Bush's tax panel recommends what?!

[MSUFAN]

I can see this guys ass a mile away.

"How can I make my laughable tax cuts permanent, while schmoozing the public (see poor working classes) into accepting a new tax "reform" plan, in order to fill the HUGE gaps that are inevitably left behind?"

Get ready America, the Bush GOP Fuzzy Mathmaticians are about to get BUSY on your lives, pocketbooks and tax credits you've relied on. Oh, I can't wait to hear the boring assed talking heads assigned to the 20 different Conservative media shows explain how these new proposals will benefit the majority of working poor, and middle classes. (As if there actually ARE any middle class households left!)

I smell a "Tax Shift Rat!"

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/051018/general.html?.v=1

And it should be obvious to anyone why this shit comes out now, months before the midterms begin to heat up. Duh!! To bore the livin shit out of you, and spin and misinform their way into approving these "reforms".

First there was Privatizing Soc. Sec. That crap hit the shitter. No one bought it. Now; TAX REFORMS!!!

Good luck America, making it through a few more years of this mother fucking liar.

[DrDetroit]

Dumbass, many conservatives have already commented that:

a) the panel violated the mandate given to it by the President;
b) is attempting to write new tax policy rather than simply providing advice on a range of tax reform ideas; and
c) basically sucks ass and should be dismissed immediately.

The panels limited recommendations do not reflect neither the mnadate from the President nor the President's objectives.

Oh, yeah, the tax code shouldn't be used to "benefit" some groups over others...hence, the need to reform the existing tax code, dumbass.

Re: Social Security - The administration failed to properly educate voters and then actually propose a detailed plan to reform the system.

Hence, it is inaccurate to say that the administration proposed privatizing the system (an early suggestion was partial privatization).

On the other hand, even you would agree that the Democrats did a real disservice to the public and public policy by lying about what Bush might propose and then characterizing any reform as amounting to putting seniors on a dog food diet.

[Rushville]

FairTax.org

This is the only plan out there that eliminates the tax burden on the poor and doesn't punish achievement. The Tax reform panel has laready come out and said they're not going to recommend it, and in their explanation proved that they didn't even read the plan, or that they, most likely for political reasons, don't want the best idea to get passed.

Yes, Bush put forth 3 specific goals when he sent the panel out to research the proposals. The Fair Tax achieves all 3 of those while no other plan does. And the panel has already ignored all three goals with the hints they have dropped on their coming recommendation. If Bush has any spine whatsoever, he should tell this panel that they have wasted time and tax payers' money and disband them all together.

[titlover]

FairTax.org

This is the only plan out there that eliminates the tax burden on the poor and doesn't punish achievement. The Tax reform panel has laready come out and said they're not going to recommend it, and in their explanation proved that they didn't even read the plan, or that they, most likely for political reasons, don't want the best idea to get passed.

Yes, Bush put forth 3 specific goals when he sent the panel out to research the proposals. The Fair Tax achieves all 3 of those while no other plan does. And the panel has already ignored all three goals with the hints they have dropped on their coming recommendation. If Bush has any spine whatsoever, he should tell this panel that they have wasted time and tax payers' money and disband them all together.

what burden?!!!!!!! they pay no taxes!

[DrDetroit]

The bottom 50% already pays less than 5% of total federal income taxes...wtf are we worried about them re: tax liability in the first place?

I hate this nonsense of a progressive system. Progressive, by their very nature, punishes success.

[Rushville]

Let me rephrase, it eliminates the burden on the smart poor.

For those of you who haven't read about the plan, let me briefly explain how this happens.

The FairTax would be a national sales tax. Before this happens, the 16th ammendment is repealed and the IRS is abolished. Then this consumption tax is put in place. The lessening of the burden comes into play when the government issues a prebate check to every American household for the taxes that they would pay on the basic neccessities of life. And that check is not descriminitory on income level. For example, with my family of 4, I would receive a check at the beginning of every month for about $425. I'm not rich or poor. I would get that. A family of 4 who's total income is below the poverty level would get that. Scott Jones, inventor of voice mail who lives here in Carmel, Indiana, would get that if he had a family of 4. So any of the three of us, me, a poor person, or Scott Jones, would essentially pay no federal taxes if we don't purchase any more than the basic neccessities of life. We would essentially choose how much taxes we pay by how much we buy at the retail level.

Now the real beauty of the plan is that even though federal income taxes are abolished, and this retail tax is put in place, the prices on goods would not change hardly at all from what they are right now. A gallon of milk would still be around $2.75 ( or whatever it is in your area ).

Sound Fair?

[Rushville]

DrD,

I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. Go to FairTax.org and check out the "scorecard". There you can see which federal legislators are on board and which are not. I think you'd like what you see there.

The bill which is on the House floor, was written by John Linder (R), Georgia.

[BSmack]

Sound Fair?

No. The idea that the poor should not have to pay taxes is total bullshit.

They live here. They're the ones who use the most services. They should help pay for it, too.

The poor do not even come close to using the most services. ADM alone sponges more welfare than 100,000 poor people could ever dream of.

[Rushville]

Sound Fair?

No. The idea that the poor should not have to pay taxes is total bullshit.

They live here. They're the ones who use the most services. They should help pay for it, too.

Let me point out something that I thought you would get out of my previous post. It's a sales tax. Have you ever driven by a delapedated house that the inhabitants propably didn't pay shit for, and they propably live off of food stamps and EIC tax credits, yet they have a 58" screen tv in their front room? I have. Several as a matter of fact. Under this plan, a smart poor person who only buys what they need pays essentially no taxes. The stupid poor person who goes out and buys a 58" screen tv will help pay their fair share for goverment programs such as Social Security, etc. At the same time, the smart middle income earner, who might need to save a little for a month or two, can spend only what they need to and pay essentially no taxes. Then when they get caught up on their debt, and go buy spend some money on something fun, they too pay their fair share of taxes. It does not descriminate based on income level.

It is being touted in some cases as the plan that eliminates the burden on the poor because that's seems to be one thing that the Democrats want to claim as their big priority. It's how the supporters of it are trying to get Dems on board. Yet, if you check the scorecard, very few Dems are behind this, and I would bet that is out of partisan political vengence. Maybe not in all cases, but probably most.

[BSmack]

The poor do not even come close to using the most services.

Don't even fucking try it. Shovel your bullshit somewhere else.

Public assistance will never hold a candle to the corporate welfare our government spreads around like manure.

[BSmack]

Actually it more than "holds a candle". Per usual, you're talking out your ass.

In any event, corporate welfare is much preferable to public assistance.
At least corporations provide goods, services and jobs and the taxpayer recoups some of that "welfare" in the form of tax revenue.

Public assistance is nothing more than pissing money away by subsidizing failure.

State and local governments around here recoup 8% of every dollar paid in public assistance in sales tax.

But hey, feel free to ignore the reality that poor people are welll..... POOR.

You do know what poor means?

You know, not RICH?

So if they're getting all this crazy money, where is it?

[DrDetroit]

Tax breaks or incentives are the same as direct cash disbursement you fucking idiot.

[titlover]

Actually it more than "holds a candle". Per usual, you're talking out your ass.

In any event, corporate welfare is much preferable to public assistance.
At least corporations provide goods, services and jobs and the taxpayer recoups some of that "welfare" in the form of tax revenue.

Public assistance is nothing more than pissing money away by subsidizing failure.

State and local governments around here recoup 8% of every dollar paid in public assistance in sales tax.

But hey, feel free to ignore the reality that poor people are welll..... POOR.

You do know what poor means?

You know, not RICH?

So if they're getting all this crazy money, where is it?

and a high percentage of them are glad to stay that way (sucking off the gubment teet) or keep making braindead decisions in life to keep themselves in the gutter.

cry me a river.

[BSmack]

and a high percentage of them are glad to stay that way (sucking off the gubment teet) or keep making braindead decisions in life to keep themselves in the gutter. cry me a river.

That is not germane to this discussion. Next?

[DrDetroit]

I'm still waiting for an explanation how tax savings are the equivalent of government $$ disbursements.

Well?

[titlover]

and a high percentage of them are glad to stay that way (sucking off the gubment teet) or keep making braindead decisions in life to keep themselves in the gutter. cry me a river.

That is not germane to this discussion. Next?

why? because you say so?

i could really give a fuck.

[BSmack]

and a high percentage of them are glad to stay that way (sucking off the gubment teet) or keep making braindead decisions in life to keep themselves in the gutter. cry me a river.

That is not germane to this discussion. Next?

why? because you say so?

i could really give a fuck.

We were discussing whether corporate welfare was greater than welfare for the poor. Your comments are inane and immaterial.

[Rushville]

We were discussing whether corporate welfare was greater than welfare for the poor. Your comments are inane and immaterial.

A while ago I was trying to convince you guys that the FairTax proposal was actually fair. Anybody care to get back to that?

[DrDetroit]

I'm still waiting to find out how tax incentives, deductions, breaks are anything like direct monetary disbursements...

I can only presume that BSmack, like many other idiots, believes that tax incentives, deductions, and breaks are simply disbursements from the government treasury...

[MSUFAN]

So you're begging to pay more taxes?

No, you Clown.

So I don't have to be force fed some revisions of shit, all devised to assure that I WILL pay more taxes! Butthole.

These fuckers will shortsell these new "proposals" until we're NUMB from the boredom of hearing about it, and will no longer put up a fight to keep the credits and agi deductions we have NOW!

Ass.

God, YOU are one dumb fuck, if you think these plans aren't so Bush's F-ed up taxcuts he wants permanently in place, can be paid for through the uppward middle class aspiring Americans!

Fuck , am I glad you're one of "them".

[Variable]

State and local governments around here recoup 8% of every dollar paid in public assistance in sales tax.

But hey, feel free to ignore the reality that poor people are welll..... POOR.

You do know what poor means?

You know, not RICH?

So if they're getting all this crazy money, where is it?

Being exchanged at the Qwik-e-mart for a carton of Doral's and a 40oz Old English.

We were discussing whether corporate welfare was greater than welfare for the poor. Your comments are inane and immaterial.

Actually, they're quite relevant, if you think about what the impact each (corporate vs. PWT tax levels) has on the economy as a whole.

A while ago I was trying to convince you guys that the FairTax proposal was actually fair. Anybody care to get back to that?

Never happen.

1. It would effectively cause the abolition of the IRS. Show me a President who wants to lay off 100,000+ government workers and I'll show you a party who'll never win another election.

2. It would put hundreds of thousands of accountants out of business overnight. Show me a President who wants 100,000+ unemployed bean counters...you know the rest.

3. Politicians would lose a significant number of high income donors to their campaigns. Tax breaks for the rich are paid for.

[MSUFAN]

Rushville.
I watched a portion of the panels discussion the other day.
They didn't use the term "Sales Tax".
They used "Value Added".

Aren't those two one and the same?

And I got the impression that most of the panel was for a "Value Added Tax".

While I don't claim to be any expert on fiscal taxation and revenue, I DO think I know what a guy like Bush and his cronies are ultimately up to.
They want to SQUEEZE the ever livin shit out of the upward mobility working classes. (Read, Middle Classes) The "near" poor. The people who DREAM of having enough breaks and credits to actuallt afford to send their kids to college. Or not have to give up most of their families healthcare coverages.
Or the ability to deduct things like taxes allready paid to a city or state!!

I just smell a big fat Bush "FUZZY MATH" Rat!

[BSmack]

Being exchanged at the Qwik-e-mart for a carton of Doral's and a 40oz Old English.

Its gonna take about 100 trillion cartons of Kools before they even get within sniffing range of what Haliburton has stolen in just the last 5 years.

Actually, they're quite relevant, if you think about what the impact each (corporate vs. PWT tax levels) has on the economy as a whole.

Money being paid to individuals gets taxed just as often. Especialy money given to poor people, who immediately SPEND said money right back into the hands of corporations.

Never happen.

1. It would effectively cause the abolition of the IRS. Show me a President who wants to lay off 100,000+ government workers and I'll show you a party who'll never win another election.

2. It would put hundreds of thousands of accountants out of business overnight. Show me a President who wants 100,000+ unemployed bean counters...you know the rest.

3. Politicians would lose a significant number of high income donors to their campaigns. Tax breaks for the rich are paid for.

One of the candidates I worked for was a CPA. When I brought up the idea of a flat tax to her she damn near fell off her chair laughing. Her take was that it makes perfect sense, but there was no way the Big 5 accounting firms would ever let that happen.

[MSUFAN]

B comes hard again. Damn, mv, your ass must be sore a lot.

[MSUFAN]

Here's a thread for Dr. D to take 10 min. and read.

http://michigan.rivals.com/showmsg.asp? ... d=&style=2

Christ, he's prollt TDfever in that thread. :roll:

[Rushville]

A while ago I was trying to convince you guys that the FairTax proposal was actually fair. Anybody care to get back to that?

Never happen.

1. It would effectively cause the abolition of the IRS. Show me a President who wants to lay off 100,000+ government workers and I'll show you a party who'll never win another election.

2. It would put hundreds of thousands of accountants out of business overnight. Show me a President who wants 100,000+ unemployed bean counters...you know the rest.

