Republican referendum, an IQ test for voters

mapleleaf's picture

The July 18 ballot for the Republican primary provides an IQ test for the voters. Like for all tests, we need to prepare. So here are the questions, and a few ideas on what the answers ought to be.

Question 1: Do you support the Fair Tax, also known as House Bill 25, which establishes a national retail sales tax on all new goods and services, and which would eliminate all federal income taxes? Yes or No?

One must realize here that not only would the federal income tax be eliminated but that the Social Security system would be wrecked as benefits based on earnings could no longer be based on earnings, the states’ income tax systems would have to take over what the IRS did or else be scrapped too, and funeral services, real estate commissions, lawyer and accountant fees, doctor fees, haircuts and even postage would be taxed as services. Money socked away in Roth IRAs or as savings would also be taxed (again) when spent. All service providers would be expected to collect the whole 30% tax, and more importantly then to remit it to the government, with no cheating.

This question is designed to test whether you bother to know what you support before you say you support it.

Question 2: Oops, this is a two-part question. It should be an essay question, but it only allows Yes or No. Here’s the question: How should the federal government deal with the problem of illegal immigration now facing the nation?

Two solutions are offered, one called A and the other called B. Each one has a Yes or No answer, so it seems one could pick Yes twice, or No twice. That’s the only choice (beyond not answering).

The A solution is this: The U.S. Government should actively enforce current immigration laws, secure our country’s borders and permit only those lawfully entering the United States legal status.

I am not too sure about the meaning of “permit legal status,” and I think this leaves a loophole for people who enter lawfully but then stay beyond their allotted time. The government should enforce all the laws or else repeal the ones it won’t enforce. Our immigration laws are a real mess that needs cleaning up (but Congress won’t do it). Securing our borders is easier said than done. The border with Canada is pretty long. Annexing Canada would be easier, but I believe they are not interested. The word “solution” does not seem the right one to describe the thought of whoever wrote this.

The B solution is this: The U.S. Government should establish a guest worker program for those illegal residents in this country, thus establishing a path to legal residency.

Some of our illegal residents are children, stay-at-home parents, or even retirees. It’s hard to conceive of them as guest workers. Some of these illegal residents have children who were born in the U.S. and thus are American citizens (under the 14th Amendment). It takes a cold heart to expel the parents while the children can stay. Establishing a path to legal residency could make some sense. After all, some of these workers are really wanted here. Ask the employers.

The real solution might be electing better representatives to Congress, but that’s not offered on this ballot.

Question 3: Do you favor naming a public building, road, and/or landmark in Fayette County to honor President Ronald Reagan? Yes or No.

History will support the view that Martin Luther King, Jr. has done more for this country than Ronald Reagan. To my knowledge Fayette County does not honor him, and it does not even honor George Washington other than by having Washington Mutual bank branches, and I doubt it is ready to honor Abraham Lincoln. A Yes vote would open the door wide to naming more roads and buildings after local politicians, like the Tom Murphy part of I-20. Think about it.

Question 4: Should the Fayette County delegation to the Georgia General Assembly be led by the legislator that represents the majority of Fayette County’s population? Yes or No.

How do we determine who is the legislator that represents the majority of our county’s population? Why do the legislators who represent Fayette County need a leader? What does the leader do? How is he chosen now? Why would anybody think I am competent to answer that question when I am not given any background information? Trick question.

Question 5: Do you favor redrawing Fayette County’s legislative districts to insure that Fayette County residents have a greater opportunity to be represented by a person from Fayette County? Yes or No.

Why limit this to Fayette County? All districts in all the state should be drawn so as to be as compact and homogeneous as possible. Many Republicans have opposed our having a judicial district which would provide Fayette County residents a greater opportunity to have a judge from Fayette County. Of course Fayette County people would prefer being represented by a Fayette County resident. So why don’t the Republicans sponsor a bill that would have our legislative district boundaries set by a nonpartisan commission that pays attention only to what’s in the people’s best interest? The Republicans are in the majority. They can do it.

There it is. Five questions to test our IQ level. If you pick a Democratic ballot, you’ll miss the test altogether. Because the ballot is secret, the whole county’s IQ will be determined by our collective answers. Wish us luck!

mapleleaf's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 7:50pm.


Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 5:14pm.

President George W. Bush's bipartisan tax reform panel recommended REJECTING the so-called "Fair Tax" for two reasons

1. The tax was NOT progressive.
2. The tax would create an enormouse new federal entitlement program via it's "prebate" provision.

They based their conclusion based on data from the United States Treasury Department.

The so-called "Fair Tax" is revenue neutral because it cuts taxes on people paying less than $15,000 a also cuts taxes on those people making more than $200,000 a year.

The so-called "Fair Tax" RAISES the effective tax rate on everyone in America making more than $30,000 and less than $200,000 a year .

The moneyed elite of America is hoping that the middle class of America hates the IRS so much that they (YOU) won't mind paying MORE in taxes to see it dismantled.

Click here to see the report (PDF - Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

(The so-called "Fair Tax" is dissected beginning page 213).

If you want to see just how much more you'll be shelling out for this so-called "Fair Tax", I've taken a snapshot of the relevant graphic from the report

If you think Paris Hilton needs an additional tax cut, by all means vote for the so-called "Fair Tax".

Submitted by libertarian_tina on Tue, 07/11/2006 - 9:31pm.

You obviously have a lack of comprehension in this whole thing. ALL taxes would be gone, save for Social Security and Medicare, so instead of giving the government money at every turn of your head, it'll be only when you purchase an item. You pay taxes on, literally, everything. The government taxes you for working with the income tax! They get labor at a discount! Now, keep ALL of your money, without big bad government even getting a whiff of it, and go out and buy a hamburger. That hamburger is taxed, but since you still have all 100 cents of your dollar, you end up paying the same amount, but keep more of your money. [note, that $1.00 hamburger is NOT $1.23 with the tax, it's still about $1.02. Remember, all the imbedded taxes are gone now, so it can sell for a very good price and still make profit.] The same goes with your house. If you purchase a new home, that house is taxed, but since you keep all of your money from your job, you pay it off sooner, not to mention when it comes time to sell there aren't any Govt. taxes to snatch away profits.

And who, exactly, are the poor in this country? Less than one percent of the entire U.S. makes over 150,000$ a year. LESS THAN ONE PERCENT. The rest, my friend, are fair game for the 'poor' title. Actually, I myself am middle class, with barely 60 grand a year to my name, and the government classes me as 'rich'. If I'm rich, than what does that make you? Not to mention that the rich make/spend more, so they get taxed more. If you ratio it out, they end up paying almost double what we do. [Why is being rich bad? I wanna be rich. I wanna be FILTHY rich, so I can fly over to any country I want any time I want. Why is success bad? That's another topic...]

Whew, got off topic. Smiling Anyhoo, you make it sound like only the rich and famous get tax cuts, but that's wrong. EVERYONE would be taxed/not taxed fairly, whether they buy a stick of gum or a yacht. BTW, everyone, the tax is only 23%, not 30. Sticking out tongue Twenty-three is the number economists came up with for it to be revenue neutral, 30 is the one that the liberal media wants you scare you with. But who's going to keep it that low? Why, we are! Shoulder some responsibility, people, this is your country as much as mine, if it goes to hell in a hand basket because of the IRS part of it's on you. Read the book, if you want REAL info instead of second-hand word-of-mouth twisted facts.

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 8:21am.

If you go to Home Depot and purchase, say, a weed wacker for $100 and your total with tax is $130, how much would you say the tax rate is?

If you are like the vast majority of Americans, you'll say 30%

If you are one of those shiny-eyed Boortz fans, you'll say "23% tax inclusive". Which is technically correct but not applicable in the real world. (Don't believe me? look at page 84 in Boortz' book).

And this 30% is a bare minimum to remain revenue neutral. Exempt medical services, new homes and government-to-government transfers from the so-called "Fair Tax" and the rate spikes about 50%.

You claim "all" taxes would magically disappear with the adoption of the so-called "Fair Tax". This is not true...if you read Mullah Boortz' lawyerly pronouncement, he sez all "personal and corporate income taxes" would be gone. Those pesky state and federal excise taxes on gasoline, for example, would remain. We're on the road to $4.50 a gallon gasoline, baby!!

