What would your tax plan be?

[ElNono]

That's all immaterial. Determining what the criteria would for defining necessities would still take less than the tens of thousands of pages of tax code we're now expected to decipher.

You can't stop kicking and screaming for the definition of something as simple as torture. You would cry a river if Democrats had to define "necessities".

[ElNono]

Obviously, as soon as a Democrat endorses the fair tax, yoni will decry how it's "not the same as it was proposed"

[Wild Cobra]

You can't stop kicking and screaming for the definition of something as simple as torture. You would cry a river if Democrats had to define "necessities".

Maybe the definitions would keep them busy enough figuring it out, that they wouldn't have the time to pass harmful legislation.

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously, as soon as a Democrat endorses the fair tax, yoni will decry how it's "not the same as it was proposed"

If I recall, a few democrats have.

[ElNono]

Maybe the definitions would keep them busy enough figuring it out, that they wouldn't have the time to pass harmful legislation.

No "harmful legislation" can pass without the GOP being complicit.

[ElNono]

If I recall, a few democrats have.

Obviously.

[Yonivore]

If I recall, a few democrats have.

And, as long as it is the same as is being proposed now, I'd applaud those Democrats.

Those are Democrats for whom I'd vote.

[ElNono]

And, as long as it is the same as is being proposed now, I'd applaud those Democrats.

Those are Democrats for whom I'd vote.

Democrats that opposed the fair tax?

[LnGrrrR]

Do you think your pain will be equally felt by two different families one making 40k and the other 1m?

Agloco, how dare you even suggest that?

While the poor family probably would've spent the extra money received on some sort of luxury like a second car, the rich person most likely would have invested that money into their business, creating new jobs for America!

After all, there's a reason why rich people are rich and poor people are poor!

[Yonivore]

Agloco, how dare you even suggest that?

While the poor family probably would've spent the extra money received on some sort of luxury like a second car, the rich person most likely would have invested that money into their business, creating new jobs for America!

After all, there's a reason why rich people are rich and poor people are poor!

I'm not sure the government is responsible for ensuring equality in outcome, just equality in opportunity.

[LnGrrrR]

I was discussing such an idea with a coworker, and he is for taxing clothing, but not the cloth for one to make their own clothes.

Who the do you hang out with? Amish people? Who the would have time to sew their own goddamned clothes? Some people are ing idiots.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure the government is responsible for ensuring equality in outcome, just equality in opportunity.

Define "equality in opportunity" for us?

[Wild Cobra]

Who the do you hang out with? Amish people? Who the would have time to sew their own goddamned clothes? Some people are ing idiots.

It never kept my mother from sewing.

I admitted to being "old school."

[ElNono]

Newsflash, we're in 2011

[Yonivore]

Define "equality in opportunity" for us?

Gladly.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's all relevant but, I bolded the last sentence because it actually embodies the idea of equal treatment...equal opportunity.

[ElNono]

"equal protection of the laws" = "equality in opportunity"???

What are you smoking, yoni?

[Wild Cobra]

Newsflash, we're in 2011

That doesn't mean we can't return to proven past ideas.

Call me heartless if you want, I call it tough love. I want to make it difficult for people to rely on the government, and deterrents to being irresponsible. I want them to have incentive to do all they can to get off of government reliance. Sorry, but that must include making the free ride, difficult, and having a family before having the means of support difficult.

[ElNono]

That doesn't mean we can't return to proven past ideas.

Call me heartless if you want, I call it tough love. I want to make it difficult for people to rely on the government, and deterrents to being irresponsible. I want them to have incentive to do all they can to get off of government reliance. Sorry, but that must include making the free ride, difficult, and having a family before having the means of support difficult.

Not really. What you want is to punish the poor for being poor.

[Yonivore]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and des ute. They were also good at means-testing.

That was the rub. People want stuff given to them without any questions.

It started out as a cry for esteem and for people not to have to be ashamed to ask for help.

Well, you've got you wish. People aren't ashamed to live off the government . They even flaunt it these days.

[ElNono]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and des ute. They were also good at means-testing.

There was a time when national growth meant everybody, not just the top 1%, did better too.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

That's not to say there isn't wasteful spending. But there's also obviously a lot more people sharing the same (or less) wealth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was a time when charities, mostly faith-based, did a pretty decent job taking care of the poor and des ute. They were also good at means-testing.

That was the rub. People want stuff given to them without any questions.

It started out as a cry for esteem and for people not to have to be ashamed to ask for help.

Well, you've got you wish. People aren't ashamed to live off the government . They even flaunt it these days.

Go look up the poverty demographics from before 1930 and try again.

[Yonivore]

By the way, the Fair Tax Plan doesn't pass any judgement on current government programs.

The plan is revenue neutral. With a 23% sales tax on all products and services, the government could be sustained -- well, maybe not this year's budget level but, -- at 2009/2010 budget levels.

If you wanted to continue your pet welfare/military program, the Fair Tax Plan would pay for it.

[Yonivore]

Go look up the poverty demographics from before 1930 and try again.

The problem with government welfare is that you eventually run out of other people's money. In an economy like we're having, you run out of it faster. You're not doing the poor any favors by taking our economy into the tank.

Because when the bottom falls out, we'll be back in 1930 when no one had money -- not even the government. Except, of course, for the rich Democrats.

[ElNono]

The problem with government welfare is that you eventually run out of other people's money. In an economy like we're having, you run out of it faster. You're not doing the poor any favors by taking our economy into the tank.

Because when the bottom falls out, we'll be back in 1930 when no one had money -- not even the government. Except, of course, for the rich Democrats.

Is that what Cain told you to say? crofl

[Amarelooms]

Son let me settle this for all you dummies

1. If you make less than 30k a year...NO TAX OFF YOU LOSER and go to school

2. 30k to 100k you pay 10%

3. 100k to 500k your ass pays 20% (my category)

4. 500k on up you pay 30%

Done...see how simple that was.