Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[deal with it]

Synergy wrote:

<quoted text>
Look! You know as well as I that whomever is president when A, B or C happens, the sitting president gets the credit or the blame. So, you're saying that you aren't accustomed to hearing people speak the president's name when they are complaining or praising the government???? How many times did the Obama worshippers claim that Obama got Bin Ladin? Actually, the Navy Seals got Bin Ladin, but Obama was the hero because it happened on his watch. If you deny that, you aren't being honest.

Yea sure, Obama gave to Ok to make the kill. Your hero poser Bush passed at the very beginning of the war, thats a fact. Deal with it

[Lived there]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
Fairtax.org , will solve a whole lot of issues.

HELL NO!

That's basically suggesting a federal VAT tax which would hit the middle and lower economic class the hardest by extracting a disproportional percentage of their income - even for basics!

Consider this: if there's no federal income tax and you're making $10 mill (net), paying $20 for a pound of hamburger meat ($5 for the meat,$10 for the federal government, plus 6-9% for the state, plus any local tax assessments, usually .5%), you'd come out WAY ahead. BUT, if you're only making $20 thousand (net) you'd still be paying the same price as the rich man for that same meat but the $20 would cost WAY more in terms of percentage of your net income.

The wealthy would love it, the rest of us would suffer.

Add to that: given the way Congress likes to spend, do you honestly believe they'd completely do away with the income tax on the middle class? Do you honestly believe they'd leave the VAT tax at the level they start with and not inch it up a tenth of a percentage point at a time, like they have on so many other things?

[Informed Opinion]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>HELL NO!

That's basically suggesting a federal VAT tax which would hit the middle and lower economic class the hardest by extracting a disproportional percentage of their income - even for basics!

Consider this: if there's no federal income tax and you're making $10 mill (net), paying $20 for a pound of hamburger meat ($5 for the meat,$10 for the federal government, plus 6-9% for the state, plus any local tax assessments, usually .5%), you'd come out WAY ahead. BUT, if you're only making $20 thousand (net) you'd still be paying the same price as the rich man for that same meat but the $20 would cost WAY more in terms of percentage of your net income.

The wealthy would love it, the rest of us would suffer.

Add to that: given the way Congress likes to spend, do you honestly believe they'd completely do away with the income tax on the middle class? Do you honestly believe they'd leave the VAT tax at the level they start with and not inch it up a tenth of a percentage point at a time, like they have on so many other things?

Agreed, the VAT, because it is a sales or consumption tax, is regressive and works against the middle class and poor.

I am using 15% as the accumulated tax paid by the final consumer, but pick any number you like - as the principle remains unchanged.

Consider, you make $40K a year and because you have a wife and kid(s), you spend $40K a year, and absorb the full impact of the VAT.

If the VAT is an effect tax rate of 15%, you are paying all 15% on your income.

But, if you're a hedge fund investor who makes $300 Million a year, or executive who makes $20 Million a year, you make only spend a paltry $3 Million a year maintaining your lifestyle.

The $297 Million or the $17 Million won't be taxed, it will be maintained or "invested", resulting in the accumulations of wealth even more vast than exist today.

The hedge fund investor would pay 15% on 1% of his income or 0.15% effective tax rate on income; and the executive would pay 15% on 15% or 2.2% effective tax rate on income.

Maybe I misunderstand though, and stand ready to be corrected.

[General Robert E Lee]

Lived there wrote:

<quoted text>
HELL NO!
That's basically suggesting a federal VAT tax which would hit the middle and lower economic class the hardest by extracting a disproportional percentage of their income - even for basics!
Consider this: if there's no federal income tax and you're making $10 mill (net), paying $20 for a pound of hamburger meat ($5 for the meat,$10 for the federal government, plus 6-9% for the state, plus any local tax assessments, usually .5%), you'd come out WAY ahead. BUT, if you're only making $20 thousand (net) you'd still be paying the same price as the rich man for that same meat but the $20 would cost WAY more in terms of percentage of your net income.
The wealthy would love it, the rest of us would suffer.
Add to that: given the way Congress likes to spend, do you honestly believe they'd completely do away with the income tax on the middle class? Do you honestly believe they'd leave the VAT tax at the level they start with and not inch it up a tenth of a percentage point at a time, like they have on so many other things?

I agree on one point. We will not see the Fair tax in our lifetime.

Regarding your "meat" example, no matter what the tax is, rich and poor pay the same price for "meat" now, no difference. Also the "rich" guy will spend and be taxed on $50K+m cars, the poor guy will only be taxed on a $15K car. The same goes for everything else.

Have you read both books regarding the Fair Tax?

[Bill in Dville]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Have you read both books regarding the Fair Tax?

We've had FairTax discussions in here before...

No, it's quite obvious they haven't read the books and it's more obvious they don't understand how the proposed FairTax would work (you don't have to read the books to understand). Not surprised, are you? Goes right along with "clueless and uneducated" sentiment perfectly. People that don't know what they're talking about espousing the liberal party lines...

For those clueless and uneducated, research the "prebate" portion of the FairTax proposal. For those at the poverty line, they would, essentially, pay NO FairTax, so someone saying it would impact them more so than someone else is quite wrong.

All these people that bitch about companies and individuals having money in overseas banks don't understand that the majority of the time it's for tax reasons, tax reasons that would not exist if the FairTax were enacted.

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed, the VAT, because it is a sales or consumption tax, is regressive and works against the middle class and poor.
I am using 15% as the accumulated tax paid by the final consumer, but pick any number you like - as the principle remains unchanged.
Consider, you make $40K a year and because you have a wife and kid(s), you spend $40K a year, and absorb the full impact of the VAT.
If the VAT is an effect tax rate of 15%, you are paying all 15% on your income.
But, if you're a hedge fund investor who makes $300 Million a year, or executive who makes $20 Million a year, you make only spend a paltry $3 Million a year maintaining your lifestyle.
The $297 Million or the $17 Million won't be taxed, it will be maintained or "invested", resulting in the accumulations of wealth even more vast than exist today.
The hedge fund investor would pay 15% on 1% of his income or 0.15% effective tax rate on income; and the executive would pay 15% on 15% or 2.2% effective tax rate on income.
Maybe I misunderstand though, and stand ready to be corrected.

As in most things tax related, you do misunderstand or don't know. That being said, there are ways you can learn about it...

BTW, the % in your example is still 15%(although the proposed rate is 23%, which is said to be the imbedded accumulated tax rate on things we purchase now) for ALL people (seems fair that we all pay the same rate), even though at lower rates of spending (income does NOT matter, it's not an INCOME tax), the effective rate will be lower, or 0%, or even negative because of the prebate. Look it up.

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
...
But, if you're a hedge fund investor who makes $300 Million a year, or executive who makes $20 Million a year, you make only spend a paltry $3 Million a year maintaining your lifestyle.
The $297 Million or the $17 Million won't be taxed, it will be maintained or "invested", resulting in the accumulations of wealth even more vast than exist today.
The hedge fund investor would pay 15% on 1% of his income or 0.15% effective tax rate on income; and the executive would pay 15% on 15% or 2.2% effective tax rate on income.
Maybe I misunderstand though, and stand ready to be corrected.

LMAO, you sure have something against people that make a lot of money, don't you? How many people make $300M or even $20M a year? If you take ALL of their income (100% income tax), it doesn't put much of a dent in the deficit this country has.

You are correct on one thing though, their income is not taxed under the FairTax, only their spending.

Let me give another example of why it's a better idea (there are MANY more, read the book): someone is fairly wealthy, retired and most or all of their investments are in tax free muni bonds or similar, so they have NO taxable income and NO federal income tax. Yet, they still spend a good bit of money. Under the current system, they pay no federal income tax. Under the FairTax, they'd pay a good bit because they continue to spend.

A friend of mine on Topix knows someone in that situation...

[General Robert E Lee]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
We've had FairTax discussions in here before...
No, it's quite obvious they haven't read the books and it's more obvious they don't understand how the proposed FairTax would work (you don't have to read the books to understand). Not surprised, are you? Goes right along with "clueless and uneducated" sentiment perfectly. People that don't know what they're talking about espousing the liberal party lines...
For those clueless and uneducated, research the "prebate" portion of the FairTax proposal. For those at the poverty line, they would, essentially, pay NO FairTax, so someone saying it would impact them more so than someone else is quite wrong.
All these people that bitch about companies and individuals having money in overseas banks don't understand that the majority of the time it's for tax reasons, tax reasons that would not exist if the FairTax were enacted.

I know, I just keep trying to get people to come to the answer on their own, and without confrontation. The Fair tax is, IMO, the best option out there. I cannot recall any naysayer having come up with a better solution, yet they constantly complain about what "system" we have now. I demanded (for lack of a better word) that anyone working under me, or for me, better come with a possible solution for whatever their complaint was. I guess that habit continues on in my retirement.

[jeb stuart]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree on one point. We will not see the Fair tax in our lifetime.
Regarding your "meat" example, no matter what the tax is, rich and poor pay the same price for "meat" now, no difference. Also the "rich" guy will spend and be taxed on $50K+m cars, the poor guy will only be taxed on a $15K car. The same goes for everything else.
Have you read both books regarding the Fair Tax?

i admit that i have not read the books and know very little about'fair tax',but is this the same or similar to a flat rate?

[General Robert E Lee]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>i admit that i have not read the books and know very little about'fair tax',but is this the same or similar to a flat rate?

Not to be rude, but read the books. They are worth the time.

[jeb stuart]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to be rude, but read the books. They are worth the time.

that's not rude,give titles and authors,please.

[Lived there]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

[General Robert E Lee]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>that's not rude,give titles and authors,please.

The Fair Tax Book - Neil Boortz and John Linder

Fair Tax: The truth: Answering The Critics - Boortz and Linder.

