Fair Tax gets 86% of vote in Georgia! Results will be sent to President Bush.

Nealz Nuze ^ | July 19, 2006 | Neal Boortz

[Arcy]

The FairTax was on the primary ballots in three Georgia counties yesterday. I have the results of the voting! Here you go.

Gwinnett County:

Total Votes: 35,755 Yes - 31,068. 86.9% No - 4,687 13.1%

Cobb County:

Total votes: 39,458 Yes - 33,598. 85.15% No - 5,860. 14.85%

Fayette County:

Total votes: 11,517 Yes - 9,828. 85.33% No - 1,689. 14.67%

According to Boortz the results of this vote will be personally handed to President Bush today via a Washington insider. The purpose of which is to convey the FACT that there is great support for this solution to current tax system and that this is a plan that can get the voters to the polls. Many of which called and e-mailed Boortz to say that they had no plans of voting yesterday until they learned that the Fair Tax was on the ballot.

.

[pigdog]

Indeed, you've got the "vested interest" part right - yet only two of them on these threads admit to that. With the rest, it's an innocent look and "... who, me??? ..."

But as we all know:

It's time for the FairTax!!!

[pigdog]

Perfect example there in #720.

[xcamel]

Being a bit transparent about hanging out your "Fair Tax Professional Consultant" shingle if.... (and it's a big if) FT ever gets turned into a [bad] law?

Talk about vested interests....

I can just see all of those "sudden opportunities" rolling out like there were never planned at all...

[lucysmom]

You still haven't defined what you mean by "the black market" nor posted any sort of definitive information about it so that no one - you included - has any idea what you're talking about.

I posted three conditions that give rise to black market activity and an example of each.

There is little definitive information on the black market because black market operators don't supply data,'cause, see, their businesses exist outside the law.

"According to journalist Silja J.A. Talvi, 'no truly accurate statistical study of the black market economy has ever been undertaken' (Talvi, 2003, 4). However, most economists are in accordance over its basic definition, and many have made informed estimates about its size and effects. An underground economy 'mirrors the formal [capitalist] economy in that the goal is to produce and distribute goods and services in order to make a profit' – making the 'legality of one and the illegality of the other' the distinguishing factors (“Socio-economic Factors of the Underground Economy,” n.d., 2)."

You may not know what I'm talking about, but others might.

We all pay at the cash register!

Got it???

The way you mean that presupposes there is no alternative to the cash register.

[pigdog]

Nope - your preposterous presumptions are quite wrong. I merely wish to see it become that tax law for our country.

After that I'll find another job casting pearls before swine - but this time one that pays.

[lucysmom]

Few if any on FR would be shallow enough to let your arrogance insult their intelligence.

Exactly!

[Your Nightmare]

I admire your ability to stay sane, make a cogent statement and persevere in spite of nonsensical drivel from the vested interest IRS lovers..

Sane? Cogent statements? Pigdog?!?

[lewislynn]

Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA...What kind of moron attributes quotes, as if literary, to fictional characters??...Very telling!

[pigdog]

So IOW, you don't know zip about "black markets" but you're terribly titillated by the term. Instead of all the palaver and BS, how about giving us some detailed, concrete examples of how your black market would work unde the FairTax - and how that differs from the massive evasion that goes on right under your nose today (and the noses of your favorite author, there, too apparently) in the form of the illegal economy which is right now - today larger than any evasion could possibly be under the FairTax.

And once again, I'll have to note this is hardly a fair fight since you haven't read the bill and know nothing about the FairTax ... but ignorance is bliss and since you've had ample opportunities to read it and have not done so so one can only suppose you prefer the ignorance that you continually display.

[Your Nightmare]

Something wrong in that analysis. I'll have to look at it and get back to you later. The purchasing power under the FairTax will be greater than under the income tax.

Riiiiight. Because everyone's better off with the FairTax. If they aren't, just rub some snake oil on it...

As for which table, the broader one seemed like a good one as being more all-encompassing and requiring less categorization to use.

Considering his example family was a married couple with one kid (you know, a household with a child) he probably should have used the "Households with Children" table, dont ya think?

The main interest is getting the breakdown into quintles so an individual taxpayer situation can be approximated rather than just a single aggregate figure.

The main interest for y'all is to try and get people to believe that EVERYONE would be better off under the FairTax -- but that's just pure snake oil.

[pigdog]

... and you've never shown otherwise in any convincing manner.

[pigdog]

You're just mad because I pointed out your example was wrong.

[higgmeister]

You can't have it both ways - either the FairTax is large enough to be perceived as a burden and motivate taxpayers to act, or it isn't. If it ISN'T, then you are wasting your time supporting the FairTax as the vehicle of change you wish to see. If it IS, than you need to face up to the real possibility that people may well act in ways that undermine your goals.

Please explain the unintended consequences you allude to so that we may attempt to grasp what only you have imagined.

You remind me of a Monty Python skit where Eric Idle goes wink - wink, nudge - nudge and John Cleese has no clue what he is referring to.

Please note; your perceived consequences must be minimal or nonexistent within the current system to hold any weight against abolishing the current system.

[pigdog]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA ... he's your uncle I'm told. Bu when someone told me you were as dumb as Forrest I stood up for you.

I said no he's not, he's dumber!.

[pigdog]

He/she/i doesn't really know what they are but it sounds oh, so intelligent and is totally vague enough that no one aside from the originator could ever understand it.

[higgmeister]

Being a bit transparent about hanging out your "Fair Tax Professional Consultant" shingle if.... (and it's a big if) FT ever gets turned into a [bad] law?

Here is my vested interest!

“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient,
for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I
propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.
It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence
to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the
people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether
legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally
permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents
"interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty
and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” — Barry Goldwater

[pigdog]

Sorry Barry's gone - he'd be lots of fun if he were sill wih us. The good ones go first they say.

(After all, Clinton's still around ... both of them)!

[higgmeister]

Yes, alas!

"cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose,"

Does this just reach out from the past and prove your cause is right?!!!

[pigdog]

Sure 'nuff!!! But it won't be much longer that we have to endure the income tax.

It's going down!!!

[lucysmom]

Please explain the unintended consequences you allude to so that we may attempt to grasp what only you have imagined.

I have, increase in black market activity.

I am flattered that you think I am the only one to imagine that, but alas, other critics have imagined the same thing.

You may be interested in reading this brief overview of the chain of unintended consequences prop 13 unleashed in California.

http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists/walters/story/12347574p-13077965c.html

Perhaps you will be inspired to put on your thinking cap and imagine what unintended consequences the FairTax might have.

Please note; your perceived consequences must be minimal or nonexistent within the current system to hold any weight against abolishing the current system.

That's just plain goofy! Two wrongs don't make a right. Haven't you heard?