Posted on 02/11/2006 8:54:52 AM PST by Eaglewatcher
Recent letters have expressed concern that the poor or middle class might be harmed by adoption of the FairTax (www.FairTax.org) based on a deep misunderstanding of both the FairTax and the current system. We cannot assess the effects of the FairTax without comparing it to the reality of our current income and payroll tax system.
One cannot buy a loaf of bread without paying the income taxes of the baker. The price of that loaf of bread contains the cost of the flour, and the income of the baker, but it also contains the taxes the baker pays. After all, the baker does not have a money tree from which to pluck dollars to pay his taxes, he must get those funds from his customers, like any other business.
Further, the price of that loaf of bread contains the taxes of the miller, the farmer, the trucker and the grocer and those of all their employees. Those income and payroll taxes cascade through the production process and eventually make up more of the cost of that loaf of bread than the profits of any of those who worked to produce that bread.
Those many layers of taxes on productive work make up the embedded tax component of the price of bread or any other goods or services we buy. On average, that embedded tax component is 22.4 percent of the price of everything we buy, from a loaf of bread to brain surgery. So, the true tax burden on the working poor is 28.4 percent, (their FICA tax of 7.65 plus plus 22.4 percent of their remaining take-home pay, which goes to pay the embedded taxes hidden in the price of everything they buy).
Even if the poor paid the entire 23 percent FairTax, they would be better off than now, but they don't. The FairTax provides a rebate of all tax paid on spending up to the federal poverty line to everybody. This cancels out all taxes for those living at or below the poverty line, $25,660 a year for a married couple and two children.
For the same family earning twice the poverty line ($51,320), half their taxes are rebated, yielding an effective rate of 11.5 percent. And even at triple the poverty level, $76,980, their effective rate is only 15.3 percent, still far better than the 28.4 percent the poorest of the poor pay now.
So, who loses? The idle rich, illegal aliens, criminals, "off-book" workers and others who escape the current system through evasion or legal loopholes. Tax lawyers and lobbyists who make their livings from the complexity of the current system will also come up short. Foreign goods sold in the U.S. will no longer get a free ride while production of American-made goods and services bear the whole tax burden.
But those of us who work for a living, or who get by on a fixed income, will be far better off.
Tabor, of Chesapeake, is co-state director for FairTax.org in Virginia.
I will likely have to sell land that has been in my family for hundreds of years to pay the death tax. The govt. says its worth X$. Just TRY and sell it for that! I'm no trust fund kid, and my folks have paid tax on this land for years. Unfortunately I can't just move to Florida to avoid death tax, unlike the mother of a certain bloated senator from Mass.(Splash has paid no more than $100K in inheritance tax on $millions.)
Congratulations on your hard work, but please don't be so bitter about inheritance, Realize that many family businesses and farms will have to be forfeited and some may be placed deeper in debt because of this tax. It's not all about ketchup heiresses!
"No one should be judge in his own case."I'm not sure you understand what that maxim means. You've posted it twice and it doesn't apply to the situation. [But do you understand what any of your cut & pasties mean? They really are just a lame and failed attempt to make yourself look more intelligent and intellectual than you really are.]
... I would not care if I see one penny in economic gain out of the legislation and even accept a potential for economic loss ...
YOU more than ANYONE have argued against ANY other proposal simply on the basis of net economic gains and nothing else.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
You are the one hung up on the economics as the critical factor of choice in a tax system. I am only interested in the essentials of ridding our system of the income tax sytem ...
Yes, I am hung up on the economics of the FairTax; they stink to high heaven. YOU more that ANYONE vociferously defend the economics of the FairTax; YOU more than ANYONE have a vast repository of ready-made clips to defend most every economic concern of the FairTax.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My descisions have been made on factors beyond the economic having to do nothing at all with marketing of AFT or anyone else for the matter, so I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another or your concern over whether or not economic studies and marketing rhetoric mean anything at all.
The fact that you don't care about the lies and distortions of the marketing of the FairTax lumps you in with a group of untrustworthy scoundrels. YOU seem to give more "hang" than ANYONE else about what economists say ... that's almost all you ever talk about!
Your actions belie your sentiments.
What matters to me, does the bill meet the technical standard of revenue neutrality set in place by Congress.[... not whether it actually raises enough revenue ...]
