[socialismisinsidious]

I don't care how much of my federal taxes my pay stub covers or how much is hidden or how easy you think it is to figure...that is a minor problem. As we have been saying for some time the income tax is a socialist's dream, it is progressive and soon a majority will be paying no taxes under your 17K or 60K page tax code. The income tax is an unholy alliance between statist intellectuals and persons with welfare/state sponsored utopia dreams. It is loved by wealthy interests b/c of what they have to hide (money,money,money)It is dangerous to this Republic.

You don't like the bill b/c you have something to gain from status quo...was there economic disaster prior to 1913? are countries that do not have our income tax structure collapsing?

I don't really care if you agree with me or not...I'm not a bud b/c I'm not male. Funny how you point out that I don't know you....yet you think that you know me (I'm the one who can't get along with anyone who doesn't support HR25. sure.) So the deal is: I'm suppose to take you and your gang of thuds jumping on me without answering or "unable to play with others" will be in my permanent file...I'll take the label.

[Dimples]

I don't care how much of my federal taxes my pay stub covers or how much is hidden or how easy you think it is to figure...

Then why did you make such a big deal about how impossible it is for you to figure out your tax burden? Heck, you even took the time to start a whole new thread on the AMT!

If you recall, it is precisely BECAUSE you claimed that "hidden taxes" were so numerous and so inscrutable that we got into this discussion. My initial post to you was PRECISELY becaused you claimed your paystub couldn't possibly account for a majority of your tax burden ... that so much of it was hidden and unknowable.

Now that you've been proved wrong about that, you've pulled the typical FairTax supporter debate tactic of distancing your self from your primary arguments by claiming that you really don't care about the central points of discussion of the past three days and thousands of typed words.

Now you've resorted to name calling: unholy allainces, statist intellectuals, welfare/state sponsored utopia (sic) dreams. And you've resorted to emotional appeals: freedom, danger to the Republic, etc. And you've invoked the "you must benefit from the statue quo" dismissal. All clear signs you have reached the point where you are no longer able to engage in substantive debate.

So much for the debate; emotions and name calling are not debatable.

I never said I knew you ... in any sense of the word. I said it's possible you know me. My use of the term bud is meant as a term of friendship not meant to imply gender, sorry you've taken such offense. Would the term "friend" be less offensive to you?

The rest of your rant is rather obtuse. No one is labeling you. No one said you couldn't respond. No one said you couldn't disagree. There's nothing for you to "take". Either you wish to debate, and stay on point, or you don't.

If you are "scatter shot" debater expect to be called on it. If you are going to make false or disprovable assertions, expect to be disproven.

Again, I don't like the bill because I believe it's implementation will be an economic disaster. And yes, there were several economic disasters prior to 1913: the US experienced depressions in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, and 1893; but that's another off-topic red herring.