Databases will will track all your purchases. You will need the card to get other ID, to vote, and it may end up replacing the passport. The government needs this for identifying all the recipients of the prebate checks. Heaven knows we wouldn't want a $187 check to fall into the hands of an illegal immigrant. People will willingly give up their privacy for the supposed increase in security they get from knowing that big brother is watching at Homeland Security.
    Worse yet, the information could be made available to corporations. Your insurance rates would go up for eating unhealthy foods, smoking, or drinking. You credit may take on a whole new dimension. Depending on which party is in charge you may be a patriot or a terrorist. Your home might be searched for "national security reasons" for buying too many guns, fertilizer, or donating to the wrong groups. It will make profiling at airports look like child's play. But it's the price you will pay for the war on terror and the FairTax."


    http://fairtaxfraud.com/fallout.asp

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #16
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The FairTax legislation has nothing at all to do with a National ID, and no one who supports the FairTax supports the Real ID or any other national ID to "combat immigration". The exception for illegal aliens that denies them access to the Rebate isn't done at the point of sale, it's a form handled by the Social Security Administration to determine if they're a) citizens b) eligible documented permanent residents, information the Social Security Administration already has available to it.

    I understand that people who like to give to their religion will miss their religious income tax deduction, but instead of an income tax deduction, they will enjoy the benefit of no income tax at all.

    I understand that people who like their mortgage interest deduction will miss that big income tax deduction, but instead of an income tax deduction, they will enjoy the financial rewards of no income tax at all.

    The people behind the www.fairtaxfraud.com website you quoted from are people who want the "no tax plan", which isn't a plan at all, it's an idea to tax wealth and companies, along the lines of what Ron Paul promoted, which means they want to avoid paying any tax of any kind themselves, but force someone else to pay it for them. They call themselves "conservatives", but that isn't what they are. They are the people who want the freedom of no income or sales tax on themselves, by forcing someone else to fund their government, defense and government services for them.

    This website you quoted from is actually very old, because they still call the Rebate a Prebate, and the wording was changed a long time ago. They also worry that unless the 16h Amendment is repealed at the same time that government would some day impose the income tax again, which is possible if the 16th Amendment isn't repealed. However, to show how little they really know about this legislation, they don't know or at least don't include in their website the simple fact that HR 25 and S 155 have a sunset provision, that requires the 16th Amendment be repealed within 7 years of passage of the FairTax legislation or the legislation ends. This was added several years ago to appease these types of people.

    The fact of the matter is the FairTax fixes all the negative and adverse consequences the Democrats burdened our country with by passing the income tax and the 16th Amendment, so whether the 16th Amendment is repealed or not, once the country converts to the FairTax, there will never ever be another income tax in the United States. In fact, most states will do away with theirs.

    They make the claim that if you're poor under the FairTax, you're in the 100% tax bracket and if you're middle class, you're in the 80% tax bracket. Under the FairTax, there are no tax brackets, and it is blind to your economic status. The Rebate is available to everyone who is a citizen of the US or a permanent resident. So, if you're "poor" under our DHHS classification for poverty level, and have 2 adults and 2 kids in the household, the Rebate or Prebate as it was originally called would be around $580 a month covering the FairTax charges on spending up to $30,260. So the "poor" are in a 0% FairTax situation since they are fully refunded through the Rebate. The middle class receives the same Rebate based on the number of adults and children in the household, so a family that earns $60,000 a year would have the FairTax on their first $30,000 of spending rebated, and the rest would be subject to the FairTax if they spend it all on new goods and services Anything they save or give or invest isn't subject to the FairTax, or anything they spend on used items like an existing home or used car or whatever is also exempt. Rent is taxed by the FairTax but because the owners are no longer responsible for income or capital gains taxes, then the rents will be lower to begin with.

    They also make the claim that there will be no money for Social Security and Medicare because the payroll taxes are repealed along with all other taxes on income and earnings. These people haven't even read the bill or they would know that the 23% FairTax rate is split, with 8.09% earmarked to fund Social Security and Medicare and 14.91% is earmarked for general revenue which works out to be more money for Social Security and Medicare than what is being collected now through the payroll taxes.

    For any group to call the FairTax which is a retail sales tax with a rebate a "fraud" pretty much sums up their lack of knowledge or understanding about business, taxation and economics in general. They may not like it because they're seeking a freeby for themselves through "tax reform", but unless you're in poverty, you will still pay some federal tax through the FairTax, on what you spend on new goods and services over the poverty line, and rightly so. There are many options available through the exemptions on used goods and the non-applicability to savings and investment for people to manage their FairTax costs however they wish.

    The website also ignores the fact that all income taxes are today already included in our prices. All businesses who pay income taxes who employ persons who pay income taxes have already included the cost of all their income and payroll taxes along with all compliance costs associated with income taxes in their prices, so when these all go away with the FairTax legislation, then the prices no longer need to include these costs, so the prices before the FairTax go down and then go back up with the FairTax at the final point of sale so that for most items and services, the price with the FairTax will be the same or lower than they were before.

    They also lie about a double tax on retirement and IRA's, and interest. Interest is not taxed. There is a FairTax on the banking service portion of the interest, since services are taxed, but it's not taxed on the whole amount because the interest itself is not taxed. Savings aren't taxed, retirements aren't taxed, only bank or fund services are taxed. The same with investments. Investment earnings are not taxed, only whatever services are provided. I'm also marveling at how someone can qualify for a new home purchase of $230,000 with $298,000 in deductible interest charges over a 30 year loan, when they're only paying $104,000 in federal income and payroll taxes over 30 years, since that's less than $3,100 a year in federal income tax. Sounds like one of those "immigrant" style mortgages to me. This article you posted was written in 2008, so I think that explains our big mortgage bust that caused the Great Recession in 2008. People who can't afford homes of their own shouldn't be trying to buy one and someone who only pays less than $3,100 a year in federal income and payroll taxes would be at the top of that list.

    What is most interesting is that I don't hear anything at all about how unfair or fraudulent state and local sales taxes are, so apparently these people like it when the states and local governments tax their purchases but can't stand the thought of the feds taxing it, when in reality these state and local sales taxes have been the most successful taxes of them all and are proof in the pudding of why a federal retail sales tax especially like the FairTax with the rebate will be even more successful.

    One last point, the website seems to care about big eaters and big spenders in the "middle class". I'm not sure what the "middle class" eats or spends, but if the "middle" is something akin to the average or typical household, then that income is around $54,000 a year based on median household income. Under the FairTax for a family of 4, the first $30,000 is subject to the FairTax Rebate for anyone who wants it, which is approximately $7,000 a year added to their income. The household goes home with all their income free from federal income and payroll taxes which is at least $4,000 on payroll taxes and around another $8,000 a year in income taxes depending on their deductions, so for most that's around $12,000 a year that's is saved by the FairTax law plus they pick up the $7,000 a year in Rebate. Thus, a family that had only $42,000 available to them after tax under the present income tax system, has $61,000 under the FairTax. That's $19,000 more disposable income that they can do whatever they want with.

    Why anyone would whine negatively about that is beyond me.

    FairTax Now!

    www.fairtax.org
    Last edited by Judy; 02-01-2015 at 07:07 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #17
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    I've never really posted a real diary here before, but after being confronted by a waiter the other night at Outback Steakhouse - literally, in the middle of my dinner - about how America's tax code is broken and the Fair Tax is the only solution, I figured I finally had something to write about. I live in GA-07 and am unfortunately represented in Congress by John Linder, the man who's been pimping H.R. 25 (also known as the FairTax Act) on the floor of the House since 1999, so this is not the first time I've encountered an ardent supporter of the FairTax. When confronted by this garrulous garçon, however, I felt woefully ill-prepared to counter his fantastical claims that the FairTax Bill was a taxation panacea. I knew on some level that he was probably being misled, but it took a great deal of research for me to discover just how misled, and just how full of crap those pushing this bill on the floor of Congress truly are.