Well, well, well. I think in all the crap, we've found a nugget. Looks like ancient_geezer knew all along that the FairTax wasn't truly revenue neutral, but defended it anyway lest the FairTax lose some of its polish. For a guy who NOW admits that "technical" revenue neutrality not ACTUAL revenue neutrality is sufficient, YOU spent more time than ANYONE else defending the ACTUAL revenue neutrality of the FairTax.
Your actions belie your sentiments. (But thanks for the admission.)
Bottomline a revenue neutral tax change makes no difference whatsoever to the purchasing power
Let's see, a moment ago you said:
I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...Now you're "hanging" again ... even referencing an economist.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
You want to work out what you see as workable changes, that fine by me, I'm all ears. I have heard none of that from you ...
I was beginning to think you didn't have ears. You NEVER listen to ANY suggestions. I (and others) have offered SEVERAL changes, beginning with an HONEST portrayal of the FairTax: and HONEST appraisal of wage/price behavior; and HONEST appraisal of the real tax rate; an HONEST appraisal of who gains and who loses; an HONEST appraisal of the impact on the size of government; an HONEST appraisal of the political fallout. BUT NOOOOOOOO. You stubbornly reject ANY suggestions.
Many of us have suggested other alternatives: flat consumption taxes on income, for instance. But YOU always reject them OUT OF HAND as "not economically good enough."
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Since there are no points of debate going on here ...
Three or four posts ago, we were deep in the discussion of the tax rate and it's revenue neutrality ... but I guess that was with the OTHER ancient_geezer ... the one who, for YEARS now seemed to care deeply about the technicalities of the FairTax. Then you (or he) slipped off into "power-to-the-people-land." Just look back a couple of posts; you'll find plenty of points to debate.
Now you're just being superficial.
In the final analys your opinion on superficial factors of marketing and packaging mean nothing to me.
Then why do you argue so passionately to defend the marketing and packaging? Oh, and don't forget, most of my (our) objections to the marketing and packaging are rooted in the technicalities of "the bill."
Your actions belie your sentiments.
For me, what I have seen ... is sufficient to do the job I expect. And that is all I need.
Well, now that you've admitted that you don't expect much, it's more clear why you'd accept the FairTax. What still puzzles me though, is why a guy who claims to care so little for the technicalities spends SOOOOOOO much time defending them.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
In the end, it appears that my characterization of you is correct: you ARE willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You now claim you don't care if the technical implementation of the FairTax actually does harm to the economy, you're only interested in enacting a sales tax (and apparently, any sales tax will do.)
That's all you need??? Then, sir, your are a fool.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Oh, and go find the other ancient_geezer. He was more interesting.
“All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
--Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788 - 1860)
“No one should be judge in his own case. ”
-- Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)
Great quote. Perhaps you should forward this on to your ping list ... many of your cohorts here are quite guilty of violating this tenet.
“All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
--Arthur Schopenhauer
(1788 - 1860)
Another great quote.
So, tell me, why then are you so violently opposed to the truth about the FairTax???
Coming from YOU Nightie, that's priceless humor!!!
Oh yeah, what was it $480 Billion. LOL.
It's nice to see your REAL agenda come out because, for YEARS now, your actions have belied your sentiments.
... I would not care if I see one penny in economic gain out of the legislation and even accept a potential for economic loss ...
YOU more than ANYONE have argued against ANY other proposal simply on the basis of net economic gains and nothing else.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My support FOR the implmentation of an NRST has always been rooted in other than an economic basis.
You and your cohorts have chosen economic arguments, which obviously are refutable in economic terms. You bring to the table an economic argument, rebuttal of your economic argument is due.
Yes, I am hung up on the economics of the FairTax; they stink to high heaven. YOU more that ANYONE vociferously defend the economics of the FairTax; YOU more than ANYONE have a vast repository of ready-made clips to defend most every economic concern of the FairTax.
LOL, those clips that refute your personal opinion of the economics of the Fair Tax exist wholly as a result of your and your buddies's inordinate focus on economic concerns. None of the rebuttals to your flawed arguments would be in my files, except for your and your cohorts insistence on economic criteria, and an economic argument be the one and only basis for exception or rejection of the FairTax legislation.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
My actions are wholly consistent with the terms of debate you folks have insisted on. You want to argue economic factors? Surpise, surprise the rebuttal you get back is in the economic terms you insist on.
My actions in rebuttal are consistent with terms you have set for your misrepresentations and errors.
My repeated exclaimations of the the non-economic reasons for repealing and are evident throughout my posting history, as that is the fundumental basis to my support of an NRST replacement to the income/payroll tax system we live under today.
I do not recalu you have ever chosen to comment or respond to those concerns.
The fact that you don't care about the lies and distortions of the marketing of the FairTax lumps you in with a group of untrustworthy scoundrels.
Marketing is not the basis of my support, for an NRST. My support for an NRST in lieu of an income/payroll tax system long predates the FairTax or any of the contempory proposals for other forms of NRST of recent years.
My support of this particular legislation is based on the language of the bill itself, not on the basis of what you would like people to perceive as lies and distortions of unworthy scoundrels.
Frankly I find any errors and distortions in the marketing presentation much less offensive than those of the opposition that are out right and flagrant attempts at propaganda. Such as is used by Gale, et.al. of Brookings from which most baseline oppositional arguments appears to derive from, including your own whether you recognize it or not.
YOU seem to give more "hang" than ANYONE else about what economists say ... that's almost all you ever talk about!
LOL, that is what you have chosen to discuss. You are surprised rebuttal of an economic argument you insist on is economic?
Well, well, well. I think in all the crap, we've found a nugget. Looks like ancient_geezer knew all along that the FairTax wasn't truly revenue neutral, but defended it anyway lest the FairTax lose some of its polish. For a guy who NOW admits that "technical" revenue neutrality not ACTUAL revenue neutrality is sufficient, YOU spent more time than ANYONE else defending the ACTUAL revenue neutrality of the FairTax.
Here you entirely fail in your understanding, I have always maintained the FairTax rate in the legislation was too high, not too low. In fact my bitch with the bill, is it does not infact incorporate the tax cuts of the current adminstraion.
A factor that I hit the FairTax people and Congress Critters repeatedly with in my communications with them. I lobby them to correct that error before it gets out of markup and reduce the rate to the 19-20% level it should be at.
I prefer to see a permanent tax cut in the end, not continuation of what exists. It is you folks that demand that there be no cuts in revenue going into a new tax system with your demands that it be "revenue neutral". Are you now telling me it the bill should not be revenue neutral and should incorporate at least the Bush adminstration tax cuts making them permanent?
For, the technical revenue neutrality requirement of the old PAYGO rules under which the legislation was written mandates that the specified rate meets CBO scoring, a condition that a static analysis show the a bill will meet or exceed the revenue generated by current law.
I find it interesting you have chosen such a transparent way of spinning the debate. You are showing your colors loud and clear.
Let's see, a moment ago you said:
I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...
Now you're "hanging" again ... even referencing an economist.
Your actions belie your sentiments.
Once again, you want to argue economic, expect a refutation of your arguments in the terms they are framed, and exposure of the fallacy inherent it the argument you put out.
You don't address apples by discussing the color of oranges or how fast a gazelle can run. You answer the terms of the question posed not some other unrelated factor.
It is your positions that are rooted in economic terms, you receive an appropriate rebuttal to your the silly position you have locked yourself into. It is indeed interesting to watch how you try to desparately to spin your self out of an intenable stand by throwing smoke in the air.
Three or four posts ago, we were deep in the discussion of the tax rate and it's revenue neutrality .
Meeting terms of your talking points, which by the way are not related to the basis of my support of the FairTax NRST.
You want to talk about revenue neutrality, that is what we talk about. And yes I do show the FairTax legislation was originally written to meet the technical revenue neutrality requirements of the PAYGO act at the time it was authored.
That again is your worry that you want to argue about, not where my fundamental support of the legislation comes from.
I debate the arguments you have proffered, for you have never expessed nor indicated you have any other position of debate over the FairTax legislation other than economic. Y
ou maintain the FairTax is not revenue neutral, I show where economists, to whom such criteria are the constraints of their models, disagree with you.
In fact you are always suggesting that you support an NRST in principle, you just don't like the "marketing".
Well show us a bill in Congress garnering support that is close to what you want. Others have been introduce in the past such as the Tauzin version of an NRST replacing only income taxes and not payroll taxes. I never saw your support in that bill which was available in the last session of Congress. I have supported many versions of NRST, because they have been significant steps in the direction I want to see this country take.
No I rather suspect that your professions of liking an NRST but not just the particular one currently before Congress because of your peceptions of marketing efforts on its behalf, is full of bull and a smoke screen. You know, like in, "I have been a long time Republican, but ...."
the final analysis your opinion on superficial factors of marketing and packaging mean nothing to me.
Then why do you argue so passionately to defend the marketing and packaging?
Ohhh I understand now, any information that is in favor of the FairTax legislation no matter how appropriate and accurate, is all marketing and packaging in your eyes to be used as a club against supporting the legislation.
If any one presents a positive to advertise and garner support for legislation it is automatically, "Marketing and Packaging" that should cause one to reject even when the information happens to be supportable and factual.
Love your warped thinking on that one. You really should consider professional help with that problem.
Oh, and don't forget, most of my (our) objections to the marketing and packaging are rooted in the technicalities of "the bill."
You can always lobby to change the bill, or "gasp!!" author and write a version of your own NRST that you do like, to be introduced into Congress.
I haven't seen you begin to suggest that either be done. Rather your bitch is with Marketing and Packaging. You know the cosmetics of presenting the legislation to the public as a whole to gather support to enact it.
No what I see in you and your cohorts is a perpetual smoke screen, thowing anything on the wall to see what sticks.
In the end, it appears that my characterization of you is correct: you ARE willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You now claim you don't care if the technical implementation of the FairTax actually does harm to the economy, you're only interested in enacting a sales tax (and apparently, any sales tax will do.)
I have said I don't care if it were to me a personal reduction in my wealth or disposable income, I am interested in assuring the more important factors involving the Liberties and Freedoms of my children and their children. In reality don't anticipate such a loss, and the clear evidence indicates that there is benefit to the economy in going from an income/payroll tax to a national retail sales tax. That is all too the good.
That however is not my overreaching standard. Liberty and Freedom is. Even the liberty and freedom to fail to achieve.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin.
MIgawd, Dimp-Dimp, you're funny ... and getting even funnier as you age. Your "actions certainly don't belie YOUR words" as you are always attacking either the FairTax or its sup[porters. Never any alternative - just attack, attack, attack.
You hate the FairTax (having said so more than once) and will try absolutely any untruth or mispreresentation to try to make either it - or its supporters - look bad. Or perhaps you'd like to now represent otherwise?
You still seem to think that others don't realize this. They do, but aren't interesting in engaging you since you are both crude and ignorant. You continuetd talk about HONEST representations by you and your tail-enders rings hollow indeed. There is nothing honest about most of the attacks you have collectively laumnched - and they've freqquently been accompanied by self-serving disclaimers just like the one you give here.
You twerps hold yourselves out as the be-all and end-all of economic analysis and I don't know how to break it to you ... but you're not AT ALL. You just present biased, crackpot notions that you loudly proclaim as true when in fact the FairTax website has much more solid economic realism that all of you put together will ever be able to assemble in several of your lifetimes. You are a bunch of pretentious phonies.
So, tell me, why then are you so violently opposed to the truth about the FairTax??
When did you decide to quit beating your wife?
Why are you so violently insistent in propounding proved misinformation and errors about the Fair Tax NRST?
Anyone may make an assertion. Repeating such does not make it any more credible. The reality is no matter how much evidence exists against your perceptions and personal opinions, that you will continue the same train of BS.
From what I have seen thus far, you have no interest in truth, your interest lay with only supporting opinions you have locked your self into and maintaining cover to keep the current system in place.
I know, and thank you for your note.
Your kind and thoughful response shows that you are, in fact, a considerate and down to earth person who understands the true value of the individual.
Riiight.
I do not recalu you have ever chosen to comment or respond to those concerns.
I did a few posts ago ... but I guess you weren't paying attention. I rarely engage in the philosophical debate you desire, because, there's nothing to debate. I don't disagree with your philosophical ends, I disagree with your technical means. I, apparently unlike you, feel no compulsion to debate a topic just because an opponent throws it on the table.
...Such as is used by Gale, et.al. ...
But you just said:
... so I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...Now you "give hang" again??? My head is spinning.
Do you "give hang" or do you not "give hang" ... by the way, what is "hang" anyway?
It is you folks that demand that there be no cuts in revenue going into a new tax system with your demands that it be "revenue neutral".
How tortured. The FairTax claims to be revenue neutral. You say it's not; I say it's not (albeit we disagree on the direction of "not") and you claim I'm the one demanding revenue neutrality ... your logic is a bit rusty ... it's probably that "paying attention" thing again.
No, I'm claiming that the FairTax is misrepresenting it's claim of revenue neutrality ... and despite the fact that we agree on that, YOU persist in denying the obvious. BTW, you never actually addressed the technical arguments, particularly regarding maintaining the "real" size of government on the neutrality argument; and you simply in denial about evasion and avoidance erosions of the base.
Y
ou maintain the FairTax is not revenue neutral, I show where economists, to whom such criteria are the constraints of their models, disagree with you.
No. All you offered is your interpretation of their works; an interpretation necessarily biased to your preferred outcome. Certainly not the definitive work on the subject. And you never did address the failings of the so-called "Gale Rebuttal;" you just made up your own.
Love your warped thinking on that one
Ahem ... not to point out the obvious but what you're apparently in love with is your guess about what my thinking is ... and of course, you guess is entirely wrong. I get a kick out of how so may of you FairTax supporters claim the clairvoyance to know what is in the minds of people you don't know at all.
I haven't seen you begin to suggest that either be done.re: altering the bill.
Well, there's this small problem of the proponents of the bill believing it will cure cancer, solve world hunger, and make you feel younger. Unless and until there is an HONEST representation of the bill, no reforms will be taken seriously. Heck, you, a virulent supporter, can't even get attention to alter the tax rate as you see fit! Don't be silly.
... my overreaching standard[is] Liberty and Freedom ...
Right. And only radical environmentalists are interested in the environment ... by that standard, we'd all be living in the stone age. Remember, it's not the ends that are in debate, it's your means. Wrapping your self in the cloak of Liberty and Freedom only covers the cancer underneath; it doesn't make it go away.
Who said I had a wife? And just to play along, if had a wife, I would have decided to stop beating her before I started.
Ditto back to you on everything else you said. You see, like it or not, you're just as stuck, just as locked into yourself as you claim I am (we are). You're just to arrogant to admit it. Yep, I'm stuck on a conclusion that is in opposition to yours. Quit whining about it.
Riiight.
You know if pigdog clicks his rubbie red heels together three times and says, "this is no entititlement, this is no entititlement", it will be so.
Very well said!
Taxman Bravo Zulu! Geezer!
Now I get it: you only debate the economics of the FairTax because we MAKE you debate them ... wow, I didn't realize we has so much power over you!
Nah, I just respond to your econmic silliness because that is what your concern is about.
I did a few posts ago ... but I guess you weren't paying attention. I rarely engage in the philosophical debate you desire, because, there's nothing to debate.
Great then you have no objection to a bill the replaces income & payroll taxes with a National Retail Sales Tax, in principle.
I don't disagree with your philosophical ends,
That is a comfort to here you say. And I am sure you have been a lifelong (fill in the blank) too,
I disagree with your technical means.
that just has these little concerns about marketing and presentation and thats why you reject the best NRST bills to be offered in the last century.
... so I don't give one hang as to what one economist says over another ...
Just noting the source of many of your and your cohort's talking points. It helps to understand where the dominant opposition is centered.
How tortured. The FairTax claims to be revenue neutral.
It does? I sure don't find it in the HR25 text, perhaps you can cite where that is in the bill's Findings section or anywhere else in there for that matter.
Granted the AFT makes that claim in their literature, obviously as a carryover from the bill's days of its authorship back under '96 taxlaw and when PAYGO rules were in effect and such a claim had relavence to overcoming floor challenges to stop a tax reform bill, that is certain.
Considering tax rates were higher back under '96 tax law, definition of "revenue neutral" under the old rules must still be obviously met, as we have a lower average tax rate today against a larger economy and the bill's rate of 23%, in fact the bill as a whole is still the same as its initial introduction back in 1999.
I indeed claim at 23% tax inclusive, HR2% it is far to high and would be burdening the economy and our pockets too much.
Under those old PAYGO rules defining the boundries of what is revenue neutral for floor challenge purposes, an OMB score of collecting than the taxlaw replaced met the revenue neutral criteria. IIRC AFT's claim is the bill would collect the same or more revenue than the '96 tax law of the Clinton years (the basis of the tax law when the bill was authored) the tax law we are slated to return to, if the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent.
I say it's not (albeit we disagree on the direction of "not")
You may say many things, doesn't make any of them true, as is indicated by the obvious aside in the parenthetic comment. Since I see the legislation as overly conservative to assure passing challenge of the OMB static scoring of it.
and you claim I'm the one demanding revenue neutrality ... your logic is a bit rusty ... it's probably that "paying attention" thing again.
Excuse me, you are indeed demanding that the bill be revenue neutral or even a rise in taxes, your argument is that it is not and should be made so. You indeed are the one demanding the criteria of revenue neutrality be met arguing the 23% legislative rate should be higher not lower. The one not paying attention here is yourself.
No, I'm claiming that the FairTax is misrepresenting it's claim of revenue neutrality ...
Let's see, a bill written in the 90's had to be certain to be scored as "revenue neutral" by OBM or it would never evern make it to a vote, any single congress critter could challenge it by raising the objection and demanding CBO scoring. If it failed the Scoring it would die right there.
Guaranteed the number in the text will pass the OMB scoring methodology, as the bill would die on the first challenge from the House floor under the PAYGO rules. Your claim can have no substance.
You have made it all clear now, I see you have actually have an objection to the Bush tax cuts. Apparently in your view we should not make them a target, to make them permanent and especially not try to implement tax cuts.
You instead appear to be arguing for a tax increase even above the Clinton adminstration's outrageous demands on us.
I am getting this right am I not? You want the the legislative rate of the FairTax bill to be set higher than 23%, which would assure burdening the taxpayer even more than that which was demanded of us during the Clinton years.
Foolishness!!!
The proper direction for change of the 23% legisative rate in HR25, is down.
It is far to high to implement the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent. In is most assuredly too high to provide an addition tax cut this economy sorely needs. Congress already grabs too much of our dollars, any additional they get a whiff of seem coming down the pike just encorages them to spend and grow government even more.
No way should the FairTax rate be higher, it should be substantially lower!!! into actual tax cut rage in absolute terms. Year-to-Year revenue collections by government should end up down, not growing as you would have them.
By my sights we should be looking instead to push Congress to make the Bush administration tax cuts permanent, and to implement even further cuts by elimnation of the AMT and similar onerous provision in the current tax system.
In fact we should squelch the silliness over revenue neutral bill of '96 law, (that obviously would collect too much today's conditions) and replace it with a rate that is at least targeted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent and even lower to assure true taxcuts are implemented and sustained going forward.
We are still on the wrong side of the Laffer curve in this current tax system, until there is a clear demonstration of falling revenues as a consequence of tax cuts, we need to cut rates and keep cutting them until we do.
With the growth of the economy, a consequence of lower tax burdens while on the upperside of the Laffer curve, revenues have recovered and have actually increased as since those cuts. The optimal rate of taxation is lower still, not upward as you apparently desire to see happen.
Seeing some rate must be set for a tax system, nows the time to do it, effective nation tax rate has not been down to the current levels since 1976.
It is time to take advantage while the iron is hot and nail the rate down under real tax cut conditions not the hoax conditions of Congress's out-of-date, sunsetted PAYGO rules with their OMB static analysis methodology.
As there is no longer a PAYGO rule requiring a revenue neutral condition, we should take the additional steps and implement tax cuts in real terms in reference to absolute revenue levels and free the economy up as much as we possibly can to take maximum advantage of conditions to effect a real constraint on government growth.
Pinch government's pocket books and make sure they have to explain any change in tax rate to the whole electorate, rather than allow Congress to pander to one the end constituency for votes in a rigged shell game of an income/payroll tax system.
You have made it clear where you stand in this particular debate. I take the side of lower burdens and constraint on government, not higher rate freeing government to do what ever it will.
Glad you finally understand and admit the truth. That's a sign that you're on the way to healing from that terrible lying disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.