* Tax Reform and why it is necessary.

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Tax Reform and why it is necessary.

--Cut and pasted from sniffles comment-- Okay, you feel that we are in serious need of tax reform. Fair enough. Can you tell me in a few short sentences what you don't like about the existing progressive tax system? I'm curious.

Thank you for having the courage to admit that a barrel of $100 crude oil will cost $130. SLindsey can learn from your example.

I have four major issues with the so-called "fair tax":

1. Disproportional impact on certain industries, specifically transportation, health care and housing.
1a. In my original link above, I show how the so-called "fairtax" has a disproptionate adverse effect on imported commodities, the largest of which is oil, of course. As currently implemented, the so-called "fairtax" would raise gas and fuel (heating) oil prices about 22%. There is no way to achieve revenue neutrality on imported commodities. The transportation sector (trucking, hauling, taxis) would have a much higher cost basis.
1b. Health care would become taxable. Remarkably, Georgia is one of 21 states that require health insurance plans to pay any sales tax levied on health care. This WILL result in a higher premium basis. Also, the uninsured have just seen their health care costs, previously untaxed, skyrocket. I had a sick child last year that had nearly $30,000 worth of hospital bills. Had I not had insurance, a "fairtax" adjusted bill would have had me spend an additional $9,000 in taxes in the name of revenue neutrality.
1c. I've shown several examples in the past on how the so-called "fairtax" would essentially destroy the homebuilding industry. Everyone who currently owns a home is now sitting on a 30% price differential between his/her home and that of a new home ("used" Homes are not subject to the fairtax).

2. Jeffc has shown time and again how the implementation of the so-called "fairtax" will NOT increase your take home pay.

3. The so-called "fairtax" implements a tax on all imports, making it cheaper to produce things in the USA. It doesn't take into account the tit-for-tat nature of tariffs (which the so-called "fairtax" essentially is for imports). Countries undoubtedly will retaliate against our newly imposed 30% surcharge with tariffs of their own, making it more difficult to export American goods.

4. The inherent flaw of price inelasticity in professions where there is a high barrier to entry. The so-called "fairtax" model presumes that market forces will drive the purported 27% "inherent cost" down and that the savings will be passed on to the consumer. Consider industries where there are very few practitioners due to a high cost of entry (i.e. cardiac surgeon for example). My cardiac surgeon may have his costs go down, but owing to the lack of competition (who price shops surgeons?) there is no need for him/her to lower his/her prices. He/she has realized a windfall at my expense.

I won't ask you to justify the so-called "fairtax" on an intellectual basis, I think you're smarter than that. I'm simply pointing out my opinion that, in addition to having an adverse effect on taxpayers in the 30K-200K bracket, it has an adverse effect on certain industries as well.

The existing tax structure may be fundamentally flawed. I'm open to arguments as to its replacement, but I feel tha so-called "fairtax" is little more than snake-oil that depends on the average citizen's dislike of the IRS to promote a revised tax structure that would have them pay more.

I WILL COMMENT ON THIS TONIGHT-SNIFFLES

The Wedge's blog | login to post comments

Sniffles5- you keep

Submitted by The Wedge on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 10:43pm.

worse hours than I do. Have a good night. I hope you continue to post on this blog

Oh for Pete's sake

Submitted by Ken Hoagland on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 7:48pm.

We've raised and spent 22 million dollars on peer-reveiwed research and a lot of blood, sweat and tears to design and win a better national tax system. Got snarky critics here who have nothing better to do but tear it down. I'm sorry, I didn't hear your better idea or see any work on your part to get past the self-interests of Congress and tax lobbyists.

Is the FairTax better than what exists?--no question. Is it perfect--no, it's not. What national tax system can be? All the critical remarks, here, studiously avoid the destructive flaws of the current system. Let's do remember the 67,500 pages of income tax regulations, the $350 billion a year uncollected, the $300 billion a year in compliance costs, the highly regressive FICA taxes, the Alternative Minimum tax, the fact that Warren Buffer, the wealthiest mnan in the world pays a lower tax rate than his $65,000 a year secretary, and the daily corruption of the tax code as Congress sells off pieces of the tax code to the billion dollar a year tax lobby business. How about we weigh whether the FairTax is better than the income tax system as whole instead of whether it is perfect in every single respect?