    Although I'm sure many are aware of the specifics of the act, it never hurts to review! H.R. 25, the FairTax Act, is a proposal that would eliminate every federal tax currently levied (income, capital gains, FICA, corporate, estate, payroll, etc.) and replace them with a flat, national, 23% sales tax on the total transactional value of all new retail goods and services. "All new retail goods and services" means precisely that - food, clothing, medicine, rent, utilities, health care, legal services, gas, everything. It is designed to be revenue-neutral; that is, if it were enacted today, the total revenues brought in from federal taxation wouldsupposedly remain constant. Additionally, the FairTax also calls for households to receive amonthly tax rebate, equal to 23% of poverty level spending; this "prebate," as it is referred to by proponents, is designed to effectively eliminate taxation on bare necessities. Necessary corollaries to the adoption of the FairTax act would include the abolition of the IRS and therepeal of the 16th amendment. Proponents also argue that the plan would increase tax burden visibility, U.S. economic growth, and U.S.-international competitiveness, broaden the tax base, decrease tax compliance costs and the complexity of the tax code, be progressive in its structure and the manner in which it taxes wealth, and perhaps most importantly abolish the filing of tax returns (praise the Lord!). Doesn't this sound like the most fabulous idea you've ever heard? How can any red-blooded American be against economic growth, a progressive taxation system, tax-free basic necessities, and a relief from the dreadfully oppressive burden of April 15th!? To quote the August 2006 Congressional Update that I just received from my esteemed Congressperson, don't we "deserve a code that is easy to understand, treats all of us the same, eliminates all exemptions, exclusions and advantages for certain individuals over others, and energizes the economy"? I wish it were that simple, Congressman. Unfortunately, it's not.

    First, let's sift through some of the deceptive bullshit that's in the actual bill itself. What exactly does a "23% federal retail sales tax on the total transactional value of new retail goods and services" really mean? When I first read that, I reasonably assumed that it meant that the plan would result in a 23% national sales tax rate. A little research, however, shows that the implicit flat sales tax rate would actually be approximately 30% of the pre-tax price of a good. Although consumers would pay the government 23 dollars on every one-hundred dollar spent ($23 in tax/$100 leaving my wallet = 23% tax-inclusive rate), you would actually be paying the government 23 dollars for a 77 dollar pre-tax good or service, for a total transactional value of 100 dollars ($23 in tax/$77 good = 29.8% tax-exclusive rate). Although American income taxes have traditionally been expressed in a tax-inclusive manner, sales taxes have always been expressed tax-exclusively (i.e., living in a state with a 7% sales tax means you pay $1.07 for every refrigerator magnet you buy at the Dollar General). So what though? 23 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, what does it matter if the result is an "energized economy" and a tax code that "treats all of us the same?" Too bad the problems are just beginning.

    What about the claim that the FairTax is revenue neutral? With annual budget deficits in excess of $300 billion and a total U.S. public debt that's nearly to $9 trillion dollars, revenue neutrality is an absolute necessity for any tax code reform. Unfortunately for fair tax proponents, the majority of studies done by non-partisan economic think tanks show that, in its current form, the FairTax is anything but revenue neutral. For example, economist William Gale of the Brookings Institute (a non-partisan Washington think tank that has received $500,000+ donations from such ideological dipoles as Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, funded by Cato Institute-founder and conservative movement-man Fred C. Koch) estimates that the revenue-neutral rate is more likely around 31%, assuming full tax payer compliance; again, this is a tax-inclusive rate, meaning that if you went and bought $100 worth of widgets, you'd really end up spending $145 (as the tax-exclusive rate would be $31/($100-$31) = 44.9%).