Some real world example
Suppose I make $100,000 a year and Neil Boortz makes a million a year.

Under the current IRS (I'm simplifying for deductions and such),
I pay $24,800 in federal income taxes
Neil pays $535,000 in federal taxes

Under the so-called "Fair Tax" plan
I pay $29,100 in federal sales taxes ($4,300 more a year)
Neil pays $459,000 in federal sales taxes ($76,000 LESS a year).

Read the presidential commission's report, if you want REAL info instead of second-hand "best case scenario" twisted facts

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 11:50am.

have your Bush cat eating picture up when agreeing with your president. I'm not even going to debate the fact with you that the free market economy is going to drop it's prices of products after the corporate and individual taxes are removed from those items. There's nothing that will change your mind even if most of the leading economist agree that this would happen. The bottom line with you is that you are a staunch defender of big government and their confiscatory powers and you would support that no matter what proof you had available to you.

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 1:11pm.

CLICK HERE for a list of the blue-chip panel of experts selected by President George W. Bush to examine the so-called "FairTax".

This panel recommended REJECTING the so-called "FairTax".

Now why don't you supply a list of "leading economists" who support the so-called "FairTax"? If you can find one, that is.

The so-called "FairTax" is nothing more than yet another tax cut for the very wealthy ($200K+ a year). The supporters of the so-called "FairTax" hope people hate the IRS enough to vote themselves a tax increase and the very rich a tax cut.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 7:21pm.


This link is a letter to your favorite president from economist around the country that support the Fair Tax. And they are not from Liberty University. They are from the more liberal establishments that you would tend to cherish. 84 of em total to be exact. Need more?

Basmati's picture
Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 7:43pm.

You actually followed through when challenged to back up your claim. I am impressed.

PTC Guy could learn from your example.

So, it seems we're at an impasse here on this particular point: you have your panel of experts, and I have my panel of experts. I suppose it boils down to whose experts you trust more. Fair enough.

On to the next point of contention about the so-called "Fair Tax" then? Smiling

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 7:51pm.

You mean like you and your buds rambling on about Deists and the links I gave showing you didn't know what you guys were talking about?

Don't try to salvage any victory out of getting shot down again.

Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 07/13/2006 - 3:04pm.

Give me a bit. Work is getting in the way of my fun.

Submitted by Sailon on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 8:46am.

We can't even issue a simple medicine card discount without the prices actually increasing, and numerous unfair practices going on. If it cost too much tax to buy things, we simply won't buy things---at least us poor un's. Do away with IRS and also forget "fair tax," just get the feds money at the border for all those TVs coming in. Also, tax the billions sent to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries to come (Israel included). Also, sell our natural resources to feriggnerrs at a stiff price---have a huge army to fight them off when they invade to get our resources for free.

Submitted by Sailon on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 7:32am.

Let me see if I got this straight: When no taxes, except maybe eventually 30% for SS and medicare, aren't deducted from my paycheck, I'll get more money (cash) but pay less for a hamburger? That ought to tell everyone what a farce it is.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 07/11/2006 - 9:49pm.

Great and very accurate comments. Welcome to the site. I might become one of you before it's all said and done.

Submitted by tonto707 on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 4:43pm.

the employer half of FICA (aka SS) will continue to be paid by the employer. But more importantly, the so called Fair Tax won't work and it ain't gonna happen.

Way to many CPAs and special interest groups with a lot more clout than John Linder.

mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 5:28am.

The CPA's I know support the fair tax idea and contrary to urban myth, they won't be out of work. They have plenty to do and would welcome the removal of March and April's frantic activity from their schedule.

The way this is going to get passed is if voters in November send a clear message to the obstructionist anti-war, anti-American,anti-achievement liberals in Washington by voting Republican in a couple of those blue states and give Republicans a supermajority in both the house and Senate. Then first item up in 2007 will be the Fair Tax. Slam dunk!

I hope some of the blue-state candidates have the gumption to make Fair Tax a campaign issue - then their liberal opponents are shown as tax and spenders and lovers of big government.

