From what I understand so far, seems like it would be a better way. Problem as I see it is that it will never happen in my lifetime.
That would be three times we agree...
From what I understand so far, seems like it would be a better way. Problem as I see it is that it will never happen in my lifetime.
Sad but true.
To get an idea of how hard it would be to make the change, consider that over 50% of the lawyers in America owe their income to the current tax code.:devil:
Sad but true.
To get an idea of how hard it would be to make the change, consider that over 50% of the lawyers in America owe their income to the current tax code.:devil:
A flat tax seems much more possible to implement.
A flat tax seems much more possible to implement.
Perhaps a little. But it would still be opposed by the lawyers and the income tax industry, require an authoritarian IRS to enforce, and be very ineffecient to collect. I personally don't feel switching to the flat tax is worth the trouble and effort it would take. On the other hand, the sales tax would be well worth the effort.
Both would take a sustantial effort to achieve, but only one of the options would make us all more free, rid us of the IRS, and result in a better funded government.
Perhaps a little. But it would still be opposed by the lawyers and the income tax industry, require an authoritarian IRS to enforce, and be very ineffecient to collect. I personally don't feel switching to the flat tax is worth the trouble and effort it would take. On the other hand, the sales tax would be well worth the effort.
Both would take a sustantial effort to achieve, but only one of the options would make us all more free, rid us of the IRS, and result in a better funded government.
Good point!
Really? Have you researched that?
The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners effectively pay no federal income tax at all.
ultra doesn't research trivial things, he just ignores "inconvenient truths", like those above.
And, EVERYTHING is trivial apparently.
Oh, and ultram since "nobody is trying to defund the war"..................
You really should research "trivia" before you spout out stupidity, again.
8 January 2007:
Coward Congressman John Murtha tells Arianna Huffington that he has a plan to "fence the funding" and deny the president funds for the "surge" on the grounds that our tax dollars are better spent on taking care of traumatic brain injuries sustained by our fighting men and women, the "signature injury" of those wounded in Iraq.
More about it:
John Murtha was in the Marines for many years and served in Vietnam; by Democrat standards, this makes him an expert on all things military. Despite losing an embarrassing bid for majority leader, the 16-term representative still carries a lot of weight in the House. He used his military and political brilliance to draft and tie an amendment to the $100 billion war request from President Bush that would create strict standards of troop safety and readiness.
Because there is not a realistic way to meet the standards, this basically equates to defunding the war and essentially forcing the president to send troops into war without the proper training and equipment. This would have crippled any chance of a troop increase in Iraq and would have achieved the goal of the far left.
The excitement was too much for Murtha, and he let his plan to micromanage the war out of the bag too early. Without the consent of Pelosi, Murtha told his plan to the liberal Web site MoveCongress.org.
You managed to never hear of it tho, apparently, it is too "trivial".
You are "honest" eh? :idea:
Tail that with the pre-election knowledge of:
October 9, 2006
New York's own Charlie Rangel of Harlem - in line to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee - is a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. And he minced no words in speaking to The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress: "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"
Then there's John Conyers of Michigan, who would chair the Judiciary Committee. Conyers has been pushing for impeachment hearings for the Bush administration almost from Day One.
In June, he oversaw an unofficial hearing to consider grounds for impeachment, and also produced a "report" claiming that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" in Ohio by the GOP.
Conyers would be matched in political gamesmanship with California's Henry Waxman, who's set to take over the Government Reform Committee - and who has kept busy lately "investigating" Vice President Dick Cheney.
Meanwhile, in contention to become House majority leader is John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Murtha, of course, is on record favoring effective surrender in Iraq.
That puts him roughly in the same War on Terror camp as John Dingell of Michigan, who's in line to chair the Energy Committee - and who recently told a Michigan radio station, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Asked point blank, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell said, "No." Then he voted against the congressional resolution supporting Israel in its recent war with Hezbollah.
Most frightening, California's Jane Harman - a thoughtful moderate and the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee - is likely to be ousted by the Democrats if they win.
Her likely replacement - Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings - holds the unusual distinction of being the only member of the House to have been impeached from a federal office before becoming a congressman.
The former judge was rebuked in 1989 for corruption and perjury; the House impeached him, and the Senate removed him from the federal bench. Unfortunately, Florida voters then elected him to the House.
Just what the Intelligence Committee needs to lead it - someone with a proven ability to be "bought" will now have access to classified information.
And then there is Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi of California.
The House Democratic leader has said that a move toward impeachment would be a "leadership decision."