I will say you are flat wrong on the distributional effects of lower tax burdens--the middle class are the second greatest beneficiaries. You would have to read the research of Larry Kollikoff of Boston University and formerly of Harvard to understand this. His research was also peer reveiwed. And, when the prebate reimburses 23% of a poverty level income that, by definition, means that federal income and payroll taxes--and the FairTax burden- are lifted from the shoulders of the poor.

Won't increase take home pay? Please. Eliminating withholding or payroll taxes means a lot. Does it mean that all taxes are eliminated? Obviously not. State taxes, excise taxes, user fees, health insurance and others costs can still be paid and still taken from paychecks. But ending FICA taxes alone means that paychecks go up at least 7.65% and 15.3% for ther self employed. Add income tax withholding and the denials I've seen here start to look pretty delusional. Or, maybe just the mark of a man who would kick if had one leg.

The income tax duns the three things that make the economy strong: work, savings and investment. The FairTax duns the broader base of consumption. With the FairTax we tax what comes out of the economy instead of what goes into the economy. Will it stunt consumption?--a lot of economists with spot on educations say "no" because of increased take home and increased eceonomic activity once capital formation is free from hobbling taxes. But why believe them?--the armchair is such a better credential.

Will gasoline prices go up? Yes, they certainly will because this commodity price is largely fixed outside the US. Will tax costs go down for oil companies large and small who are headquartered here? Yes, that is also true. That will either translate to higher wages and benefits or some reduction in price (no, not below FairTax added taxes). Is the FairTax still better because of exposure to the taxpayer of the cost of the government, because of the simplicity and even application? I would argue, "yes". Wille xisting wealth be taxed when spent? Yes. Will illegal immigrants join the tax base? Yes. Will Congress be stopped from granting exceptions? Yes--unless they raise the rate which will meet with a firestorm of protest from those who elect them.

This whole silly debate is about whether the practical should be killed off by the expectation of perfection. We believe this is far better and we have not heard a better idea, yet--most especially by armchair quarterbacks here who have not advanced an original idea ever. Better to shoot at others--easier, safer and far more smug.

It does not, however, move the nation a fraction of an inch forward. It's just argument without purpose. Doubts are healthy but dogged insistence when the facts indicate evolving conclusions is merely contrarian. That's lame.

And snake oil? Nasty but entirely wrong. Disagree about our conclusions until the cows come home but our motives are good. We're actually very sincere and working long hours for little money to make things better. Not quite the motive that makes your armchair more comfy? About time.

Ken.. Be very.. very carefull

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 8:22pm.

Sniffle will go on the attack throw out some inane points and declare himself the winner..and ask you to man up and admit his intelligence is greater... Jeff will just say you are a dunce..
Neither will give any options just declare your thought as invalid..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

S. Lindsey

Submitted by skyspy on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 7:36am.

You are catching on to the game.

Ken Hoaglan and Lindsey..........

Submitted by diva on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 1:14am.

"Is the FairTax better than what exists?--no question. "

Guys, this is getting sad. It's, once again, like the knight in Monty Python with no arms or legs saying, "Okay. We'll call it a draw."

First, Ken: No question the Fair Tax is better than what we have? No question? Why oh why, then, Ken, did Republicans not vote for the Fair Tax candidate in 2008? The Fair Tax is "unquestionably better" than what we have, right? Where was the REPUBLICAN support for this snake oil when The national leadership was of the GOP persuasion?

Here's the deal. If you have a great product, but NO ONE is buying it.... YOU DON"T HAVE A GREAT PRODUCT. Sorry to break it to you.

Lindsey, you have done your level best to label the opponents of the Fair Tax democrats, yet NEITHER PARTY has pushed this crap towards law. Bush, McCain, Cheney. They won't touch it.... because it is crap.