    Other studies by non-partisan panels and groups such as the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform and the Treasury Department take beef with the laughable assumption of 100% tax payer compliance. It's practically common sense that tax compliance is going to decrease drastically below the already pedantic current level when taxed entities are given the responsibility of self-reporting. The same William Gale mentioned above estimates that areasonable evasion rate of around 20% would necessitate a sales tax rate of 39% (again, that's a traditional sales tax rate of an astounding 64%!) to be truly revenue neutral with regards only to corrected for increased tax evasion. How do proponents of the FlatTax suggest we enforce the collection of this tax without the IRS? Why, the same way right-wingers suggest everything in government operate - by incentives! You see, under the current bill, the federal government would allow "administering states" that use existing state sales tax administrations to collect the FairTax to keep 0.25% of the revenue collected for enforcement and administrative purposes. Therefore, if a state is having a tough time collecting taxes due to a burgeoning black market or whatnot, it only makes sense that they should be punished by having their tax-enforcement budget reduced. We've seen the wonderful benefits that the incentive-based system has bestowed upon public education in America thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act - it only makes sense that we should support a bill that expands this ill-conceived notion to keeping our military running and roads paved. The FairTax bill also fails to take into account taxes that the government would pay to itself as revenue without similarly increasing the amount of government expenditures to pay these taxes. For example, if a retail sales tax imposed a 65% tax-exclusive rate on a good required for national defense, say the $7 million steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay built by Halliburton back in 2002, the government would either a) be required to pay the tax, increasing the cost of maintaining the current level of national defense spending, or b) if the government were exempt from the tax, the estimate for the revenue raised by the FairTax would not include the tax from government purchases. The rate calculated by the current bill completely ignores this effect, a fairly significant problem considering that 18% of goods consumption in America is the result of federal government purchases. Taking into account everything that the proponents of the FairTax have failed to, the American people would be left with the necessity of a national sales tax fast approaching 100% in order to maintain critical revenue neutrality. And that's with annual budget deficits of $300+ billion dollars. Yikes.

    What about the "prebate" program? Surely it's a good idea to make the basic necessities of life tax free? For families that make below $30,000 annually, the average effective tax rate under the current tax code is essentially 0%. This would also be the case under the FairTax Act, except that the poorest families among us would become dependent on monthly checks from the government for a sizable fraction of their basic needs. So it's a wash, right? Not quite. Because the program would send checks to every American family, regardless of disposable income, the prebate program would cost over $600 billion in 2006 alone, exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Put another way, this program, which would send $3,400 a year to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to help offset the cost of butter and bananas, would cost more than all the budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior, combined.

    What about the U.S. economy? Proponents of the FairTax cite research by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and Americans for Fair Taxation that claim that in the year after the FairTax goes into effect, the GDP would increase by 10.5%, the incentive to work would increase by 20%, and the economy's capital stock, labor supply, output, and real wage level would skyrocket. Other studies indicate that implementation of the FairTax proposal will bring long-term interest rates down, that lower prices will increase exports by as much as 26% annually, and that revenues to Social Security and Medicare would double as the size of the economy doubles within fifteen years. This seems almost too good to be true. Oh wait - it is. To say nothing for the content of the paper, I'm not sure I trust the NBER, an organization that has released studies showing that tax cuts really do pay for themselves (bonddadrecently showed this claim not to have much merit), and that the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring the payment of prevailing wages on all public works project, would somehow increase the wages earned by black construction workers. A much more reliable study put out by the National Retail Federation (NRF) in 2000 found that a national sales tax would actually result in a three year decline in the economy, a four year decline in employment, and a disastrous eight year decline in consumer spending. In light of comments made by former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan in support of a national sales tax program similar to the FairTax, NRF Senior Vice President for Government Relations Steve Pfister released a statement explaining that "[u]nder the proposed national sales tax rate of 30 percent at the cash register, consumers would simply stop spending on anything but the barest necessities for a prolonged period of time . . . [t]his would have a ripple effect throughout the economy with an impact far beyond the retail industry. Even at lower rates, the psychological effect on consumer spending would be profound . . . [t]he price is too great to pay for any modest growth that might come in the long-term. Many retailers and the companies behind the products they sell -- especially the small businesses of America already struggling to succeed -- would be out of business before they could benefit from that growth." Makes sense to me.

    And the claim that the FairTax is really progressive in nature, alleviating the tax burden of the poor and shifting it to the wealthy? Wrong again. Again, the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform final report showed that, with the prebates, the overall tax burden on middle-class Americans would increase. I'll give you one guess as to who gets the complimentary decrease in tax burden. That's right - the super wealthy. The overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning between $15,000 and $50,000 per annum would increase from 3.6 to 6.7 percent, while the overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning greater than $200,000 annually would drop from 53.5 to 45.9 percent. That's an 86% increase in the effective tax rate on middle Americans, and a 14% drop for the richest among us. William Gale gives it to us in terms of something we're familiar with - he estimates that while "taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution . . . households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

    So what have are we left with? A tax plan that will levy a 60 to 70 percent national sales tax on all goods and services or else risk higher and higher deficits and debt? A rebate program that will cost the government $600 billion so that the richest of the richest can have an extra something in their stocking at Christmas and the neediest among us can come out exactly where they started? A drag on the U.S. economy that would result in disasterous decreases in consumer spending and employment? All this, so that we can in essence give the rich another tax break at the expense of the lower and middle classes? Oh wait - we wouldn't have to file our returns on April 15th! I think I speak for many here, though, when I say that it's a small price to pay if it means avoiding this claptrap of a proposal. I hope this helps a few of you out there counter the bogus claims made by the advocates of an idea which is unfortunately gaining ground.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/0...Fair-Tax-Myth#


    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #18
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Jeb Bush Smoked Marijuana And Was A Bully In High School, Say Former Classmates

    The Huffington Post | By Matt Ferner
    Posted: 01/31/2015 1:16 pm EST Updated: 01/31/2015 1:59 pm EST

    Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush smoked marijuana while in high school, a personal use of the drug that stands in contrast to his later political stance on the plant.


    “I drank alcohol and I smoked marijuana when I was at Andover,” Bush, the current Republican frontrunner seeking his party's 2016 presidential nomination, told the Boston Globe as part of a detailed new profile that describes his time at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. Both George H.W. Bush, Jeb's father, and George W. Bush, his brother, also attended the prestigious private school.


    “It was pretty common," Bush said of his substance use during that time. A former classmate of Bush's, Peter Tibbetts, recalled to the newspaper that the first time he ever smoked marijuana was with Bush, in some woods near their dorm.


    “The first time I really got stoned was in Jeb’s room,” Tibbetts told the Globe. “He had a portable stereo with removable speakers. He put on Steppenwolf for me.” Tibbetts was eventually forced to leave the boarding school after being accused of using drugs.


    As a politician, Bush has not embraced marijuana. He spent much of his time as Florida governor championing jail instead of treatment for nonviolent drug offenders, and pushed for mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders -- with the exception of his daughter, Noelle, who has struggled with crack cocaine use.


    More recently, while acknowledging that states should "have a right" to decide on the legalization of marijuana, Bush publicly opposed an amendment to legalize medical marijuana in Florida.


    "Florida leaders and citizens have worked for years to make the Sunshine State a world-class location to start or run a business, a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire,” Bush said before the November midterm election. "Allowing large-scale marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter to all of these efforts."


    Reacting to the Globe story, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted Bush over his "hypocrisy" on marijuana.


    “You would think he’d have a little more understanding then,” Paul, who may be a rival to Bush in the Republican primary, told The Hill Friday. “He was even opposed to medical marijuana. This is a guy who now admits he smoked marijuana but he wants to put people in jail who do."


    The Globe also spoke to some of Bush's former classmates, who recalled a "physically imposing" young man who was seen as intimidating by some and a bully by others. Tibbetts recalled a story to the newspaper of an occasion during their boarding school days when he and Bush taunted a smaller student who lived in their dorm by sewing his pajama bottoms so that the student couldn't put them on.


    Bush told the Globe he didn't remember the incident or any other bullying, and was surprised that some of his former classmates viewed him that way. “I don’t believe that is true,” Bush said, adding that it was more than 40 years ago and not possible for him to remember.


    It isn't the first time that allegations of bullying have surfaced about Bush's high school years. Another classmate of Bush's told Vanity Fair in 2001 that he remembered Bush as a bully as well, and that there was "a kind of arrogance" about him during his time at Andover.


    The Globe story echoes similar sentiments expressed in a 2012 Washington Post story about then-presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and alleged bullying during his prep school days.


    A Bush spokeswoman told The Huffington Post that Bush did not have any additional comments on the Globe story.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6585346.html

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #19
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    I've never really posted a real diary here before, but after being confronted by a waiter the other night at Outback Steakhouse - literally, in the middle of my dinner - about how America's tax code is broken and the Fair Tax is the only solution, I figured I finally had something to write about. I live in GA-07 and am unfortunately represented in Congress by John Linder, the man who's been pimping H.R. 25 (also known as the FairTax Act) on the floor of the House since 1999, so this is not the first time I've encountered an ardent supporter of the FairTax. When confronted by this garrulous garçon, however, I felt woefully ill-prepared to counter his fantastical claims that the FairTax Bill was a taxation panacea. I knew on some level that he was probably being misled, but it took a great deal of research for me to discover just how misled, and just how full of crap those pushing this bill on the floor of Congress truly are.