Ya think that the record revenue might be related to the spending?
I'm not on a team right now. When I join one I will let you know. I wasn't aware of anyone attempting to defund our soldiers Thought you only dealt with facts.
BTW, have you ever thought about a single post response?
Just today, Sen (and Presidential Candidate) Joe Biden stated that he would vote against any funding measures that didn't call for some sort of immediate troop withdrawl.
Oh, and ultram since "nobody is trying to defund the war"..................
You really should research "trivia" before you spout out stupidity, again.
8 January 2007:
Coward Congressman John Murtha tells Arianna Huffington that he has a plan to "fence the funding" and deny the president funds for the "surge" on the grounds that our tax dollars are better spent on taking care of traumatic brain injuries sustained by our fighting men and women, the "signature injury" of those wounded in Iraq.
More about it:
John Murtha was in the Marines for many years and served in Vietnam; by Democrat standards, this makes him an expert on all things military. Despite losing an embarrassing bid for majority leader, the 16-term representative still carries a lot of weight in the House. He used his military and political brilliance to draft and tie an amendment to the $100 billion war request from President Bush that would create strict standards of troop safety and readiness.
Because there is not a realistic way to meet the standards, this basically equates to defunding the war and essentially forcing the president to send troops into war without the proper training and equipment. This would have crippled any chance of a troop increase in Iraq and would have achieved the goal of the far left.
The excitement was too much for Murtha, and he let his plan to micromanage the war out of the bag too early. Without the consent of Pelosi, Murtha told his plan to the liberal Web site MoveCongress.org.
You managed to never hear of it tho, apparently, it is too "trivial".
You are "honest" eh? :idea:
Tail that with the pre-election knowledge of:
October 9, 2006
New York's own Charlie Rangel of Harlem - in line to become chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee - is a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war. And he minced no words in speaking to The Hill, the newspaper that covers Congress: "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?"
Then there's John Conyers of Michigan, who would chair the Judiciary Committee. Conyers has been pushing for impeachment hearings for the Bush administration almost from Day One.
In June, he oversaw an unofficial hearing to consider grounds for impeachment, and also produced a "report" claiming that the 2004 presidential election was "stolen" in Ohio by the GOP.
Conyers would be matched in political gamesmanship with California's Henry Waxman, who's set to take over the Government Reform Committee - and who has kept busy lately "investigating" Vice President Dick Cheney.
Meanwhile, in contention to become House majority leader is John Murtha of Pennsylvania. Murtha, of course, is on record favoring effective surrender in Iraq.
That puts him roughly in the same War on Terror camp as John Dingell of Michigan, who's in line to chair the Energy Committee - and who recently told a Michigan radio station, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don't take sides for or against Israel."
Asked point blank, "You're not against Hezbollah?" Dingell said, "No." Then he voted against the congressional resolution supporting Israel in its recent war with Hezbollah.
Most frightening, California's Jane Harman - a thoughtful moderate and the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee - is likely to be ousted by the Democrats if they win.
Her likely replacement - Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings - holds the unusual distinction of being the only member of the House to have been impeached from a federal office before becoming a congressman.
The former judge was rebuked in 1989 for corruption and perjury; the House impeached him, and the Senate removed him from the federal bench. Unfortunately, Florida voters then elected him to the House.
Just what the Intelligence Committee needs to lead it - someone with a proven ability to be "bought" will now have access to classified information.
And then there is Speaker-in-Waiting Nancy Pelosi of California.
The House Democratic leader has said that a move toward impeachment would be a "leadership decision."
Talk is cheap Smokin, obviously. There's been quite a lot of people talikin, but noone is doing anything. Bottom line Smokin, is your party has made a huge f'n mess in Iraq, that is going to dropped in the lap of the next administration. Dems aren't going to defund anything. Use your head for a change. It's politics remember
That is my point. The middle and upper middle class carry the majority of the tax burden. I have read that during and after WWII the Ultra (26rich were considered to be in a 70% tax bracket. Reagan lowered the top bracket to 28% and Clinton bumped it back in the high 30's. Please don't get me wrong, I'm fed up with taxes as much as you are. The entire tax structure is broken. A flat tax or maybe even the Fair Tax, but I agree that something needs to be done.
I tired of the rich getting all of the tax breaks while my share continues to go up.
Care to explain why, when Regan lowered the tax rates, from over 50% in the 70's, to 28% in his term, tax money collected INCREASED?
Or,,,, are you going to (again) deny that this happened?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote