Posted on 09/17/2006 8:03:05 AM PDT by Principled
Perhaps you forgot your purposely offensive tag line? Listen man, you attack more than anyone. Sorry man. It's no good if you do it but cry when others do it.
Maybe that's part of the reason your complaints fall on deaf ears.
I guess we will which will continue to erode the meaning of the word.
You don't need to reply, but if anyone wants to call themselves 'conservative' while ignoring the tenets of that philosophy, the word is meaningless.
When McCain and Zell Miller are both referred to as conservative in the same breath (by some, not you) as Tom Coburn or Ronald Reagan, the word is meaningless.
You left out the tax cuts implemented during the Bush administration.
Always Right:
Well we could perhaps call for the GOP house and senate to cut spending, and the GOP president to sign it. There's an outlandish thought. Isn't that really the goal to decrease the size of government.
Moj:
Their goal is to create the largest entitlement program in human history.
Majority rule republocrats [like you, moj] have already created one of "the largest entitlement program in human history".
-- The fairtax scheme is a effort to fix Social Security/medicare/welfare by removing the coercive element, as no one would be forced to pay 'entitlement' taxes on the basics of life.
It's truly a counterintuitive experience to see those who supposedly fight socialism -- fight against a fair way of paying taxes.
Nice spin. But in realty under the fairtax you are coercing the middle class taxpayers to pay the social security taxes of the poor.
Perhaps you forgot your purposely offensive tag line? Listen man, you attack more than anyone.::cough:: pigdog ::cough::
and your drivel continues, trying to paint me and others as "conspiracy kooks". You realy have no idea how to stop, do you?
-- The fairtax scheme is a effort to fix Social Security/medicare/welfare by removing the coercive element, as no one would be forced to pay 'entitlement' taxes on the basics of life.
It's truly a counterintuitive experience to see those who supposedly fight socialism -- fight against a fair way of paying taxes.
Nice spin.
It's not 'spin'. The reality of coerced payments ~now~, under the present system, - from the middle class, -- is obvious.
But in realty under the fairtax you are coercing the middle class taxpayers
Not so, as those of any class that wanted to live simply & frugally would have that option; -- they could avoid taxes by buying used merchandise.
to pay the social security taxes of the poor.
Do you agree that we've decided its constitutional to have a welfare system? If so, taxes ~will~ pay, in one way or another, for 'social security', correct?
Is there any other option?
Umm, can't you avoid taxes today by not earning money?
Do you agree that we've decided its constitutional to have a welfare system? If so, taxes ~will~ pay, in one way or another, for 'social security', correct?
Social security was not suppose to be a welfare program as much of a retirement program. At least under the current system there is some responsibility for everyone who collects to pay into the system. Under the fairtax, there is no real link between what you pay in and what you qualify for. I don't see that as an improvement.
Really???
I would rather see it phased out of existance. Creating a way to hide its true costs in the sales tax is a huge step backwards. The only positive thing is that the sales tax taxes the social security benefits when they are spent, effectively reducing them. I hardly think the elderly will see that as an advantage though.
Umm, can't you avoid taxes today by not earning money?
Amusing 'answer'. -- The whole point of the 'fairtax' idea is that you could earn & save money by living frugal, thus "avoiding taxes"..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you agree that we've decided its constitutional to have a welfare system? If so, taxes ~will~ pay, in one way or another, for 'social security', correct?
Social security was not suppose to be a welfare program as much of a retirement program.
Another amusing non-answer. I'll assume you agree that we've decided it's constitutional to have a welfare system.
At least under the current system there is some responsibility for everyone who collects to pay into the system.
"Some" is your operative word. In reality many who collect the most have paid the least. This will always be so in any welfare scheme. -- We just have to bite that bullet.
Under the fairtax, there is no real link between what you pay in and what you qualify for. I don't see that as an improvement.
There is no conceivable way to make a welfare safety net scheme that is 'fair' to those who pay for it and don't need the 'net'.. -- We just have to learn to bite that bullet.
The current social security setup is both visible and separate. We can see the oncoming disaster and we can make changes such as increasing the retirement age, reducing the COLA's, etc. With the fairtax, you just hide the problem in the lump sum and the tax automatically increases to 'solve' the welfare problem. That is not a solution, but it makes the problem worse and social security to grow without bounds. Incorporating social security into the sales tax is perhaps one of the stupidest things about the fairtax along with the whole prebate nonsense.
It's not legally required, it is just moral to keep it sinse millions of retires are now dependant on it. It should be funded the way it currently is. Your earnings determine how much you get, and your earnings determine how much you pay in. Getting rid of that linkage is dumb. But we need to start limiting cost of living allowances and raising retirements ages and coming up with a more effective privitized system where individuals truely have personal accounts. We need to ween our country off of social security.
Spending is the bigger problem.
"The current social security setup is both visible and separate. "
Perhaps it's separate but it's not terribly visible overall to those paying into it to support the "old folks". The money is taken before the taxpayer sees it and he has no option - and usually little idea how mch he pays for S/S, but just some vague notion that - along with his other taxes - it's "too much".
There seems to be no great rush in Congress to do much about S/S and it's pretty obvious that there will soon be one wage earner supporting many receivers - not economically healthy at all.
The FairTax OTOH gives us additional time by funding the plan without making it a practical impossibility and it makes the tax costs very visible to each taxpayer with every taxable purchase. That will certainly ratchet up the political pressure to alter S/S and reduce tax rates unless you believe that taxpayers actually like higher taxes ... I certainly don't.
The fastest way to reform social security is to bankrupt it.
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.