[jeb stuart]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

<quoted text>
The Fair Tax Book - Neil Boortz and John Linder
Fair Tax: The truth: Answering The Critics - Boortz and Linder.

thanks

[Informed Opinion]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>LMAO, you sure have something against people that make a lot of money, don't you? How many people make $300M or even $20M a year? If you take ALL of their income (100% income tax), it doesn't put much of a dent in the deficit this country has.

You are correct on one thing though, their income is not taxed under the FairTax, only their spending.

Let me give another example of why it's a better idea (there are MANY more, read the book): someone is fairly wealthy, retired and most or all of their investments are in tax free muni bonds or similar, so they have NO taxable income and NO federal income tax. Yet, they still spend a good bit of money. Under the current system, they pay no federal income tax. Under the FairTax, they'd pay a good bit because they continue to spend.

A friend of mine on Topix knows someone in that situation...

Nope.
I love rich people.
I love corporations.
Both provide me a very reasonable income providing them consultations and advice related to very specific issues.
Both are as diverse as all others less affluent than they.

What is interesting is, rather than demonstrating an error in the analysis leading to the conclusion you dislike, you feel the the need to create a "Strawman" to attack.

It is instructive when someone suggests that all Americans pay the same tax rate, on all sources of income,
an obviously fair, simple, and reasonable method of raising revenue,
the response is to attack the proponent of "hatred" and "envy".

A more blatant concession that no legitimate argument exists is difficult to imagine.

Perhaps some facts and analysis would lend more credibility than specious attacks.

Ah,... but that's the point. No such facts or analysis is available.

Hey, gotta run,.. meeting today for lunch at a beach front hotel with some of those rich people I hate so much. They'll be interested to learn of your discovery of my heretofore hidden animosity.

[Bill in Dville]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>thanks

I've made this offer many times and haven't had to pay off yet. However, some people I loaned them my copy and said I would be them the finest dinner in town (their choice of restaurant) if they thought it was not a good idea. No, they didn't have to have dinner with me...

IF you buy the books, read them AND understand them and you're not for it or think it's a good idea, I will pay for the books (if you send them to me), so this educational opportunity is "no risk". I will add the books to my "share with others" pile.

Note: I will ask you several questions to make sure you understand the concepts and the rationale.

I have yet to meet someone that understood the concepts that didn't think it was a good idea. Granted, our elected officials won't go for it, as it takes MAJOR power (taxing authority) out of their hands and there would be some challenges in getting it implemented (interstate commerce and such, I'm told), but it would really benefit this country and is FAIR. Those that say the rich don't pay their "fair share" can't complain about loopholes and tax breaks, as there would be no income taxes. Oh yeah, all those people that get paid cash (illegal immigrants, people getting paid "under the table) would be paying their fair share, too...

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.
I love rich people.
I love corporations.
Both provide me a very reasonable income providing them consultations and advice related to very specific issues.
Both are as diverse as all others less affluent than they.
What is interesting is, rather than demonstrating an error in the analysis leading to the conclusion you dislike, you feel the the need to create a "Strawman" to attack.
It is instructive when someone suggests that all Americans pay the same tax rate, on all sources of income,
an obviously fair, simple, and reasonable method of raising revenue,
the response is to attack the proponent of "hatred" and "envy".
A more blatant concession that no legitimate argument exists is difficult to imagine.
Perhaps some facts and analysis would lend more credibility than specious attacks.
Ah,... but that's the point. No such facts or analysis is available.
Hey, gotta run,.. meeting today for lunch at a beach front hotel with some of those rich people I hate so much. They'll be interested to learn of your discovery of my heretofore hidden animosity.

Sorry, I'm not able to understand what you posted, it's not clear.

What is clear is you have a serious case of wealth envy and don't understand our tax system and how it works.

[Synergy]

deal with it wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea sure, Obama gave to Ok to make the kill. Your hero poser Bush passed at the very beginning of the war, thats a fact. Deal with it

Your other hero, Clinton, passed on the kill. Could have saved us some grief. YOU deal with it. Actually, YOUR hero poser, Obama, was pressured into giving the OK. Deal with it! Sheesh..

[Columbus Native]

deal with it wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea sure, Obama gave to Ok to make the kill. Your hero poser Bush passed at the very beginning of the war, thats a fact. Deal with it

After President Cheney and Vice president Bush got their con job done by getting us into Iraq, they could care less about Bin Laden. These two made off with millions and Haliburton was their catalyst. They F's the American public and are now laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts.

[Synergy]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>again,i really don't,but looking towards the future-i do kinda like susan eisenhower,but she is not ready for this mess yet.it is too bad that we don't have roosevelt,teddy or franklin(as you know,one was a rep.the other a dem.)but i do believe we should all be open to suggestions since the situation is definitely dire.party affifilation not withstanding.

I read her wikipedia profile. There are a few things about her that are concerning to me.
I am still thinking about whom I would choose.