Submitted by Sailon on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 7:35am.

Of course they do. Just ask them. Just like government employees like reduced taxes.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Wed, 07/12/2006 - 10:22am.

CPA's that see the negative effects that the current system has on our businesses and economy are truly in favor of the change. Mine tells me he would rather concentrate his efforts on helping folks grow their business rather than fighting and complying with rules that get made up constantly as we go along. As for me I tell people that it is not the competition I fear but the government. I run a clean ship but no doubt if some jealous IRS hack comes through my door it has the ability to find some obscure tax law that could probably sink me. All they have to do is target you. I say let's get rid of the largest enforcement agency in the United States. SUPPORT THE FAIR TAX.

The so called CPA's that oppose the Fair Tax are the paper pushers like H & R Block and the other hacks (apparently like Mr. CPA Outlaw) who make their livings from tax code compliance. Heck...if that's all they do then we can convert their jobs into pine straw spreaders and that should help with the illegals problem.

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 6:27pm.

Just another way to raise tax on everyone but those high earners, (they don't all earn it, however). Wouldn't be 3 months till congress started revising the "fair tax" to make it even more fair---to some. Check out some of the Scandanavian countries--fair tax there 65%--and nobody except the Kings is gettin noooowheree.

ImJustSaying's picture
Submitted by ImJustSaying on Mon, 07/10/2006 - 4:28pm.

Gosh, I am so fortunate to have the benefit of YOUR IQ test. I am having a difficult time understanding your premise that amount of Social Security benefits payable couldn't continue to be based on income levels. H.R. 25 as I understand it is designed to be revenue neutral. I thought it was going to be a 23% inclusive sales tax, not 30% as you stated. But you are probably right...we the people would be better off to let the unaccountable politicians continue to wield their ever increasing power and to continue to socially engineer society through the manipulation of the overly simple tax code as it currently exists. Remember, the IRS is your friend!!

ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 7:43pm.

Why did I just respond to all that?

I actually don't care anymore about what everyone else in PTC thinks.

I'll stop complaining and start acting.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 4:05pm.

Because a person scoots across the border, illegally, and gives birth should make the child a citizen. That is absurd.

Because they are not in the work force does not make them legal in any way.

Yes, they are far more likely to get overlooked. But they are still illegal.

Because an illegal has legal relatives or such in this country does not make them legal. They should not be able to ride the coattails of legals as an excuse for legal entry. Let them get here legally.

We cannot accomodate the world. Multi-cultural nations are nations at war with themselves.

Immigrants must come in per a legal system and must become part of this culture. If they do not wish to then why are the coming here to start with?

The benefits of our country comes from our cultures. Turning us into what they are escaping will bring and end to those benefits.

Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

DragNet's picture
Submitted by DragNet on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 5:23pm.

According to this line of thinking, all of those children born to the folks that came on the Mayflower to New England, back in the 1600s, were illegals. Nobody invited them here, they crossed a border, had children and later, actually invaded this land.

Borders are imaginary lines set up by the current powers. In the future, when Globalization takes full hold, they will no longer exist. In fact, the southern border "crossed" the Mexicans when the US grabbed California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and Texas. The Mexicans seem to be getting success in their own subtle way to reclaim those lands and beyond.

Multiculturalism is the future. Europe is far ahead of us in this process, but the US will follow suit, regardless of the attempts of nativists living in bubbles.

It is nonsense to talk of legality or illegality of people. There is not such thing (an "illegal human being"). This is backwards thinking. We, as a country, need to find an effective system to facilitate integration of immigrants, but respecting their culture. Efforts to overule their culture is based on the false premise that American popular culture (heavy rock, abortion, pornography, religions, Hollywood, meritocracy, etc, etc) is better, which is not.

Making you think twice......

Submitted by SALESTAXUSAdotCOM on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:30pm.

You said:

Borders are imaginary lines set up by the current powers.

By this logic, the "border" around your house is also an imaginary line, and people should be free to cross it and move into your basement or living room if they so desire. We have a cooperative society based on laws, and those laws include the enforcement of property rights. All border and property rights, whether at the national or individual level, are conceptual in nature. We enforce them nevertheless so that people can live peacefully with one another.

