Posted on 06/10/2005 11:13:37 AM PDT by Always Right
In 1163, Principled accidentally mistyped your quote. He corrected it in 1164. There was no attempt to misquote. You, though, have chosen to dodge questions, avoid debate and act like a spoiled child by calling names.
You are so right about him.
Insults? I've been called every name in the book by lots of people and I'm still here. It goes back to understanding that old saw about sticks and stone. . .
I just laugh at them. That really pisses them off.
LOL
Whatever was I thinking trying to use logic, common sense, reality. . . . ? That's it. I must be lying.
Did you see the movie, "A Few Good Men" and the Marine private was on the stand being cross examined by the JAG prosecutor? He got caught in his little lie and then got confused and kept repeating the same thing trying to get out of the hole, but just kept getting deeper.
That's what your response reminds me of.
In that question, I have GRANTED you your premise and everything bad that can possibly happen and am having it all happen all at once to make the situation as bad as it can possibly be.
How much as a pay cut do I have to take to be at the point where I would actually be worse off. You are the boss. Start cutting.
Please don't repeat your projected objection. Just give me a number where a pay cut would hurt me. What number makes me NET worse off in my gross paycheck? And is it really a reason to be upset IF I still have the same NET purchasing power?
CG,
Take a look at my post at #1206, please. Tell me what, if anything I am missing. Always Right is insisting that employees MUST take a pay cut for the FairTax to be viable.
I don't buy it, but in context, is it necessarily bad if the net purchasing power is the same or better?
Slap me silly if I am wrong, please.
Theoretically, if everyone took a pay cut in the amount of taxes they paid, prices overall might stay the same. The problem then becomes many negotiated contracts like employment contracts, rents, and mortgages can not be changed, so theory is not possible. And the reality is some businesses and people will be better off under the new system ans aome will be much worse off,
What don't you understand about my question?
Or are you dancing around it?
In my scenario, prices are nailed to the wall right where they are. An act of congress, as the saying goes, will not budge them. You are claiming that wages must fall. You have the sole authority to set the new wages and you are cutting them. How much?
How much must they fall before the employee no longer has the same purchasing power as before the change in taxes structures? And if it only falls to that point (or just above) is the worker/consumer really disadvantaged?
In my scenario, prices are nailed to the wall right where they are. An act of congress, as the saying goes, will not budge them. You are claiming that wages must fall. You have the sole authority to set the new wages and you are cutting them. How much?
I thought I was fairly clear, wages must go down by the amount of taxes you pay. If you make $1000 and take home $700, you pay would have to go down to $700. Otherwise businesses would not be able to stay in business at the current prices.
Read Romans and maybe Col 1.
Excuse me? *I* am calling names?
According the the FT thugs here I am:
#1221 "a spoiled child"
#1215 I don't "get any attention back home" and display "extreme ignorance"
#1212 All I deliver is a "childish stream of insults" (ha ha ha ha). And of course, I shouldn't let my mind wander, "it's far too small to be let out on its own"
#1204 - Ah, yes, this charming post:
"You are really slow on the uptake"
"you are too freaking stupid to have graduated from college" " you must have blackmailed your profs to get the grades needed to pass."
Just out of curiosity - I assume you CAN support those accusations, Einstein? I mean, you would never post a fraudulent claim to FR, would you? Because that would also indicate that you likely made fraudulent claims to support other assertions - say like the FT proposal.
Oh, just out of curiosity, you did graduate from college, didn't you? For my erudition - what college and what was your GPA? (ha ha ha)
#1201 "Did you have pictures of the profs in order to graduate from college?" (Whatever you meant by that - oh, wait, you did explain that little bit of spittle in a later post.)
And, I think you impugned my honesty in that post, sir. Were you a shadow of a gentleman, I might be offended. However, as a clown, your accusations provide an ironic and droll amusement.
I could go on, I suppose, buy I think I have demonstrated your charges that I have resorted to name-calling to be hollow indeed, based on the tactics of abuse and thuggery on your side.
Partly both.
1. WE need to reject any tax on professional services; no exceptions.
2. The existing 'revenue' infrastructure ('Leviathan') will continue to shape the regulations that that get published in the register. These regulations have the potential to completely turn the bill on it's head. This is what has happened to every bill that congress has passed regarding the income tax, and congress has done nothing to correct the sabotage; I fear that the same will happen with a NRST bill, and a retail tax is potentially far more dangerous to the working class than the income tax is, thus we can be celebrating our victory as we sink deeper into the mire of taxes.
That is simply not true. It is the legislation that is the overriding guide to how the law operates, not its publication in the Federal Register.
There will be FAR fewer regulations required with a simple, straightforward tax such as the FairTax than with the present convoluted and arcane tax system. Not even close. It sounds as though you are "whistlling past the graveyard" and scaring yourself.
In rereading your prior response you did say that. I apologize.
The reason that I missed it is that I am having so much trouble understanding how you can possibly be right. What you suggest just doesn't sound right.
Can you, for the sake of everyone here, explain in simple terms why wages must fall by an amount equal to the taxes paid for businesses to survive in the brave new world that I envision?
Just taking a quick look thru your posts, you started insulting people and calling names as far back as post #228 and I count no less than 10 such posts.
And you still don't answer direct questions.
Please read the bill so you can discuss it with some correct information.
You really do need to stay away from the keyboard when you are off your meds. You can't even tell the difference between the flat tax proposals that really change nothing about the staus quo and the FairTax which revolutionizes this nation.
There is also a huge difference between an additional 'sin tax' like those on cigarettes and a replacement tax such as the FairTax which returns control to the people.
And NO!, you do not answer direct questions because you are entirely incapable of honesty and common sense.
So, with that whimper I take it you're giving up and I win?
"Win"??? There's no win involved.
Not with all this mud-slinging, anyway. Get down with the pigs, and you end up smelling like a dog. Or something like that. Something to do with getting dirty or smelly, like a wet dog. Or a pig. Wet or otherwise.
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.