Read the book, read the book, read the book. read the book, read the book, read the bopok, reed the bark, ream thu bang, reef the reef, rime the bocker

As if everyone interested hasn't read that crap and discarded it. All theory. Not practical nor acceptable to most humans.
Sounds vry much like the TV ads: "only 10.99 plus shipping and handling." We will give you two for 10.99 if you order NOW, I know we told you that for six months, but we mean it when we say it!) plus shipping and handling for each one. (s & h = 23.95 x 2)(teenie weenie print out of focus.)

There are more con artists now than non-conartists!

Do away with sales tax and income tax---just charge for our goods, services, inventions, military help, ideas, patents, etc., at the docks! Quit buying crap from Overseas!
Raise all of our food ourselves, make our own clothes and gadgets, and everyone will have enough to do and get paid better.

Learn to type and learn to spell, learn to type and learn to spell...Fait?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

As you already know, I am a supporter of the FairTax. The purpose of my post was to show the difference between the two potential CinCs and thier outlook upon tax "reform".

Additionally, I am in favor of a plan, any feasible plan, that moves us away fom the current broken system of punishing the people for working hard. Like I stated before, most of us understand the need for taxes, not the abolition of them. There is a better way, and re-distribution of said taxes is not reform.

In response to your question, it's about power. Plain and simple. One side of the aisle is for it. The other is not. Now ask yourself the same question. Why is that?

"The one constant in all of your failed relationships is you."

This is just another way for people making more money to complain about paying taxes.

Who on this earth wants to pay anywhere from 23% to 75% additional on everything they purchase? I say 75% because it would simply be raised every year.
What are 70% of our people to do who make about 35,000 dollars per year?
The stupid monthly stipend proposed would go for taxes at the counter for maybe half of what they would have to have.

Isn't lawyer fees, etc., already out of their range?

The operative word in your post is "Stupid", and that applies to your post. The FairTax, regardless of the rate, is NOT IN ADDITION TO THE PRICE OF A PRODUCT OR SERVICE. With the FairTax in place it will be visible on every receipt, The public will know instantly if congress tries to raise the rate, not like now.

Your post suggests anger and emotion. If you've read either of the FairTax books or been on the website, and did not use selective retention, your view would be much different. You may also have vested interest in the present code. If so why not state it?

Why would you think that the tax is not in addition to the price of a service? Do you expect that services which are now untaxed like accountants fees and legal fees will be reduced by 23% before the FairTax is imposed? Why would that possibly happen? Do you think your utilities like gas and electricity are going to be cut by 23% before the tax is added? Gasoline is going to magically drop by 23% before the tax is added? How about your rent? Why would rent be lowered by 23% before it is taxed? Of course this tax will be added in addition to the price of a product or service.

"One side of the aisle is for it. The other is not. Now ask yourself the same question. Why is that?"

Which side of the aisle is for it? There was zero consideration for the tax when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. The Republicans controlled the House, where the tax legislation would be considered, for years and years and years and yet the FairTax bill never got any kind of serious consideration.

Have you seen the names of the co-sponsors, congressional/senate and additional supporters of HR25 and S1025?
Here is your answer...

http://www.fairtax.org/cgi-bin/scorecard.cgi

I don't see too many "X's" next to the "D's".

"The one constant in all of your failed relationships is you."

Why no movement? Not even a single committee hearing, even when the Republicans totally controlled the House. Was it that they were just lying about being serious about tax reform or was it that they were just incompetent in running the committees? Or was it all just a hoax? As you know, I view the bill as deeply flawed to the point of not being a serious proposal. It seems that the Congress sees it the same way.

Therefore, this bill has ZERO chance of passing.

but it puts the power into the hands of the individual to control his own destiny. As time passes, and our economy grows progessively worse (I do not believe that government is the answer to anything that ails us), we may have to push to make the changes necessary to sustain our liberties.

Those that currently benefit from government pay through social security, social security disability or any other social program, lobbyists and those that hold "progressive" views will be our strongest adversaries. With any hope, they will see that there will be little hope for future generations unless they agree to tighten their purse strings, work and take responsibility for the future of this country as everyone else will have to do.

I believe that it will come through necessity. The alternative is much more frightening.

Glad to see you aboard.

"The one constant in all of your failed relationships is you."

Again, it's all about power. When it comes to taxes, the politicians will always bow to the lobbyists and special interest groups rather than their constituents. The people want reform, but the bucket resides with clueless washington types. You know that the politicians can swing voters with finger pointing. "Look, that guy wants to take away your social secutity." Or, "This guy wants to raise your taxes." Or even better, "I'll give you a program that will fix all of your little special interests needs (at a cost to everyone else)".

If you recall in my post that I wrote that anything is better than the current broken system. A system of zero transparency for the very people footing the bill. The FairTax just seems to be the most viable fix. Is it perfect? Nope. Is the current system? Most definitely not! We cannot continue down the road that we are on, and not expect national bankruptcy. I'm not asking for whirled pees here, just a reform that makes sense.

"The one constant in all of your failed relationships is you."

NOTA, I wish I had a British pound Sterling for every time a conservative typed something out of thin air and wished it to be truth.

"The people want reform, but the bucket resides with clueless washington types."

NOTA08, the minority of people who actually believe in the unwieldy FairTax are republicans. Republicans had a clear proponent of the Fairtax to vote for in the GOP primaries. He was every bit a "conservative." He was a Christian with an off-the -scale liekeability. And......... he got his hat handed to him by Republicans. John McCain and Mitt Romney, who do not support the Fairtax, led him in the GOP primaries.

So, you know Democrats are not Fair Tax supporters. The majority of Republican primary voters rejected the one guy who ran heavily on the Fair Tax. Soooooo..... how do you figure the people want the Fair Tax?