    Although I'm sure many are aware of the specifics of the act, it never hurts to review! H.R. 25, the FairTax Act, is a proposal that would eliminate every federal tax currently levied (income, capital gains, FICA, corporate, estate, payroll, etc.) and replace them with a flat, national, 23% sales tax on the total transactional value of all new retail goods and services. "All new retail goods and services" means precisely that - food, clothing, medicine, rent, utilities, health care, legal services, gas, everything. It is designed to be revenue-neutral; that is, if it were enacted today, the total revenues brought in from federal taxation wouldsupposedly remain constant. Additionally, the FairTax also calls for households to receive amonthly tax rebate, equal to 23% of poverty level spending; this "prebate," as it is referred to by proponents, is designed to effectively eliminate taxation on bare necessities. Necessary corollaries to the adoption of the FairTax act would include the abolition of the IRS and therepeal of the 16th amendment. Proponents also argue that the plan would increase tax burden visibility, U.S. economic growth, and U.S.-international competitiveness, broaden the tax base, decrease tax compliance costs and the complexity of the tax code, be progressive in its structure and the manner in which it taxes wealth, and perhaps most importantly abolish the filing of tax returns (praise the Lord!). Doesn't this sound like the most fabulous idea you've ever heard? How can any red-blooded American be against economic growth, a progressive taxation system, tax-free basic necessities, and a relief from the dreadfully oppressive burden of April 15th!? To quote the August 2006 Congressional Update that I just received from my esteemed Congressperson, don't we "deserve a code that is easy to understand, treats all of us the same, eliminates all exemptions, exclusions and advantages for certain individuals over others, and energizes the economy"? I wish it were that simple, Congressman. Unfortunately, it's not.

    First, let's sift through some of the deceptive bullshit that's in the actual bill itself. What exactly does a "23% federal retail sales tax on the total transactional value of new retail goods and services" really mean? When I first read that, I reasonably assumed that it meant that the plan would result in a 23% national sales tax rate. A little research, however, shows that the implicit flat sales tax rate would actually be approximately 30% of the pre-tax price of a good. Although consumers would pay the government 23 dollars on every one-hundred dollar spent ($23 in tax/$100 leaving my wallet = 23% tax-inclusive rate), you would actually be paying the government 23 dollars for a 77 dollar pre-tax good or service, for a total transactional value of 100 dollars ($23 in tax/$77 good = 29.8% tax-exclusive rate). Although American income taxes have traditionally been expressed in a tax-inclusive manner, sales taxes have always been expressed tax-exclusively (i.e., living in a state with a 7% sales tax means you pay $1.07 for every refrigerator magnet you buy at the Dollar General). So what though? 23 cents on the dollar, 30 cents on the dollar, what does it matter if the result is an "energized economy" and a tax code that "treats all of us the same?" Too bad the problems are just beginning.

    What about the claim that the FairTax is revenue neutral? With annual budget deficits in excess of $300 billion and a total U.S. public debt that's nearly to $9 trillion dollars, revenue neutrality is an absolute necessity for any tax code reform. Unfortunately for fair tax proponents, the majority of studies done by non-partisan economic think tanks show that, in its current form, the FairTax is anything but revenue neutral. For example, economist William Gale of the Brookings Institute (a non-partisan Washington think tank that has received $500,000+ donations from such ideological dipoles as Senator Dianne Feinstein and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, funded by Cato Institute-founder and conservative movement-man Fred C. Koch) estimates that the revenue-neutral rate is more likely around 31%, assuming full tax payer compliance; again, this is a tax-inclusive rate, meaning that if you went and bought $100 worth of widgets, you'd really end up spending $145 (as the tax-exclusive rate would be $31/($100-$31) = 44.9%).

    Other studies by non-partisan panels and groups such as the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform and the Treasury Department take beef with the laughable assumption of 100% tax payer compliance. It's practically common sense that tax compliance is going to decrease drastically below the already pedantic current level when taxed entities are given the responsibility of self-reporting. The same William Gale mentioned above estimates that areasonable evasion rate of around 20% would necessitate a sales tax rate of 39% (again, that's a traditional sales tax rate of an astounding 64%!) to be truly revenue neutral with regards only to corrected for increased tax evasion. How do proponents of the FlatTax suggest we enforce the collection of this tax without the IRS? Why, the same way right-wingers suggest everything in government operate - by incentives! You see, under the current bill, the federal government would allow "administering states" that use existing state sales tax administrations to collect the FairTax to keep 0.25% of the revenue collected for enforcement and administrative purposes. Therefore, if a state is having a tough time collecting taxes due to a burgeoning black market or whatnot, it only makes sense that they should be punished by having their tax-enforcement budget reduced. We've seen the wonderful benefits that the incentive-based system has bestowed upon public education in America thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act - it only makes sense that we should support a bill that expands this ill-conceived notion to keeping our military running and roads paved. The FairTax bill also fails to take into account taxes that the government would pay to itself as revenue without similarly increasing the amount of government expenditures to pay these taxes. For example, if a retail sales tax imposed a 65% tax-exclusive rate on a good required for national defense, say the $7 million steel holding cells at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay built by Halliburton back in 2002, the government would either a) be required to pay the tax, increasing the cost of maintaining the current level of national defense spending, or b) if the government were exempt from the tax, the estimate for the revenue raised by the FairTax would not include the tax from government purchases. The rate calculated by the current bill completely ignores this effect, a fairly significant problem considering that 18% of goods consumption in America is the result of federal government purchases. Taking into account everything that the proponents of the FairTax have failed to, the American people would be left with the necessity of a national sales tax fast approaching 100% in order to maintain critical revenue neutrality. And that's with annual budget deficits of $300+ billion dollars. Yikes.

    What about the "prebate" program? Surely it's a good idea to make the basic necessities of life tax free? For families that make below $30,000 annually, the average effective tax rate under the current tax code is essentially 0%. This would also be the case under the FairTax Act, except that the poorest families among us would become dependent on monthly checks from the government for a sizable fraction of their basic needs. So it's a wash, right? Not quite. Because the program would send checks to every American family, regardless of disposable income, the prebate program would cost over $600 billion in 2006 alone, exceeding the size of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Put another way, this program, which would send $3,400 a year to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to help offset the cost of butter and bananas, would cost more than all the budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior, combined.

    What about the U.S. economy? Proponents of the FairTax cite research by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and Americans for Fair Taxation that claim that in the year after the FairTax goes into effect, the GDP would increase by 10.5%, the incentive to work would increase by 20%, and the economy's capital stock, labor supply, output, and real wage level would skyrocket. Other studies indicate that implementation of the FairTax proposal will bring long-term interest rates down, that lower prices will increase exports by as much as 26% annually, and that revenues to Social Security and Medicare would double as the size of the economy doubles within fifteen years. This seems almost too good to be true. Oh wait - it is. To say nothing for the content of the paper, I'm not sure I trust the NBER, an organization that has released studies showing that tax cuts really do pay for themselves (bonddadrecently showed this claim not to have much merit), and that the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring the payment of prevailing wages on all public works project, would somehow increase the wages earned by black construction workers. A much more reliable study put out by the National Retail Federation (NRF) in 2000 found that a national sales tax would actually result in a three year decline in the economy, a four year decline in employment, and a disastrous eight year decline in consumer spending. In light of comments made by former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan in support of a national sales tax program similar to the FairTax, NRF Senior Vice President for Government Relations Steve Pfister released a statement explaining that "[u]nder the proposed national sales tax rate of 30 percent at the cash register, consumers would simply stop spending on anything but the barest necessities for a prolonged period of time . . . [t]his would have a ripple effect throughout the economy with an impact far beyond the retail industry. Even at lower rates, the psychological effect on consumer spending would be profound . . . [t]he price is too great to pay for any modest growth that might come in the long-term. Many retailers and the companies behind the products they sell -- especially the small businesses of America already struggling to succeed -- would be out of business before they could benefit from that growth." Makes sense to me.

