Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
How about "The fair tax rate presumes the same amount of evasion as the income tax"...
You suggest I said a billionaire never earned his money. Nowhere did I say that.
If your idea of a clever debating tool is saying I said something I never did, then go play with yourself. I just won't debate with a liar and a fool.
No, he asked what you meant when you said, "What did you mean about useless billionaires and their heirs?"
Your post connotes class envy - badray was asking for clarification. Can you clarify? Without clarification, the class envy connotation paints you as a class warrior.
Without answering and simply calling the questioner a liar and fool makes you one.
"Follow the money. The people who will make out HUGE are the billionaires and their useless heirs. I am not impressed. And I will call anyone who peddles this scam as a way to reduce the tax burden of the average working family a baldfaced liar."
228 posted on 06/10/2005 4:29:56 PM EDT by Fido969 (I see Red People!)
I am just trying to clarify that. You made a sweeping statement that I read as dripping with class envy. I asked if that was what you meant. 'Yes' or 'no' would have settled it. Instead, I got your resume.
Talk about old debating techniques -- acting elitist while decrying them. Topped with insults instead of answers. Maybe you should consider reading comprehension classes and a 'Miss Manners' or Dale Carnegie course to dress up your resume. ( o )
Do you still take home a paycheck? Do you have a bank acount or investments?
If so, follow your believe that it's the government's money and sent it in to them. Live off of what they decide is enough. Live off welfare and food stamps. Otherwise, you are just another moralistic sounding, but lying and hypocritical liberal.
Government has usurped much of the charitable function of the church and the individual, but it is a miserable failure and in many cases denies the individual the ability to be charitable as God commands. COMMANDS, not implies.
Aah. Gotcha. Now I understand what I didn't in the middle of the night.
Thanks for clarifying that for me.
YN -- I said that he could have been wrong and I apologized. I take it back. His statement is entirely correct and you were wrong. It really bothered me to think that you were finally right on something.
Do you always call people things like that the minute you realize they don't agree with you? What a fine Freeper.
YN -- I said that he could have been wrong and I apologized. I take it back. His statement is entirely correct and you were wrong. It really bothered me to think that you were finally right on something.And if every business is removing the supposed embedded taxes and lowering prices by but keeping the same margin, how is one particular business suppose to gain market share?
Corrected: And if every business is removing the supposed embedded taxes and lowering prices but keeping the same margin, how is one particular business suppose to gain market share?
One of us is a mopron, but it is not me - nor most on this thread. You not only speak with a fork-ed tongue, but out of all 6 sides of your mouth at once as well.
Your "point" in this post is that the IT factors in the evasion whereas in an earlier post on this thread where you said it did not. In fact you can't show any source that claims this (since it isn't true) and the FairTax handles evasion the same way as the IT ... by ignoring it.
No one "gets it", nightie, because it isn't true.
If the IT DID "factor in" evasion as you claim, its rates would be greatly higher than they are right now as well. You were also challenged on these points earlier and failed the challenge miserably siince you could show nothing to demonstrate the IT "factored in" evasion.
You're merely back to the old liberal/Brookings/Gale stunt of trying to inflate the rate requirement of the FairTax - and you've failed miserably again.
Your "facts" change frequently one notes and only to suit the argument du jour.
You're ONE of those from the left, nightie - that's the meaning of that. You merely wish to pretend it isn't the case.
If every business does it, we'd be right back into the competitive market we have today.
One of us is a mopron, but it is not me - nor most on this thread.Is "mopron" a bad word in hillbilly?
Your ignorance is truly stunning ... "thot" is the past participle of "thunk".
Gheeze! This DoDo bird can't even unnerstan English. (To save you looking it up, DoDo, the DoDo you're patterened after is an extinct, flightless creature from Mauritius.). You'll soon be extinct too when the FairTax becomes the tax law of the land but at least the DoDo - extinct by Civil War time - is still remembered while you won't be.
He'd "find it hard to understand" what anyone is saying who doesn't agree with him merely as a tactic of attempted denigration ... or maybe he really is that dense!
Not to worry, Badray. It'll be a cold day in hell when nightie is right about anything except by accident.
So, Mr. Manners, exactly where did I say that billionaires didn't earn their money?
Exactly what I said.
No - it's a descriptive phrase to give you something useful to do instead of lying on these thread all the time.
It means you're a "mopron". The "p" stands for pissant. That's a hillbilly contraction which is the same as saying "you're a moron pissant". Us'ns don't like to use too many words with you libs so's you don't get TOO confused.
I know you are - but what am I?
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.