Every point Jeff or Sniff brought up, you had to link to a freakin thesaurus of Fair Tax talking points. Friendly advice, brother. If someone asks you a question about an idea, and you have to link to a website because you can't simply explain it? You're pedaling a formula for snake oil; miracle cream; Extendz. Any way you slice it, you ain't gonna sell it to anyone. That's why republicans in leadership haven't bought it en masse. That's why dems aren't buying it. That's why fair taxers have wasted money on bumper stickers and screamed fair tax fair tax in a vacuum. Just like social security going private, this is a failed conservative idea that won't become a good idea no matter how much pouting conservatives do.

Sorry dude.

And, Ken. The snake oil you push is irrespective of your "motives." You can fully mean to find a cure for cancer, but if you are pushing sugar pills to do it, you will fail regardless of your motives. That's just how life works. Don't take it so personally.

and again here on this thread...diva

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 7:52am.

You have got to get up to speed.. There are a lot of post here.. Please try to read them all before you go on the attack to defend poor Sniffles...
As to the COP Out.. he accepted a challenge to Wedge then differred to Jeff when it got a little tough.. So Cop Out..
As to my links.. isn't that what sniffles does ALL THE TIME.. Why is it OK for Snif to do it.. and not me.. hmmm I wonder.. oh thats right LIBERALS are always right..
As to the CUT and PASTE.. tried not to.. but Jeff nor Snif would read the links.. just kept saying still not answered.. I do not suppose to think I am so intelligent as to be able to paraphrase correctly the work of people with PHDs.. but go ahead feel free to do so..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

Its okay S.L

Submitted by mysteryman on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 8:05am.

Most of the casultys of the coming conflict will come in the opening week of hostilities, as the ignorant and mundane are caught in the crossfire trying to flee wondering what is going on, when everyone tried to warn them in advance to be prepared, these are the ones who will run right to the heart of the battle not knowing the difference. Without so much as even a rock to throw in their hand.. What a waste. There will be no time to get up to speed when the initial volley is salvo...BLESS...P.S You need to wear gloves when loading the Spent Uranium Fuel Rounds.........

Okay Sniffles, let us begin this

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 7:45pm.

Preface, I stated that we are in serious need of tax reform- that is what I am discussing. I am not a proponent of the Fair Tax, nor will I discuss its merits or demerits. I want to blog about what I feel is wrong with our current structure and why we need reform. And then state my opinion. This isn't stump the chump about the Fair Tax-I never claimed to say it was the answer. But it is worth considering or something else.

Let us agree to baseline considerations. There are basic revenue streams that encompass taxes at the Federal level. Basically, there are income taxes of varying progressiveness with a historical max of 94% of total income; payroll taxes that fund the Federal Entitlement of Social Security-these taxes are partially progressive with a somewhat low upper threshold; Medicare taxes that are also partially progressive that fund the Medicare system; Trade taxes in the form of tarriffs and excise taxes; Corporate taxes and other business entity taxes that tax an organization, not an individual. I beleive that I have touched upon the Lion's share of the taxes and the majority of Federal receipt sources. Let's also admit to each other that the various entitlement programs are currently self funded, but any surplus is given to the Federal general budget and this "surplus money" is notional in the form of IOU's. Let us admit that the current entitlement programs will not be able to be self funded within the next twenty years or so without dramatic changes in terms of pay outs or taxes that flow in. It is a system that cannot exist in its current form when the Generation X (ie 10th, of which I am a member) begins to draw upon its entitlements.

Let's also acknowledge that the federal government has the legal right to terminate or change the terms of its programs. If you pay into the system, you do not have the inalienable right to receive any funds from it. This is backed up by case law at the federal level.

Now let's talk about why we need tax reform.

Progressive taxation

Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 11:56am.

The United States government has a financial infrastructure supported primarily by a progressive income tax system. Most, if not all, arguments against a progressive income tax system deal essentially with replacing it with a consumption tax. A consumption tax (known variously as "National sales tax", "fairtax", etc) is the antithesis of a progressive tax system, it is an extremely regressive tax that has the effect of levying a higher proportional tax on the less fortunate members of society to the benefit of the most fortunate.

I am of the opinion that a majority of people in America support some form of progressive taxation. I do recognize that there is a minority..perhaps a substantial minority of citizens who favor a consumption tax.

I believe that that trade-off in a progressive/consumption debate is one of bureaucracy vs. simplicity. In order to successfully administer a progressive tax, some form of compliance checking is required and that necessitates a government bureaucracy. This is anathema to people who believe in the concept of "small government", and I suspect that a good deal of support for consumption taxation comes from those who are ideologically opposed to any sort of government bureaucracy. Neither side is necessarily "right" or "wrong", it is simply a fundamental difference in a person's view of the role of government.

Over the years, the government has used the tax code to shape domestic policy. I believe this has largely (all though by no means entirely!) been a good thing. The greatest single benefit, in my mind, has been the mortgage interest deduction. This has been of enormous benefit to America as a whole by encouraging an "ownership society" of homeowners.

A complex tax code, and a burgeoning bureaucracy to handle issues related to this tax code, has created a sense of resentment amongst a good many people. There has been, and will always be, the potential for "gaming the system" via legislative changes to the tax code.

Interestingly, one of the drawbacks to a progressive tax sytem with an emphasis on homeownership was a disproportionate emphasis on ownership of real property. This resulted in abusive "tax shelters". Ronald Reagan made the most significant changes to the tax system back in 1986 when his treasury officials instituted two fundamental changes: 1) a de-emphasis on real property and 2) "flattening" the current progressive tiers from 6 to 3 (I believe it was 6, I'm not sure). In order to do this he needed to add another level of complexity to the tax code in the form of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and increase (again) the size of the government bureaucracy to administer the new rules.

The resulting system, however complex, appears to me to be an acceptable compromise between progressive revenue collection and social policy.

In my next installment I'll take a look at the pros and cons of a consumption tax.

Sniffles- Progressive taxation

Submitted by The Wedge on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 12:15pm.

The basic premise of Progressive taxation is that the higher income population can better afford to have a larger share of their income diverted to government coffers. I object to the Kentucky windage of the gut feel of this person has enough to live on. I get annoyed that some of the abled bodied can opt out of supporting the government and another is forced to take their place. Taxation, although ultimately necessary, is coercion at the point of the bayonet. Progressive taxation is ultimately necessary due to the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy and what it dabbles in. A pure consumption tax is, of course, a regressive tax at its heart. Because the wealthy may only have to spend 50% of their income for substanence while the poor would spend close to 100% of theirs. I truly get that, but I worry about the number of Americans that vote for government and its programs, but do not contribute to its coffers. It is easy to vote yourself a raise if you are not accountable

General Thoughts on a Consumption Tax

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 8:54pm.

There are things that I like about a consumption tax like the fair tax. First of all, I like transparency in all forms. A Sales tax is recognizable and more transparent than an income tax. In theory, don't rich people spend more money than poorer ones? Don't they buy bigger houses, spend more on utilities, spend more on food and restaurants, spend more on clothes, cars, vacations, etc? Wouldn't this type of taxation still be progressive? I like the nature of everyone paying for some aspect of our government. It makes the average citizen more diligent with how his government spends money. Sort of like how you feel about the FCBOE. I also like the easy nature of paying for this tax--but the transition cost would be high and the turmoil would hit the current taxation winners of Housing and Financing. But this is a mandated government winner and one that has corrupted our government. But I am done writing for right now. Give me your thoughts and I will flesh out mine more.

Sniffles- Gas Tax example from previous thread

Submitted by The Wedge on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 3:55pm.

I have to be out for the next several hours, but wanted to get your take on this thought-- Here is the cut and paste:
from Sniffles - "A few months back I questioned how the FairTax was "fair" when we'd ultimately pay a lot more for gasoline. [snip]

Unfortunately, I could not seem to get a coherent response from any pro-Fairtax types. Perhaps you could educate me on why paying much more for gasoline is in my best interests."

Understand that I am not well read on the fair tax- I cannot defend its nuances. Just a general principle.
Okay- here is my thought on this in real life (but notional amounts) examples: I budget my gasoline- lets say I consume $300.00 per month. I gues the consumption tax hike would make it $390.00. A net loss of $90.00 per month.

Now in very notional (and wishful) monthly salary $8500.00 gross. Right now on that figure I would assume a withholding and a general tax level of around $2,380. I would gladly pay the $90.00 more per month to bring in an extra $2,380 take home.

Obviously. that 30% would be spread on every purchase. The Fair Taxers would say that prices will not change because hidden costs will come out. I agree with you that these costs will not automatically be lowered. However, we are a big state people any more. I see us legislating wage and price controls in the future anyway. Why couldn't we do it here?

What are your thoughts on this?

And your Neal Boortz comment is interesting to a point. I have an employment agreement that is a gross amount. Other things like insurance comes out of that gross in addition to tax. But I know what my gross is. Are you suggesting that my employer will automatically lower my gross to a notional take home amount? That portion will never fly, at least with me

Wedge, I'll defer to Jeffc

Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 4:02pm.

Wedge, I have an understanding of the issue but Jeffc has a far more eloquent way of explaining it.

Long story short: there is no guarantee that you will realize the additional $2380 per month in take-home pay. In most regards, employers will be forced to reduce your current salary to the non-fairtax "take home" level in order to acheive the 22% "compliance cost" savings.

Again, Jeff has a better way of showing us exactly what happens.

COP OUT

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 4:32pm.

You accepted Wedges Challenge and now you want to defer to Jeff..
Game Over..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

Cop out S. Lindsey?

Submitted by diva on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 1:21am.

You've been asked several direct questions on the Farce Tax and you run to the web and cut and paste from web sites, of which you know not the authors. At least Sniffles can call his source up on the phone or have a dialog with him. What do you have in your quiver? An internet link. Don't call that kettle black lindsey. Someone will show you a mirror.

DIVA..DIVA...DIVA

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 7:44am.

I will tell you the same as I told Jeff and Snif:..
BREAK THE ARGUMENT
Nothing you or Jeff have brought forth Breaks the Argument for the fairtax.. Let me explain Breaking the Argument.. When arguing a particular fact.. to break it you must do more then just dispute it or fail to agree.. you must present counter facts with at least as much crediblility as the original fact carried.. In other words.. argue that the PHDs are wrong.. argue that the Research Institutes are wrong.. argue that the Colleges and Universities are wrong.. prove your point.. Just coming up with an example that you say proves it will not work is only valid if a counter point cannot be offered..with as much validity as your point.. Just because you disagree..DOES NOT BREAK THE ARGUMENT..OR PROVE ME WRONG..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

No...they cannot lower it by fiat

Submitted by The Wedge on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 4:08pm.

I get paid what I get paid. I can completely opt out of withholding certain things. Most employers are not going to arbitrarily lower your salary to hit some sort of target. Now the behind the scenes stuff is different- the company side of the withholding (not part of my salary), the company side of other escrows. I assume some of the "compliance cost" savings would be reduced Accounting staffing. A dubious savings at best.

And I can always walk if need be.

Separate buckets of money

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 8:41pm.

Why does the federal tax code make us pay into separate buckets of money. We must admit that it is all coming from the same general fund and into the general fund must all revenue go. To eliminate the many buckets is to fundamentally change the entitlement programs. I have thoughts on that matter that will be saved for another day and blog.

Constitutionality and Intent

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 8:15pm.

The Federal Government was established as a government of limited powers, enumerated powers with a catch-all 10th Amendment of power devolving to the states or the people. In fact, James Madison in 1791 wrote:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article in the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..... With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators"

Well, we are well beyond that now, but I shudder to think of where we are heading. I believe that the constitution is only paid lip service since the era of the New Deal. An evolving and changing constitution that changes based upon the whims and bowel movements of Anthony Kennedy is not a constitutional government. Now about taxes:

Our tax code has become byzantine because the federal government is in the business of choosing winners and losers. to put it kindly, the tax code is so confusing that key National leaders were unable to follow it lawfully. The tax code is a tool of social engineering in which the government is incompetent to decide and these decisions are changing over time. We have used the tax code from everything to encouraging marriage, encouraging home ownership, encouraging certain purchases, etc. Why is the government in the business of social engineering? It is creating winners and losers and creates corruption within the politican circles.