    And the claim that the FairTax is really progressive in nature, alleviating the tax burden of the poor and shifting it to the wealthy? Wrong again. Again, the President's Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform final report showed that, with the prebates, the overall tax burden on middle-class Americans would increase. I'll give you one guess as to who gets the complimentary decrease in tax burden. That's right - the super wealthy. The overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning between $15,000 and $50,000 per annum would increase from 3.6 to 6.7 percent, while the overall federal effective tax rate paid by those earning greater than $200,000 annually would drop from 53.5 to 45.9 percent. That's an 86% increase in the effective tax rate on middle Americans, and a 14% drop for the richest among us. William Gale gives it to us in terms of something we're familiar with - he estimates that while "taxes would rise for households in the bottom 90% of the income distribution . . . households in the top 1% would receive an average tax cut of over $75,000."

    So what have are we left with? A tax plan that will levy a 60 to 70 percent national sales tax on all goods and services or else risk higher and higher deficits and debt? A rebate program that will cost the government $600 billion so that the richest of the richest can have an extra something in their stocking at Christmas and the neediest among us can come out exactly where they started? A drag on the U.S. economy that would result in disasterous decreases in consumer spending and employment? All this, so that we can in essence give the rich another tax break at the expense of the lower and middle classes? Oh wait - we wouldn't have to file our returns on April 15th! I think I speak for many here, though, when I say that it's a small price to pay if it means avoiding this claptrap of a proposal. I hope this helps a few of you out there counter the bogus claims made by the advocates of an idea which is unfortunately gaining ground.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/0...Fair-Tax-Myth#

    Oh, I see, another good citizen who wrote an article about his "research" which apparently didn't include reading the bill, but wants to challenge its revenue neutrality at a time when there was a $9 trillion deficit under the existing system, back in 2006? Since then, the present system has swelled our national debt to over $18 trillion and it's growing non-stop under the existing system. I wonder how silly or smart he feels now? He took up his pen to try to kill a bill and confuse Americans, not unlike the pro-immigration movement has done, and look at the harm he's contributed to our country? More jobs moved overseas, more bankruptcies, declining wages, reduced household income, more unemployment, record underemployment, and a national debt that's grown to over $18 trillion, and on and on and on? All because he was afraid he might be paying more for products at the cash register ignoring the fact that because there is no more income tax embedded in the prices, he wouldn't be paying more for anything overall.

    He also doesn't understand the 23% tax rate which is an inclusive tax rate the same as income tax rates and is revenue neutral based on the revenue generated by income tax rates in 1999, before the Bush tax cuts. So any "study" that bases it on tax rates since then will yes of course come up a bit short.

    He also doesn't realize or fails to ignore that the Rebate is the same thing as the personal and dependent deductions on the present income tax system. And you don't have to sign up for it if you don't want to, it's a voluntary program, with no mandate to sign up for it.

    But he's right about one thing, the FairTax legislation IS gaining ground, more so every year, despite the lies and deceptions being spread around about it by those who oppose it. It struck me as utterly wonderful that it was the waiter at the Outback, a pretty expensive restaurant, pushing the FairTax, while the customer who could afford an Outback dinner went home and compiled a poorly written inaccurate intentionally deceptive article to try to defeat it.

    Well, dear FairTax waiter at Outback, we've got your back! We want you to go home with all the money you worked for, receive a Rebate if you want it to cover the FairTax on essentials up to the consumer consumption allowance, and live and die free spending, saving, investing your money however you wish whenever you choose free of the burdens of a failed authoritarian federal income tax.

    FairTax Now!

    www.fairtax.org
    Last edited by Judy; 02-01-2015 at 12:56 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #20
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Judy wrote:

    Oh, I see, another good citizen who wrote an article about his "research" which apparently didn't include reading the bill,
    How do you know he didn't read the bill? Furthermore, what makes your "research" any better than his? I know you want us to believe that you're right and everyone that opposes the bill is wrong, but that just may not be the case. Just saying .......

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-10-2014, 07:58 PM
  2. Mexico-based prep school explores Chinese culture with celebration
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 03:14 PM
  3. Fed Reserve ADMITS that Its 12 Banks Are PRIVATE Not governm
    By forest in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 06:36 PM
  4. The Federal Reserve ADMITS that Its 12 Banks Are PRIVATE
    By HAPPY2BME in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-26-2011, 02:59 PM
  5. Fatcat Prep School usurps land from Homeless Vets
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 10:48 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •