I'm tired of IRS paperwork every year -- We Need a Change Now!

[canyonman00]

Having read it, I do not agree with some of the positions and projections. And having spoken to Mr. Boortz personally, face-to-face, and raising some questons as they pertained to his plan, I am not impressed. After my fully laying out my fellow African Americans' postions and factoring in what some of what he called "plausable scenarios," he said that, "As with any of these plans there will have to be adjustments along the way."

I asked a key question, what do you see as the shortfall of the plan and where could things quickly go spinning out of control? After a bit of fluff he stated that the trouble would probably come from the politicians trying to micro manage for feel good sake. That their unwillingness to NOT let the market correct itself might cause some real issues in the long term. I also asked him if we might visit a scenario where within his plan we could cover ALL the ills of social security and a social society that wants everyone to have as much as they desire. He too was quickly backpeddling about the need to understand that this isn't the end-all-be-all plan and that more study would probably show some fine tuning and adjustments were needed.

Don't misunderstand me here, I am not for or against a plan to make the tax burden as flexible as they'd like. But until we start to honestly talk about making the spenders NOT budget with their hearts, it's another bandaid.

Quote from AlpineTrout:

It's obvious that some of you have not even taken the time to read The Fair Tax, by Neal Boortz & John Linder. I think most reasonably intelligent people, if they took the time to understand it, would find the Fair Tax to be one of the best ideas to come around in a long time.

Understand this first, the Fair Tax is revenue neutral. It is not designed to balance the budget. The idea is to GREATLY simplify the tax code and rid us of the IRS and all the nonsense that goes with it. Balancing the budget should be completely separate. One thing at a time. Completely changing the way the federal government collects taxes is big enough to tackle by itself.

Hell, just this one part of it alone, makes me love it. Every illegal alien and every visitor to this country would be helping to pay our SS & Med. tax and federal taxes. Every time they buy a Wendy's burger and Coke........ cha-ching, thank you very much.

 

[MGB]

Again, I'm hoping MGB or someone can answer this question for me:

If the republican party does not have a superdelegate system then how will the winner be determined if neither candidate get the required 1121 delegates to secure the nomination (which is still a theoretical possibility) ?

Democrats and the Republicans face the same scenario (whether or not they have a superdelegate system).

Each party has their own rules for handling this situation.

For the Republican party, a convention would be "brokered" if, on the first ballot, no candidate wins a majority of delegates. In that situation, another ballot would be taken to find a majority winner. And another ballot and another and another until one candidate has won a majority. The term "brokered" refers to the need for a settlement to be brokered among candidates, delegates, and party leaders. If no candidate is the majority winner, a deal will need to be worked out to induce some delegates to change their votes.

 

[canyonman00]

I dsagree, there are many social programs that, in their opinion, have been woefully underfunded for a long time. In Chicago alone, I can identify several programs that would happily love to have their budgets doubled to just get a handle on how much they really need. And that's just to stop the slide. No one is talking curbing or curing the problems.

Surplus capital, Chicago teachers would be on strike tomorrow if they believed they could get the raises that they are due for all the years of underpaying that they've suffered. There was a thought to increase the government housing fund too! Be real careful with that word surplus!

Quote from TopTrader8:

And, let not forget about the taxes that would be collected from all of the illegal activities in this country.

I would think the government would have much more to spend under the fair tax system thereby having more money to fund the various social programs also.

Win-Win. In my opinion.

 

[canyonman00]

Good you understand it, because I don't. Are we implying here that they currently don't pay taxes on the purchases at Wendy's because they are illegal or visitors to the country? What happens when they see the taxes as just too much to spend there? Is there a business supplement if they can show inordinate hardships because of the new taxes? Aren't those taxes really just a pass-thru to the consumer? Whack the poor again! For shame, the very poor that we're supposedly aiding can't even afford the burgers they are flipping. Oh wait....food stamps! Duh!

And in the new Fair Tax System, is this new tax in addition to the currently collected taxes that Wendy's is collecting? Mr. Boortz said that was one of the things that still needed a bit of clarity. The City of Chicago recently proposed adding a special tax on the bottled water sold to help cover the budget shortfalls. Would this be the new local government coverage precedent for lack of Fed funds? The munis are lining up already.

Cook County encompasses Chicago and several other local communities. They are proposing an additional tax (vehicle sticker) to cover the county budget shorts. Seems many folks moved out of the Chicagoland area (many because of taxes) to escape some taxes, but that long taxation arm......

Quote from TopTrader8:

Excellent Post!

 

[MGB]

Cook County encompasses Chicago and several other local communities. They are proposing an additional tax (vehicle sticker) to cover the county budget shorts. Seems many folks moved out of the Chicagoland area (many because of taxes) to escape some taxes, but that long taxation arm

Would it be easier and better to reduce spending?

At a minimum... pay for:
1) Fire Departments.
2) Police Officers, jails and the court system.
3) Infrastrature improvements (roads, buildings, etc.)

If you don't have the money for other government programs, eliminate it and don't fund it.