Multiculturalism is the future. Europe is far ahead of us in this process, but the US will follow suit

Two things: First, America is already a pluralistic, multicultural society. Whites are no longer an absolute majority in this country, and plenty of different cultures peacefully coexist in America. Just visit the Italian, Mexican, Vietnamese, Chinese, or German sections of any major American city. If you don't realize that America is more multicultural than Europe, you must be living in a bubble. Secondly, I have no desire to emulate Europe, with their 25% unemployment and 45% tax rates (not to mention gasoline at $6 a gallon, state-sponsored religions, endless ethnic wars, etc.)

It is nonsense to talk of legality or illegality of people. There is not such thing (an "illegal human being"). This is backwards thinking.

We don't call them "illegal human beings," we call them "illegal aliens," just as you would call someone who moved into your house without permission an "illegal trespasser."

We, as a country, need to find an effective system to facilitate integration of immigrants, but respecting their culture.

You're right -- and we already have such a system that welcomes tens of thousands of immigrants each year, without requiring them to renounce their home culture.

DragNet's picture
Submitted by DragNet on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 10:38pm.

You're confusing peaches with apples. Countries have established borders, houses do not. Immigrants would only come to your house to actually build it, mow your lawn, wash your car or babysit your kids.

"Aliens"is an awful word, reflective of our arrogance of considering anybody else (but us) "alien". In the past, similar tags were used to put down people (i.e. negro)

You're right, Caucasian Americans will no longer be the majority in the USA, thank God for that. Diversity and multiculturalism is the way ahead. The sooner everybody realize this, the better we will integrate.

Europe has its problems, no doubt. But I was referring to their more civilized view of the world, less bully-oriented and more global-conscious.

In any case, whether we like it or not, immigration is a worldwide trend that will continue regardless whatever measure, and our only hope is to get the best out of it. Obviously, the current system is not working, as 12 million of them knew better on how to get here, get jobs, prosper and contribute to our great nation. They are not going back and more are coming in as we speak.

Making you think twice......

Submitted by SALESTAXUSAdotCOM on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 3:31pm.

It would really help if people who criticize the Fair Tax plan ( would understand it before doing so. (Criticism is healthy and needed in a Republic, but it should be informed.)

Here's what you said about support for the Fair Tax:

One must realize here that not only would the federal income tax be eliminated but that the Social Security system would be wrecked as benefits based on earnings could no longer be based on earnings

Well, that's just plain wrong. Social security benefits would still be based on earnings, as reported by employers, just as they are today.

the states’ income tax systems would have to take over what the IRS did or else be scrapped too

Well, you got that one right, but I fail to see what's bad about that. States would have to rely on a form of taxation other than the income tax. The easiest and fairest would be a state-level plan modeled after the Fair Tax.

funeral services, real estate commissions, lawyer and accountant fees, doctor fees, haircuts and even postage would be taxed as services.

Again, what's the big deal here? Under the complex, time-consuming, unfair income tax system, you pay income taxes on every dollar that you spend for funeral services, real estate commissions, lawyer fees, doctor fees, haircuts, and postage. Under the Fair Tax, you would pay sales taxes (instead of income taxes) on every dollar you spend for these services. There's no difference in your tax liability on the money spent for these services under either system. The main difference comes from the ease and convenience of paying your tax as a sales tax versus an income tax.

Money socked away in Roth IRAs or as savings would also be taxed (again) when spent.

Again, why is this a bad thing? Under the income tax system, the money you have socked away in Roth IRAs will be taxed as soon as you withdraw it. Under the Fair Tax plan, you can "sock" your money away in any type of savings or investment vehicle without having to pay taxes on the interest, and with no restrictions or penalties for withdrawing the money or moving it to other investments (unlike the income tax system.) Under both systems, you pay taxes when you use your IRA money. The main difference, again, is that paying via a consumption tax is easier, and it postpones your tax payment for as long as you hold on to your money.

Furthermore, your savings will achieve higher compound interest growth, because you won't have to send a chunk of it to the Federal government each year. You will receive interest on your interest at a faster rate under the Fair Tax plan.

All service providers would be expected to collect the whole 30% tax, and more importantly then to remit it to the government, with no cheating.

You say this as if you think this makes the Fair Tax inferior to the income tax. Under the income tax, tens of millions of individuals must report every dollar they earn, pay the full tax on it, and remit their payments to the government with no cheating. Under the Fair Tax plan, service providers and businesses (which number far fewer than individuals) will have to collect and remit a sales tax. It is much easier to police the compliance of licensed businesses and service providers than it is to police the compliance of all the individual income earners in the United States.

Remember that 45 of 50 states currently have state-wide sales tax systems in place, and no one complains that they have MORE cheating of the sales tax system than they do in their income tax systems. People will cheat under both systems, but it will be harder to get away with it under a sales tax system.

Looks like you failed the IQ test. Perhaps you should try again after you have read and understood the Fair Tax plan.

Submitted by Sailon on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 6:53pm.

Just for the benefit of corporations and upper class. Government should get their revenue from tariffs of in and out trade, and ownership of critical natural resources. Also charging developers who use these resources a high fee. It is that simple. Also, people who accumulate too much cash by hook or crook should be forced to provide jobs to others.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 7:01pm.


You’re simply going to tax the consumer. Corporations don’t pay taxes, people do. It’s factored into their cost of doing business.

Submitted by jon1975 on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 2:59am.

If corporations don't pay taxes then nobody does and the whole issue is moot. The argument that consumers pay the tax for the corporations through higher prices could be extended to say that employers/corporations pay our income tax through higher salaries/wages which are negotiated with the mutual knowledge that part of that money will go to Uncle Sam. The whole argument is circular illogic.

The biggest problem I have with the Fair Tax is that it double-taxes retirees who have paid income tax for decades and would then have to pay a 30 percent tax on every dollar spent in retirement. Even tax deferred money will be taxed at 30% instead of a much lower rate if the current income tax were applied.

Another problem is it creates millions of additonal tax collectors, many of whom are children. Kids who mow lawns or earn money in other informal ways (i.e. not at a "job") will have to collect and remit the tax. While not an insurmountable obstacle, it is a nuissance for them and their parents.

Another problem is one of enforcement. Since the IRS will be eliminated (which makes me wonder how the taxes not eliminated under H.R. 25 would be collected), who will enforce the bill? Even if it is enforced at the state level, who will ensure that the states remit the revenue to the federal government? We already know that evasion rates skyrocket with tax rates above 10%, so with the rate at 30% they could be astronomical. As with the income tax, there is great incentive for evasion. I am all for putting the tax code on a crash diet, but I'm skeptical of the simplicity and ease of implementation and enforcement of the Fair Tax. I can't help but wonder just how fair is the Fair Tax to everyone.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 10:04am.

They set a % they want to earn as profit. That includes taxes as an overhead expense.

You pay the corp. taxes.

Saying they pay your taxes by increased wages in simply false. The last real wage increase, adjusted for cost of living, was in 1973.

Your pay check number may go up. but its overyall buying power is down. And has been down for 33 years.

Why do you think the gap between corp. and executive and workers has grown so huge since 73?

They get the adjustments for buying power you do not.

Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Submitted by Sailon on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 7:22am.

Corporations pay little of the whole. Retired people, and there will be many soon, would get screwed. Then the exceptions start and soon we would have a bigger mess than we have now. Let the feds collect at the ports for federal needs as they did in 1700.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 7:25am.

Can't disagree with you on that one.

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 3:39pm.

Why not exempt medical expenses and food items?

Submitted by SALESTAXUSAdotCOM on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:20pm.

Four reasons: (1) Food is not exempt from taxes today -- you buy all your food with after-tax dollars. (2) The rich spend way more money on food and medicine than the poor. An exemption would mostly benefit the rich. (3) The Fair Tax includes a built-in rebate paid in fixed monthly amounts to all American taxpayers, to cover the taxes paid on essential goods and services. (4) If you start allowing lawmakers to exempt specific classes of goods and services, there will be no end to how complicated and costly they will make the tax code, even with a national retail sales tax.

Submitted by Sailon on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:09pm.

