New Hires in UAW Now Get Just $14 an hour
in [Cars]
|
Prev: Driving Courses
Next: Electrical safety training
From: Dave Head on 2 Jul 2010 23:22 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:07:09 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >In article <rsog26pt4odipidjv8p1cklbk8i185n5mj(a)4ax.com>, >Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> >> >>>Replacing the income tax only means we get the replacement AND the >>>income tax. The income tax will return. >> >>Maybe, if we're weak. > >Don't be ridiculous. Not "if we're weak". In fact, it won't return; >it'll just never go away. Were you to get your replacement tax >passed, they start the new tax on Year 1 and "phase out" the old tax >by Year 5. Then some "emergency" would happen during the "phase out" >and it would end up indefinitely postponed. Yep, well, then the Fair Tax sunsets on the 7th year. You won't have both.
From: Brent on 3 Jul 2010 01:04 On 2010-07-03, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:07:09 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net > (Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>In article <rsog26pt4odipidjv8p1cklbk8i185n5mj(a)4ax.com>, >>Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Replacing the income tax only means we get the replacement AND the >>>>income tax. The income tax will return. >>> >>>Maybe, if we're weak. >> >>Don't be ridiculous. Not "if we're weak". In fact, it won't return; >>it'll just never go away. Were you to get your replacement tax >>passed, they start the new tax on Year 1 and "phase out" the old tax >>by Year 5. Then some "emergency" would happen during the "phase out" >>and it would end up indefinitely postponed. > > Yep, well, then the Fair Tax sunsets on the 7th year. You won't have > both. And the income tax will only be on the most very wealthy people. Or that tax on phones to pay for some memorial in the 19th century that was finally removed a few years ago. The federal government is so short on entitlements alone that after seven years it will drag out a bunch of old people and how they will starve or die without all the taxes. Congress will have us paying both.
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Jul 2010 16:33 On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:07:09 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote: >Don't be ridiculous. Not "if we're weak". In fact, it won't return; >it'll just never go away. Were you to get your replacement tax >passed, they start the new tax on Year 1 and "phase out" the old tax >by Year 5. Then some "emergency" would happen during the "phase out" >and it would end up indefinitely postponed. Putting a limit on taxes is the wrong way to do it. For instance, a deficit budget is a tax. The limit needs to be on the spending side. I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that says something to the effect of "if the feds spend more than 20% GDP, then no department shall be able to spend more without a 2/3 supermajority vote of Congress". -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Matthew Russotto on 3 Jul 2010 21:19 In article <j5bt26dbl4p5rmicds9c2vdg1ohe726bln(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > > >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:07:09 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >(Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>In article <rsog26pt4odipidjv8p1cklbk8i185n5mj(a)4ax.com>, >>Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Replacing the income tax only means we get the replacement AND the >>>>income tax. The income tax will return. >>> >>>Maybe, if we're weak. >> >>Don't be ridiculous. Not "if we're weak". In fact, it won't return; >>it'll just never go away. Were you to get your replacement tax >>passed, they start the new tax on Year 1 and "phase out" the old tax >>by Year 5. Then some "emergency" would happen during the "phase out" >>and it would end up indefinitely postponed. > >Yep, well, then the Fair Tax sunsets on the 7th year. You won't have >both. Don't be silly; Congress just passes a law eliminating the sunset. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 3 Jul 2010 21:28
In article <e07v2694n5adqr9no9musmjdb6m84b26m2(a)4ax.com>, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 02:18:55 GMT, russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net >(Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>The problem with socialism is there's always >>someone with less ability and more need. > >A trouble with all "-ism's" is that the word becomes a religion and >common sense goes out the window. We all agree that some things are >better run by societies of people. Who is this "we"? When I hear the word "society" I check my wallet, because I know a raid on it is imminent. Anyway, if you hadn't noticed, my .sig is a reference to Karl Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which is practically a recipe for the competent to work themselves to death supporting the useless (whether useless by nature or by choice). -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |