It is quite apparent that youDO have some sort of interest in the present system.
Jane Gravelle is with the CRS - Congressional Research Service and they are a group which "officially" take no positions (yeah, right) on economic issues but merely "advise and clarify" for the pore dumb congresscats.
If you're dumb enough to believe they don't have their raison d'etre wholly intertwined with the public trough and thereby the present tax system then you're pretty dumb and don't realize that they "analyze" deductions, etc. for charitable giving, etc. to let congresscats know which way is up.
Perhaps it is YOU that needs to find out what CRS, JCT, etc. do any why they have helped us arrive where we are tax-wise. Go sell your inane notions elsewhere. Bias is bias and they have as least as much as you.
It is quite apparent that youDO have some sort of interest in the present system.Yeah, that's why I want to replace it.
Jane Gravelle is with the CRS - Congressional Research Service and they are a group which "officially" take no positions (yeah, right) on economic issues but merely "advise and clarify" for the pore dumb congresscats.The CRS analyzes lots of stuff, most probably having nothing to do with taxes. They would have plenty of work to do if we had the FairTax, too. And you still haven't pointed out one thing that you found biased in the paper. Did you even read it?
If you're dumb enough to believe they don't have their raison d'etre wholly intertwined with the public trough and thereby the present tax system then you're pretty dumb and don't realize that they "analyze" deductions, etc. for charitable giving, etc. to let congresscats know which way is up.
Perhaps it is YOU that needs to find out what CRS, JCT, etc. do any why they have helped us arrive where we are tax-wise. Go sell your inane notions elsewhere. Bias is bias and they have as least as much as you.Pathetic. You really don't have any idea what the CRS is, do you?