Send every taxpayer a check! Why? Just charge less sales tax at the counter. It is a stupid plan, originated by stupid, greedy people.

Submitted by SALESTAXUSAdotCOM on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 10:45pm.

The rebate check is designed to make the Fair Tax progressive -- that is, people who have less money to spend will not only pay fewer tax dollars, they will get taxed at a lower RATE than everybody else, thanks to the rebate.

And how is the plan stupid? And why would you call its originators stupid and greedy? The people behind this plan want to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, earn interest on it faster, eliminate payroll taxes on the poor, force criminals to pay taxes, and stop requiring Americans to spend millions of hours and millions of dollars figuring out their income taxes every year. How is that greedy?

Submitted by Sailon on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 7:17am.

Do you really think Boortz would want a tax system where he would pay more instead of less taxes? If he doesn't pay as much, then who would make up the difference? You know, and I know. That crap about those who cheat not paying taxes is mostly those who make a lot of money, not poor people. Anyway with any system the crooks will be there.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:34pm.

the so called poor in this country then everyone would complain that the "less fortunate" would have to pay taxes. I'm with you. Let's eliminate the rebate altogether and lower the rate. But then the people on the left (your side) would complain that the so called poor would have to pay a tax. Heaven forbid they should have to pay. But the dirty little secret is that they already do in the hidden taxes built into the products they currently buy. You know....cigarettes, beer, sneakers, bling, dvd's, backward bill caps, and Big Macs.

Submitted by Sailon on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 7:06am.

What a stupid idea. Have the dumbos pay the tax, then give them a check. They will think they got something for nothing. Sounds like organized religion. republicans philosophy, and dudes with tons of money trying to get more.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 7:22am.

will organized religion benefit when the deduction is lost and believers give because they believe and not because they'll get a tax deduction. And the dudes with tons of money would be you and me and any other working stiff out there. Republican philosophy? They've fought this system for years because it will eliminate the ability to target certain people groups through taxation. Congress would lose alot of control and power they have over the people. We know you hate to be controlled Highgreen. This will get our Congress and the IRS out of our lives.It

bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 8:58pm.

Thanks for the info.

Richard Hobbs's picture
Submitted by Richard Hobbs on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:53am.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I, and approximately 12 other members of the Fayette County Republican Executive Board wrote these questions. It was no easy task. We debated every word used in each question and came to a consensus of what we should say. We were plagued by the specific rules that State Law requires which precluded us from having more than a yes or a no answer. This made writing the questions very difficult.

We also are keenly aware of voter fatigue. Voters frequently get to this section and then are exhausted when they have to read a two page question. So, we chose to keep the questions simple, direct, and hopefully, easy to understand. I think we did a good job. Perhaps it could have been done better, but since you were not at that meeting, I dare say you would not know what lengths we went to in order that we achieved our goals.

Being an armchair quarterback is fun, but its extremely easy. Coming out and playing and having to make quick and tough decisions can be a bit more difficult. Not to mention that any and every decision that is made, will be scrutinized by someone who is obviously smarter than we are.

And finally, my opinion of your opinions has changed greatly. I don't mind the criticism of these questions, that's water off a duck's back, but when I read your response to question 1, I was taken back by it. If you are truely an "investor" then I wonder how you can come up with these comments. I'll not debate you because its obvious that your superior armchair intellect is much greater than mine, but I'll just be more wary of the things you write on this website.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 3:59pm.

I'd think you guys would be able to at least get the Social Security thing straight before printing this information. Also, One point not being made here is that the new system would tax everyone. No body would be able to cheat the system as they do now, thereby placing more burden on honest taxpayers. So can I assume that you prefer the current system to HR25 ?

Submitted by lifeinptc on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 3:48pm.

I'm sure you were at the Republican breakfast. What happened?

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:05am.

I didn't bother reading the comments on the others.

mapleleaf's picture
Submitted by mapleleaf on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 9:55am.

The Fairytale Tax supporters are known to have a short attention span and a short fuse.

G35 Dude's picture
Submitted by G35 Dude on Sat, 07/08/2006 - 4:49pm.

"The Fairytale Tax supporters are known to have a short attention span and a short fuse."

Apparently you are above that huh ?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.