Ok, now fair is in the eye of the beholder. You see those getting the government goodies right now feel that taxing others into poverty so they can get their check is totally fair - and by the way, so do the politicians.
It is a necessity to them, it assures that government does not take from that which is necessary to survival.
That sounds just too much like a liberal to me. What exactly is necessary to survive? That's a little subjective, don't you think. That almost sounds like 'they want to put you old folks out on the street'.
Who is that? If they don't feel the need for support, they have that which beyond the necessary to their survival. No reason for such folks to ever feel "need for government support" ever. The FCA in such case is merely available to them compensating overpayment of taxes taken from them.
Do you remember when the elderly didn't depend on SS? I do. Do you remember America before the Great Society? I do. Hordes of people were not starving and dying from lack of medical care. WE had fewer, by necessity, homeless people than we do now. There was no reason for these people to feel the need for government support ever - but once the checks started coming in - somehow the 'need' grew. That is human nature - you can't discount that. For the survival level folks, that FCA makes the difference beween being literally being taxed to death and survival.
With scaremongering statements like that you are certainly going to get the democrat vote. They couldn't have written it better.
You are a mind reader and clairvoyant now? Gee such capacity and talent
Again, that was nasty and uncalled for - just tell me why it wouldn't. My opinion is based on history of this country for the past 40 years - all you have to do is look back and see what has happened. I don't know your age - but I assumed from your ID, you are not a spring chicken, either - so you know the devastation to this country caused by government dependency and by people even seemingly independent people sucking up to the government trough and how it breaks down your independence. You have to pay attention to the every little whim and whisper from politicians for fear they are going to take your goodies from you. Do you want more and more people to feel that way? I don't.
Now no, I won't be affected to the point of feeling a dependence on the government - but I will be dependent on the largesse of the fathers in Washington when I reach 65 and that part of my husband's retirement package of supplying part of our health insurance changes to a medicare supplement. I didn't plan this - I didn't cause it. It came about because the government took money from me and began buying votes and power with my money. They began to support millions of people with my money - as a result I couldn't save and the price of health insurance went so high - no one can actually afford it. That isn't going to change with the change in the way they collect revenue. But I won't live long enough to feel 'beholden' to them. Will the next generation? Some will - will their children - even more of them. That is not what I want.
Now I am not being condescending and I don't want to protect anyone from themselves - you may just be confusing my political stand and yours. I want to protect this country. Would you honestly be in favor of handing out goodies to people if you knew they would become addicted to government money? And if you look at history - you know it will be. But it is so pious to say you are just wanting this tax bill because you want America to thrive and get the government off people's back, etc, and yet my fear that you are actually putting a leash on Americans is unfounded and condescending - now that's is really convoluted thinking. We are both discussing doing what we think is best for this country and its people. I have believed that you are actually arguing from that standpoint - but when people have to resort to such a vicious, untrue, insulting form of debate - then I begin to wonder - am I bringing out some good points and you have none to counter.
Now if you don't think this will make more dependence - you haven't looked at our history and the destruction monthly checks have caused - not just to the taxpayers, but to the makeup of this country. It is there for all to see. Now you can say, if that is how you feel, that the addiction or acceptance of government money for a vaster portion of the American people is a small price to pay to get this bill passed - then say so. That is all you have to do. Personally, I think it is too high a price to pay. Therein lies our differences.
I slept on it and I still think it is a bad idea - as for an idea - I put mine across - smaller taxes and everyone pay. NOw please do not tell me that people are going to starve because of it. WE are not eliminating all the other government programs - we aren't putting them out on the streets - for goodness sakes.
We do need tax reform - badly. A sales tax sounds like a good way. You say you don't want to starve a segment of the population and I don't want to enslave them. To me, that is the long and short of it. The scare tactics of starvation is just not real. No one has starved in this country for many years. Any starvation would not be because they were paying 10 to 15% more for their purchases - just won't happen and that old 'starve the babies - put the older folks on the street' is just over the top. Now the idea that people will get addicted to government checks has it's proof in our history - starvation of the masses does not.
To me putting a Republican in office just because he/she is Republican has no merit. Creating a system to make people dependent on the government in order to get a bill passed has no merit. I do subscribe to the half-a-loaf theory - but only if the half we get isn't moldy. Do I think the politicians would pass an across the board sales tax? No. I don't think they will pass this even with the rebate, unless they see some gimmick in it for them. They might get reelected for one term based on their vote - maybe two - after that it will fade. There must be something in it for them or the government.
Now I think we have talked this to death and have gotten nowhere - so I will say I hope you really do have the best interests of this country uppermost in your mind - I do. We just feel the best interest lies in different directions. Only time will tell. My idea would not cripple this nation and would starve no one (that's just political rhetoric) - your way has some very bad possibilities, probabilities.
I want income tax gone - I want freedom - more freedom - not less.
I don't think they will pass this even with the rebate, unless they see some gimmick in it for them. They might get reelected for one term based on their vote - maybe two - after that it will fade. There must be something in it for them or the government.
***
I want income tax gone - I want freedom - more freedom - not less.
Have fun resolving your want, with political reality.
The options:
1) Repeal of all income and payroll taxes abolishing reporting of family financial condition. NRST with voluntary FCA(not rebate) or equivalent politically acceptable discounting mechanism which provides freedom of financial privacy. If the choice is exercised to accept the FCA, only the mail address for persons receiving the FCA is know to the government.
2) Some income based tax whether the current system or some "Flat" income tax system, involving reporting family financial information with details of all household members. Ginving such information to government is mandatory and not a choice for the taxpayer.
3) A EU style VAT or hidden tax that provides minimal visibility of government imposed burdens. No accountability for the cost of government growth.
Pick your poison, there are no other politically viable directions to go from where we are now.