Here is another one......

"The FairTax just seems to be the most viable fix. Is it perfect? Nope. Is the current system? Most definitely not! We cannot continue down the road that we are on, and not expect national bankruptcy. I'm not asking for whirled pees here, just a reform that makes sense."

The FairTax seems to be "most viable" to whom? I would contend it seems viable to a group of people equal in size to the group of Americans who want to see President Bush impeached. Both groups lack sufficient size or support to ever see their pipe dreams realized.

Some of us see restrained spending and abandoning nation building as a more viable way to avoid national bankruptcy. I have to admit that you FairTax types don't die easily. It's as if you don't want to admit that your FairTax bumper stickers were as big a waste of money as the "Huckabee08" bumper stickers were. You can continue to attempt to beat the dead horse back to life though. Have a good weekend.

Cheers,

Hack

You make some very valid points. However you miss one of the biggest reasons the FairTax is not already law. Besides congress wanting to hold onto the social engineering aspects of the FairTax the ignorance and apathy of the general public comes into play big time. This is changing though. The public is getting more educated each day and circumstances are making them care. The support for the FairTax grows everyday. A relatively small percentage of the population wanted to revolt against England. This will happen with the FairTax.
Bush was absolutely stupid to not push the FairTax instead of his attempt at Social Security reform. The FairTax IS the cure for Social Security. Huckabee had a great response during the debates when told the FairTax wouldn't pass. He said, " I'm tired of hearing what we can't do." I agree with that.

...can be used for social engineering every bit as much as the present wasteland known as the tax code, maybe even more so. When you start out the principle with the idea that lots of people are suddenly going to be getting a monthly check from the government, you have the distinct potential for political gaming of the system that makes the present one look almost restrained.

There is a lot of smoke and mirrors with the Fair Tax argument, one of which being that Milton Friedman somehow supports it wholeheartedly. He never said that. He thought it MIGHT be a solution but also wondered how it could be done in practical terms, the same argument used now by doubters of FT. One also has to remember that back when Friedman was talking about negative income taxes and what is now called FT, he was also saying that deficits aren't too bad because they restrain governmental spending. That's proven to definitely be a false and very outdated assumption. He was also a big fan of government having absolute currency control in order to directly control the prices of goods and services. Libertarians hate that idea and so do a lot of Friedman's fellow free-market thinkers.

The idea of adding a 23% tax on goods and then giving everyone a check or credit to make up the difference is beyond voodoo economics; it's something like science fiction economics. It also has the same weak spot of politicians having way too much opportunity to change the system on a whim. An ideal solution is one that is nearly impervious to political agenda meddling and would require basically a constitutional amendment to change. The present tax system looks like a sick joke played by a sadist, but I don't see the FT as being the solution at all.

"The support for the FairTax grows everyday. A relatively small percentage of the population wanted to revolt against England. This will happen with the FairTax.
Bush was absolutely stupid ..."

So, what's old Mike Huckabee up to these days? You think our President with his silver tongue could have somehow garnered more support for this snake oil tax scheme? REALLY? Can't argue with your last statement though, but it has nothing to do with a farce tax.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

If Bush had explained the FairTax " the way it is written ", Yes I believe he would have garnered more support than Huckabee. We have three ways of curing Social Security. 1. raise the rate on workers 2. cut the benefits for those collecting 3. Broaden the Tax base through the FairTax. He could have explained the FairTax in his State of the Union Address. This would not have been a mere sound bite on the news. Like him or not it would have been the President talking about real change and killing two birds with one stone. Does this mean the FairTax would have passed into law already? Hardly, tax laws are written in the House. Our, and I mean all citizens, biggest problem next to the tax code is the fact that we do not have term limits on congress and no one in congress truly represents the states. Along with the 16th amendment the 17th amendment should be repealed. It's quite interesting to me that as hard as it is to amend the constitution, two of the most detrimental amendments to the people of this country were both passed in 1913.

Today we have a congress with an approval rating in the 20's. History shows the dramatic changes that have occurred in this country since 1913. Our Founding Fathers were very vocal in their opposition to a tax on income. The socialist movement in 1913 was armoured with Karl Marx. The power our tax code creates for congress is ludicrous. A tax code should collect taxes. Dare I say, in the fairest, simplest, and most transparent way. It should not be the tool for social engineering it has become. I believe there are many Karl Marx supporters still around today in our political ranks.

it never ceases to amaze me that there is this constant talk about "term limits". We already have the best form of term limit known...it is called voting. Why should we legislate even MORE power away from the voters? If we can't get the Westmorelands of the Congress out of office, why should be pass another law to do it for us? Keep the faith.

Even a dead fish can go with the flow.

Yardman,

I would agree with you except for one major flaw. The fact is we have a horribly uneducated and apathetic electorate. Also, with a little thinking it's easy to see once again how much of a role or tax system plays in getting many of these people elected over and over again.

And many of them can be found right here, on this website. Thanks for the back-up tkrop. Many people seem to look to one of the candidates that touts the "Change" mantra. Now that change confronts them, they can't, or won't. The FairTax seems like "change" to me. I'm ready, but those that want Obama's change also want also want socialism. Just my educated point of view.

"The one constant in all of your failed relationships is you."

You're welcome NOTA, anytime. An excerpt from a letter I had published in the newspaper was for people to look up the definitions of Democracy, Socialism, Republic, and Communism. I asked them to do this before they chose a Presidential or any Congressional candidate.
I said they should first pick the kind of government they wanted then they could vote based on facts and logic rather than hope and emotion.
I said the candidates are telling us the type of government they want. Are you listening?

Thanks for your posts also!