3. Politicians would lose a significant number of high income donors to their campaigns. Tax breaks for the rich are paid for.

True, those are the reasons that this plan would not go through. But forgive me for playing motivational speaker for a minute. If "we, the people" still have any power in this country, than we need to show that power by making our voices louder than those of the lobbyists on K-Street. When I first heard about this plan late last year, the bill had 32 co-sponsors. As of yesterday it had 46. And according to the guy who wrote the bill, every new co-sponsor or supporter of the plan tells him that he was made aware of it by a constant barage of letters and emails from people in his district. The essence of this bill is that it gives power back to the people. Under the FairTax, people would choose how much they pay taxes by choosing how much they buy at the retail level. Whereas now the power resides in govt. so much that most people don't even notice the amount of taxes they are paying because it is a deduction on their paycheck that they don't bother to pay any attention to. That power is also evident in the fact that they manipulate the current tax code to get what they want out of us in terms of money and behavior. And the power is most evident in the fact that you have just given me the most popular response to discussion of this plan, "never happen because the govt. won't let it."

I say, let's see if we actually do have some power left in this country. Let's see if we can overpower the lobbyists and vote-buyers inside the beltway and tell the people who are supposed to be there representing us that we want a FAIR SYSTEM of taxation. Don't let "it'll never happen" be a reason to not try. Read the plan and see if you can shoot it down for what it is rather than if the bureaucrats will pass it.


Now as for showing you a President that wants to abolish the IRS. Actually, in Bush's 3 goals for the Tax reform panel, one of them was to simplify the code and to lessen the cost of compliance. I don't know how the current code could possibly be changed without addin another hundred pages of explanation and upping the cost of compliance. But abolishing the IRS does both. If Bush doesn't take a hard look at this plan, than MSUFAN is dead on.

[Rushville]

One of the candidates I worked for was a CPA. When I brought up the idea of a flat tax to her she damn near fell off her chair laughing. Her take was that it makes perfect sense, but there was no way the Big 5 accounting firms would ever let that happen.

I actually don't belive a flat tax makes sense at all. A true flat tax still punishes achievement.

Here's another description of the FairTax for you. Imagine instead of having taxes deducted from your paycheck, you get 100% of what you earned. Then, at the beginning of every month, you get a prebate check for the amount of taxes you would pay for the basic neccessities. (i.e. for my family of 4 I would get about $425) So I get an extra $425 per month and I get 100% of my paycheck. Then, when I go to the store, milk is still $2.75/gal. Bread is still $1.99. Everything is still at the approximate price it was before the FairTax was implemented. And, to top it all off, the govt. is actually taking in more tax revenue than it was with the income tax.

[titlover]

Its gonna take about 100 trillion cartons of Kools before they even get within sniffing range of what Haliburton has stolen in just the last 5 years.


broken record. I guess when Haliburton won no bid contracts under Clinton it wasn't 'stolen'. weak.

[Rushville]

Rushville.
I watched a portion of the panels discussion the other day.
They didn't use the term "Sales Tax".
They used "Value Added".

Aren't those two one and the same?

And I got the impression that most of the panel was for a "Value Added Tax".

Form what I have read about them so far, the panel has either not read the FairTax plan, or they have purposely misrepresented it in order to be sure that it doesn't get passed. The FairTax is not at all like a Value Added Tax. Germany has the VAT. And with that, the govt. still has the power to manipulate it and the people any way they want. From what i have heard about the panels' reporting to the president, they have said that no major overhaul of the current system is needed and there is no better idea out there. Instead, they believe that home-owner deductions should be taken away from people who own homes with values exceeding $300,000. So they have added another line to the current code and they have made it more complicated for the IRS to track thereby increasing the cost of compliance. And the only end result is a tax increase for the rich. That completely ignore the 3 goals set forth by the President. Every day he doesn't come out and say that this panel was complete waste of time and taxpayers' money, the more I believe your are right about how bogus this whole thing is.

By the way, have you seen the bios of the panel members? Former senators and other govt. officials and the former director of the IRS. Nice panel. :roll:

[DrDetroit]

Rushville.
I watched a portion of the panels discussion the other day.
They didn't use the term "Sales Tax".
They used "Value Added".

Aren't those two one and the same?

No, they're not the same, dumbfuck.

While I don't claim to be any expert on fiscal taxation

Is there some other kind of governmental taxation, dolt?

and revenue, I DO think I know what a guy like Bush and his cronies are ultimately up to.

No, you don't shit, but you'll lie about it nonetheless.

They want to SQUEEZE the ever livin shit out of the upward mobility working classes. (Read, Middle Classes) The "near" poor.

The middle class is near poor??

The people who DREAM of having enough breaks and credits to actuallt afford to send their kids to college. Or not have to give up most of their families healthcare coverages.

Seriously, who are you talking about?

Or the ability to deduct things like taxes allready paid to a city or state!!

Has that been repealed?

And why shouldn't it be appealed? You are aware that the federal deduction, in essence, subsidizes high state and local tax rates, right? It permits local and state governments to levy high tax rates knowing that residents will get back a small portion of those. By repealing the deduction, state and local governments will be compelled to reduce their own tax rates. Hence, the savings from that will be greater than the marginal deduction for state and local taxes.

[DrDetroit]

Rushville, I don't know whether the President's tax commission considered this particular plan or not, however, you should understand what the commission did. It was recommending eliminating the mortgage interest deduction and state/local tax deduction as a meams of off-setting other tax reductions.

This is why their proposal was so ridiculous.

They failed their President and the President should abandon the commission's work and recommendations in total and re-convene a new panel with an even more explicit mission and set of objectives.

[BSmack]

I actually don't belive a flat tax makes sense at all. A true flat tax still punishes achievement.

If everybody is getting the same percentage of their income taken, how is that punishing achievement?

Here's another description of the FairTax for you. Imagine instead of having taxes deducted from your paycheck, you get 100% of what you earned. Then, at the beginning of every month, you get a prebate check for the amount of taxes you would pay for the basic neccessities. (i.e. for my family of 4 I would get about $425) So I get an extra $425 per month and I get 100% of my paycheck. Then, when I go to the store, milk is still $2.75/gal. Bread is still $1.99. Everything is still at the approximate price it was before the FairTax was implemented. And, to top it all off, the govt. is actually taking in more tax revenue than it was with the income tax.

Sounds like a very convoluted plan. I'd still prefer that the government decide what it needs to spend as a percentage of the GDP and then assess that percentage as the income tax. End of problem.

[DrDetroit]

If you prefer that the government determine what it needs to spend as a % of GDP...how can you possibly ever complain about the level of spending between Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress? Since 2001 federal spending as a share of GDP has decreased by .5%. Yet, you routinely condemn this President and Republicans for run-away spending (which, in and of tiself is absurd given that Democrats proposed even more spending over that same time).

Unfuck yourself, dolt.

Any tax levy punishes success, period. A tax is a negative in every and all instances.

[mothster]

well at least i tried----------

steve 'i just bit into a lemon' forbes

[BSmack]

If you prefer that the government determine what it needs to spend as a % of GDP...how can you possibly ever complain about the level of spending between Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress? Since 2001 federal spending as a share of GDP has decreased by .5%. Yet, you routinely condemn this President and Republicans for run-away spending (which, in and of tiself is absurd given that Democrats proposed even more spending over that same time).

The problem is that revenue as a share of GDP has dropped even more.

Any tax levy punishes success, period. A tax is a negative in every and all instances.

A tax is necessary. One of these days you Republitards will realize that.

[Rushville]

I actually don't belive a flat tax makes sense at all. A true flat tax still punishes achievement.

If everybody is getting the same percentage of their income taken, how is that punishing achievement?

Here's another description of the FairTax for you. Imagine instead of having taxes deducted from your paycheck, you get 100% of what you earned. Then, at the beginning of every month, you get a prebate check for the amount of taxes you would pay for the basic neccessities. (i.e. for my family of 4 I would get about $425) So I get an extra $425 per month and I get 100% of my paycheck. Then, when I go to the store, milk is still $2.75/gal. Bread is still $1.99. Everything is still at the approximate price it was before the FairTax was implemented. And, to top it all off, the govt. is actually taking in more tax revenue than it was with the income tax.

Sounds like a very convoluted plan. I'd still prefer that the government decide what it needs to spend as a percentage of the GDP and then assess that percentage as the income tax. End of problem.

Flat tax:

Citizen makes $30,000 @ flat tax rate of 15%, they pay $4,500 in taxes.

Citizen who achieves and makes $1,000,000 is taxed 15% and pays $150,000 in taxes.

That's assuming both the $30K earner and the $1mil earner have legit jobs.

Now let's try the FairTax model:

Accountant makes $30,000 with no income tax and takes it all home. Get prebate check and the prices of retail goods stay about the same. I'd say he comes out ahead.

Cocaine dealer brings in $1,000,000 and wouldn't pay any taxes under an income tax system. But with a cunsumption tax system, he now contributes to govt. programs (i.e. Social Security and Medicare) when he goes out and buys his Escalade or H3. Government comes out ahead on this guy.

Now you've called the plan "convoluted." Please explain how it's convoluted.

[KatMode]

We were discussing whether corporate welfare was greater than welfare for the poor. Your comments are inane and immaterial.

A while ago I was trying to convince you guys that the FairTax proposal was actually fair. Anybody care to get back to that?

I just took a look at the website and at the FAQ. Now, admittingly I am no expert in the tax code, but I did find this bit interesting and could cause the most problems:

Is the FairTax fair? Yes, the FairTax is fair, and in fact, much fairer than the income tax. Wealthy people spend more money than other individuals. They buy expensive cars, big houses, and yachts. They buy filet mignon instead of hamburger, fine wine instead of beer, designer dresses, and expensive jewelry. The FairTax taxes them on these purchases. If, however, they use their money to build job-creating factories, finance research and development to create new products, or fund charitable activities (all of which help improve the standard of living of others), then those activities are not taxed.

There's your loophole for the rich. All they have to do with their comsuption spending is to have their lawyers find ways of turning "comsumption" into "improving the standard living of others". And they will get away with it, too. Also, who's to say these fuckers aren't going to circumvent this idea by using corporate accounts and hiding their comsumption by calling it "corporate" neccessities?

Will corporations get a windfall with the abolition of the corporate tax? Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes.

So corporations won't have to pay taxes on their own consumption? Sorry, but I call bullshit on that. They are a service/goods utilizing entity just like people - Fuck 'em.

How are state tax systems affected, and can states adequately collect a federal sales tax? No state is required to repeal its income tax or piggyback its sales tax on the federal tax.

So you STILL may get fucked by your own state.

What other significant economies use such a tax plan? Two of the largest economies in the world rely almost solely on sales taxes: Florida and Texas.

Who the hell wrote this shit? Two of the largest economies in the world are Texas and Florida? I call bullshit on that as well.

Could we end up with both the FairTax and an income tax? No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. Moreover, concurrent with the repeal of the income tax, a constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment and prohibiting an income tax will be pushed through Congress for ratification by the states.

Ah... take a look at what was written only a few points ago regarding state income taxes. Then think about it.

Those are just a few things that jumped out at me as I scanned the FAQ.

[KatMode]

Who the hell wrote this shit? Two of the largest economies in the world are Texas and Florida? I call bullshit on that as well.

That would be because you are a fucking moron.

Show some proof then - that Texas and Florida are two of the largest economies in the world.

[DrDetroit]

If you prefer that the government determine what it needs to spend as a % of GDP...how can you possibly ever complain about the level of spending between Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress? Since 2001 federal spending as a share of GDP has decreased by .5%. Yet, you routinely condemn this President and Republicans for run-away spending (which, in and of tiself is absurd given that Democrats proposed even more spending over that same time).

The problem is that revenue as a share of GDP has dropped even more.

Any tax levy punishes success, period. A tax is a negative in every and all instances.

A tax is necessary. One of these days you Republitards will realize that.

a) So your problem, in essence, is the budget deficit. So, if you want the feds to rely on the % of GDP that expenditures represent to set tax policy, why not then also look at the budget deficit as a share or % of GDP?

b) I don't think any reasonable Republican has promoted the idea of abolishing all taxes...do you also rely on red herrings, too?

[DrDetroit]

KatMode:

There's your loophole for the rich. All they have to do with their comsuption spending is to have their lawyers find ways of turning "comsumption" into "improving the standard living of others". And they will get away with it, too. Also, who's to say these fuckers aren't going to circumvent this idea by using corporate accounts and hiding their comsumption by calling it "corporate" neccessities?

The part you highlighted does not represent a "loophole" for anyone. Buying a 100 foot yacht cannot ever be turned into investment into research and development.

On the other hand, they are arguing that the FairTax system is much more fair because it, by the consumption habits of the wealthy, imposes a sort of luxury tax on the wealthy. Not all spending is uniform, i.e., the poor do not consume the same level of goods and services as the wealthy.

So you STILL may get fucked by your own state.

You probably will in the short-term until the state and local governments get the idea.

Who the hell wrote this shit? Two of the largest economies in the world are Texas and Florida? I call bullshit on that as well.

As a measure of GDP...yes.