Ta-Da!

Gene, you have unwittingly disclosed the "secret" to becoming "wealthy." The secret that over 75% of the wealthiest 500 people in the US (that self-made segment you so despise) discovered long ago. You know, those Smith-Barney types: the ones who earned it.

As you know perfectly well, the proposed "fair" tax would not apply to basic needs such as food, shelter and health care. But it sure as hell would apply to an iPod, and rightly so. A consumption tax, properly devised, would be far preferable to the income tax, which, when rates were high, spawned a huge income-tax avoidance industry, an industry that served none of the people you so passionately care about.

A consumption tax would apply fairly to all. The people you call rich might or might not decide to spend some of their money based on consumption-tax considerations, but to hear you tell it, they can sure as hell afford to pitch in more in income taxes, so why would they give a second thought to paying a 30% tax on their new yacht? Especially if it was in lieu of a 50% tax on the income it represented. If they chose not to "spend" it & make it subject to the consumption tax, just exactly what do you think would happen? All that money would just suddenly disappear from the economy? Of course, not - that money would get invested in jobs (directly or indirectly, all invested monies ultimately are invested in job creation - without it, there's no "return"). Just because you believe the economy is a zero-sum game, does not make it so. The other beauty of a true consumption tax is that I would then know exactly what all levels of government are confiscating from me, every time I buy a consumer good - something that is far from obvious in the current patchwork system of taxes & "user fees."

I would gladly pay a 30% sales tax, inclusive of all local, state & federal taxes, for whatever the purpose, if it meant only one thing - avoiding the agony of maintaining the records needed to support and to file an annual income tax return, the regulations applicable to which weigh in excess of 150# (and growing). The problem is the inertia in the current system and the self-interest of those currently feeding off of it - the accountants and lawyers will never let it happen, no matter how "fair" or more efficient it might be.

The mechanism for collecting the tax is already in place, though. The way state & local sales taxes are collected & distrubuted is straightforward - all that would be needed would be to change the rates on the forms & the filing addresses. Sure, there are administrative issues that would need to be sorted out, since we've not done such a thing before, and the rate would be different from state to state, depending on "need" (you should like that, Gene. Just as an aside, Gene, are you aware that there are some states which levy no income tax?). But there is no real obstacle to implementation of a federal sales tax. There was no basis in the Constitution for implementation of the income tax, after all, so there is no reason it couldn't be done - only a matter of will.

There would be fraud & abuse, of course, just like there are fraud & abuse now, but there would be true transparency to our tax burden and there would be some hope of an end to class warfare (though as long as people like you are around, demanding control over a portion of my income and how it should be spent, class warfare will continue, I'm afraid).

As an afterthought, your arrogance in "knowing" what people "need" - as opposed to letting their own choices determine that - is monumental.

It shouldnt be the responsibility of the people who are in the upper class bracket to get this country out of debt.

Yes it is for two reasons-- The long term economic health of this country is essential to them keeping the wealth they have in the future. Second, they are the people that got the bulk of the money from the tax cuts that have helped create the added debt. As The Comptroller General demonstrated, for every dollar in tax cuts we only gained fifty cents in new tax revenue from growth resulting from the tax cuts. That is like selling something that costs a $1.00 to make for only $.50!

Oh, so now it's up to YOU to decide what is a legitimate "debt" and what isn't?

You say that Bush is arrogant. HE has Nothing on the arrogance and pompousness you display in that one comment alone.

Who are you to decide what other people should and shouldn't do with THIER money!

Using your logic, Gene, YOU should be paying 3 times more than me, since you make at least 3 times MORE then I do.

Are you willing to pay 3 times more than I do Gene? If not, SHUT YOUR ARROGANT GOB!

if we had lost 50 cents per dollar they would have used the word LOST.

This from the AP Feb 24, 2001:

(AP) President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means. Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold.

The Democrats were CORRECT!

Bush was the FOOL as not ONE CENT of his $5.6 Trillion Surplus existed. It must be at the same place as the WMD in Iraq! Since this was the justification for the Bush Tax Cuts the tax cuts are unjustified and should end!

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Saturday, December 01, 2007Well, tax revenues were increased but Congress still increased spending beyond the incease in revenue. BTW, in case you haven't pulled your head out long enough to notice, the deficit was down for the 3 quarters posted for this year. To hear your constant monotone crap, it's never been higher.

All those figures are AFTER Bush deducted the Surplus from Social Security. From Sept 30, 2006 and Sept 30, 2007 our Debt increased by $500 Billion. Go to the Treasury Web sight. On Sept 30, 2006 our Debt was $8.5 Trillion. This September our debt was $9.0 Trillion or an increase of $500 Billion. Yes spending has increased and will continue. Look at the money we are spending in Iraq. Look at the money we will need top spend for the VA. Look at the replacement of almost all the equipment in the Army, Marines, National Guard and Army Reserve. Anyone that talks about CUTTING spending given these things in on DRUGS. In addition we need to add thousands of border guards, build a fence over 1,000 miles long and we are increasing the size of the military by 80,000. Please tell me how the HELL you are going to cut spending?

This year wed will need to add money to Medicare because the Prescription Drug plan has increased Medicare spending to a point that it will exceed the Medicare tax revenue. We can cut the Pork which is about $40 Billion. We might be able to cut another $50-60 Billion. That will not come close to balancing the budget much less provides the money to begin paying down the debt! The interest on the debt which is the fastest growing part of the budget has increased $200 Billion since Bush took office. It will continue to increase as long as we add to the debt every year.

There is no bigger LIE then to tell the American taxpayer that our financial problems can be resolved with spending cuts. We cut taxes to return a SURPLUS that NEVER existed and it is time to end that tax cut since we do not have anything to return to the taxpayers. Look at the AP article I posted above about the Bush $5.6 Trillion DOLLAR dream!

which party has been in charge of the purse for most of that time.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Saturday, December 01, 2007 From Sept 30, 2006 and Sept 30, 2007 our Debt increased by $500 Billion. Go to the Treasury Web sight. On Sept 30, 2006 our Debt was $8.5 Trillion. which party has been in charge of the purse for most of that time.

Since 2001 the Republicans. If you look at which party was in control when MOST of the debt was added it was the Republicans. Of the $450 Billion in interest we must pay each year, about $400 Billion was added during Republican Presidents-- Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43.

going with gene's attitude since he wants people richer than him to pay him. then i want gene to pay me. but he won't just like all liberals he thinks the rules should apply to everyone but him.

the issue is even simpler than that---the rick are the people paying the bulk of the taxes.

also did you know that companies(the big ones) have to pay a minimum tax whether they make a profit or not.

actually you and the ones who want them to pay for everything are the ones being GREEDY.

it isn't helping if it is stolen from you.