Another area of intent is the Progressive nature of our tax code. It is predicated upon the belief that the upper tax brackets should pay a much higher marginal rate (historical high of 94%) because we only need a certain amount of money to "live" and they really don't need to have the other money. It is a class argument that was established with the origination of the income tax. Of course it once again puts money in the system and corruption of creating winners and losers. But it is pointless to argue about the Progressive nature of whatever income tax we have because we can't stop it at our current scope of government.

Objects of Governmental Benevolence and our Obligations

Submitted by The Wedge on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 7:06am.

Since we are in the business of giving ourselves gifts from the public largess, do we have any obligations to the government itself? For example, the administration has made it clear to a private company (GM) that if they want public money, then the government gets to do what it will to the company-change leadership. There is a Russian saying that I will paraphase- if you are dancing with a bear, you cannot decide to quit because you are tired. If the government is giving money to private business, then the government gets to dictate terms. If you are a business, don't put yourself in a position to require public money. GM is dancing with the bear of the Federal Government.

If we receive money from the Feds (I am not refering to Social Security) do we have an obligation to the government? If the poor cannot pay into the system, but take, should they have an obligation to provide labor to the government? And what of people who are of diminished capacity, what can they be expected to do?

Reform on entitlements is going to be necessary to fix our tax code. One area of reform is going to have to be the obligations of the objects of benevolence.

Been waiting on this all afternoon

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 7:50pm.

I am looking forward to this debate.. Lets see if sniffles can do more then one liners..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

I look forward to his comments

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 8:29pm.

Sniffles is an ideologue, same as you and most likely me, but he is great on local concerns such as the FCBOE or even jurisprudence. I think that Sniffles is a "he", I have seen Sniffles refered to as both genders. I would like to know so that I can use the proper pronoun and not seem like a silly attack.

Actually I agree w/Sniffles

Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 03/31/2009 - 7:08am.

on local matters.. His insight on local politics and the local scene is much keener then mine.. That being said his world view is a little skewed..at least in my humble opinion.. I am really not that much of a fair taxer I am quiet happy with a flat tax or some other MAJOR tax reform.. but since Sniffle and Jeff both are so adamantly against CHANGE (sic) that I have to take the opposite view.. Sniffle even said "whats wrong with the progressive tax system we are currently under".. my question is whats right with it... 10,000+ page bloated system that encourages debt and discourages savings.. ie.. home mortgage.. Interest deduction.. debt. I have the opportunity to pay off my house, but because of the current tax code we are under my CPA said don't do it.. I would lose a major DEDUCTION.. so I keep the debt.. It encourages tax cheats.. ie.. the latest democrat scandals..
It is also obviously selectively enforced.. again the latest democrat scandal.. if it were you or I.. Jeff or Sniffles and owed tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes for years we would have been jailed and our property confiscated. But because the IRS can be influenced by political pressures and favors politicians are allowed to cheat and receive favors for good legislation..
The IRS is used as a weapon to enforce social changes in the population that the Goverment wants enacted.. They control wealth by using the IRS as a sledge hammer to force business to comply.. ie.. GM.
Make a long story short.. it is time to move away from the oppressive Goverment entity and work on "SOMETHING" else and until a better plan comes forward the fair tax/flat tax is the best idea I have seen yet..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

GUN CONTROL Link

Good evening, Wedge

Submitted by sniffles5 on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 9:12pm.

Sorry to check in late, believe it or not I just got home. I'll take a look at your position and offer some thoughts when I am fresher in the morning. Been a long day.

P.S. I'm a man.

Good evening to you

Submitted by The Wedge on Mon, 03/30/2009 - 9:26pm.

I get up very early and commute. I will add more of my thoughts tomorrow as I check in from work at times. I will look forward to your slashing analysis. One thought- I think that you are intelligent and not evil. Maybe misguided Eye-wink I would hope that you would afford me the same courtesy Smiling

Search the Archives

Navigation

Contact Information

Tax Reform and why it is necessary.

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options