If a city needs to add a special tax on bottle water, then something is wrong with the picture.

 

[canyonman00]

Bottle water, another adult beverage tax increase, city parking tax increase, and anything else that they can tax. We have a huge illegal alien population using city services. The county hospital budget is just deplorable. And they're expecting a sizable raise this year since they've only taken minimum increases over the past five (5) years.

Hell, Chicago makes the homeless purchase street vender licenses at full price.

Quote from MGB:

Would it be easier and better to reduce spending?

At a minimum... pay for:
1) Fire Departments.
2) Police Officers, jails and the court system.
3) Infrastrature improvements (roads, buildings, etc.)

If you don't have the money for other government programs, eliminate it and don't fund it.

If a city needs to add a special tax on bottle water, then something is wrong with the picture.

 

[TopTrader8]

Quote from canyonman00:

Good you understand it, because I don't. Are we implying here that they currently don't pay taxes on the purchases at Wendy's because they are illegal or visitors to the country? What happens when they see the taxes as just too much to spend there? Is there a business supplement if they can show inordinate hardships because of the new taxes? Aren't those taxes really just a pass-thru to the consumer? Whack the poor again! For shame, the very poor that we're supposedly aiding can't even afford the burgers they are flipping. Oh wait....food stamps! Duh!

And in the new Fair Tax System, is this new tax in addition to the currently collected taxes that Wendy's is collecting? Mr. Boortz said that was one of the things that still needed a bit of clarity. The City of Chicago recently proposed adding a special tax on the bottled water sold to help cover the budget shortfalls. Would this be the new local government coverage precedent for lack of Fed funds? The munis are lining up already.

Cook County encompasses Chicago and several other local communities. They are proposing an additional tax (vehicle sticker) to cover the county budget shorts. Seems many folks moved out of the Chicagoland area (many because of taxes) to escape some taxes, but that long taxation arm......

 

[TopTrader8]

Quote from canyonman00:

Good you understand it, because I don't. Are we implying here that they currently don't pay taxes on the purchases at Wendy's because they are illegal or visitors to the country? What happens when they see the taxes as just too much to spend there? Is there a business supplement if they can show inordinate hardships because of the new taxes? Aren't those taxes really just a pass-thru to the consumer? Whack the poor again! For shame, the very poor that we're supposedly aiding can't even afford the burgers they are flipping. Oh wait....food stamps! Duh!

And in the new Fair Tax System, is this new tax in addition to the currently collected taxes that Wendy's is collecting? Mr. Boortz said that was one of the things that still needed a bit of clarity. The City of Chicago recently proposed adding a special tax on the bottled water sold to help cover the budget shortfalls. Would this be the new local government coverage precedent for lack of Fed funds? The munis are lining up already.

Cook County encompasses Chicago and several other local communities. They are proposing an additional tax (vehicle sticker) to cover the county budget shorts. Seems many folks moved out of the Chicagoland area (many because of taxes) to escape some taxes, but that long taxation arm......

Honestly, do you really think that state and local taxes are going to remain the same once a national sales tax is in place?

The state and local authorities should have to collect less (much less )because they should be able receive more annual funding from the federal level since there should be more money coming in.

 

[TopTrader8]

Quote from canyonman00:

Interesting debate here. First, what if he didn't create new jobs at a government acceptable rate? What if he just became more efficient and spent less? There's always a rub from folks who don't understand many business models that never comes to a complete agreement of the right way to go about this whole thing. As a business owner (a couple of 'em), I don't need more employees to increase my cashflows. Or I should say, the ratio of worker-to-income is not a straight line.

There always a sense of mindset to create jobs, create jobs. Technology sometimes does not need new jobs to be effective in the business model. So the assumption here doesn't fit seemlessly. And trickle down was more a function of the wealthy SPENDING their capital, not creating jobs. The tips, the extra purchases, the upgrading of goods, hardware and options on the purchases made the trickle effect spread. Now that did require the poor/needy to be out there pitching. And therein lies the rub for many.

So what if the the rich guy decides not to spend much.

How much do you want to bet that the little guy is going to hold back on his spending when he now has all of his income at his disposal to do as he pleases with it?

There are many more little guys out there than there are rich guys. And, with all of the spending that is going to be generated by the little guy because he gets to keep all of his paycheck under the fair tax system, he alone will be able to give a strong boost to the economy without much participation from the rich guys.

All of that spending is going to generate more demand for goods and services and this would mean more hiring will be required.

Are you saying that in your own situation that if your volume production experiences tremendous increases that you will still not have a need to hire more people?

I'm sure that if business picks up that much for you, you'll be hiring new people in a New York minute.

 

[AlpineTrout]

Quote from canyonman00:


And somehow we are to BELIEVE that because it's now going to be a Fair Tax System that they'd adhere to spending limits? That the shortfalls will just go away? The ebbs and flows of the market and economy won't cause a glitch that we need to overlook because we are a caring and loving peoples? PAAAA--Leeeeeese!

Again, the FairTax has nothing to do with government spending. It's a revenue neutral plan.