Posted 15 days ago in 
Loading ...
I just read an article in the,” You Said It” column that blew me away. Basically, it said that Republicans spend more than Democrats. How childish can you be? We must look like two children in the back lot trying to convince each other of who’s right or wrong.
As long as we have people who can control their own destinies then greed and abuse are going to happen.
I’ve just completed reading a book about the Fair Tax proposal, HR25 in the House and SR 1025 in the Senate, which would give us complete transparency to government spending. I suggest you read it.
Part of being an adult is being proactive and rather than gripping about it do something about it. The book is entitled Fair Tax written by Neal Boortz and John Linder. It’s available at the library or you can buy it on line at FairTax.org or at a local bookstore.
We live in a great world and in a great country lets make the best of it!
CHRIS CAMERON
Grand Junction
43 Responses to “Fair Tax would give transparence in government spending”
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
100% with you there!
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 7:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
i’ve read the book and agree with it’s message….the fair tax is the best idea i’ve heard in years and will support it’s implementation, if ever put to vote
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
one thing i would like to add….politicians spend too much period….regardless of party offiliation
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The so-called “Fair Tax” is anything but fair. All one need do is look at it with an open mind and note that is but a “gimmick” by some, notably the wealthy and corporations to avoid their own responsibilities; i.e. picking up their share of the tax burden. Why anyone would ever subscribe to this “voodoo economics” mantra is way beyond me. It may have more to do with the fact that their view of taxes is limited to but the “dollars” and not, as it should be, what is the “burden” of taxation, and where it falls.
This “Fair Tax” boondoggle is one of the most regressive tax schemes ever conceived, and calling it “fair” does not make it so. The truth is that corporations do not pay any taxes at all. They may write the checks, but the money backing the check is being collected from their customers and their employees. Therefore, they are actually “paying” nothing.
In the above letter, the writer states that it would lead to “transparency”, and another claims that it is the fault of “politicians.” Neither one of those has any real meaning, and consist of but rationalization, not reasoning.
The problem is not “transparency.” The problem is that most people never look at what information is available, either as to the deduction from their pay, or the taxes they pay on every purchase. Look, and you will see.
As to the issue of “politicians.” They are merely doing what so many in the electorate want them to do, and mostly to keep their positions. Any person who votes for a politician because he/she promises them something, or because they accept the “I did this for you, so send me back so I can do more of the same” is the one truly responsible.
Let us stop “blaming” and finger pointing and looking for simplistic solutions, being taken in by “whatever sounds good” and do some real homework and thinking for a change. On this issue, as on many others, the “me” has to be dropped, and all need to recognize that we have a country, a state, and local governments to run.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
i’m gonna have to disagree with you on this….the “fair tax”, or more properly, the consumption tax, is based on what you spend rather than what you earn, which makes much more sense to me than taking 35% of what i earn…have you read the book, rl?…it states clearly that corporations fail to pay taxes, and it’s only common sense to realize that we, the end consumers end up footing the whole bill…i’m not sure where you come up with the “voodoo economics” thing, as the fair tax book put out by neil boortz and john linder actually opens ones’ eyes to the extreme injustice of our present tax code…i’m not denigrating your position, i’ld just like more info on your stance, not just “the fair tax isn’t fair”
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Once again, Mr. Laitres comes in on the side of uncontrolled, big government oppression of the middle and lower class taxpayers.
What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS
We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore!
There are also two books out on the subject, written by John Linder and Neal Boortz.
Both are easy to read and UNDERSTAND.
It is very obvious that Mr. Laitres has either, not read either book, or chooses to ignore the contents in order to further his personal agenda.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The percentage of one’s income used for consumption usually goes down as one’s income rises. Is it “fair” for lower income people to spend most, or all,of their income to support the national government’s activities when people at the other end of the earning scale spend a small fraction of their income in the same type of consumption as those at the lower end of the scale? The Fair Tax is extremely regressive, meaning that the tax burden falls the heaviest on the lower incomes.
It’s an age old discussion about equal sharing, income “redistribution”, income confiscation and the necessity of “excess” income for investment that will provide income and job opportunities to “trickle down” for lower income folks. There’s some truth in all of it.
My OPINION is that our country could not have progressed as far as we have economically without a graduated–progressive–marginal income tax structure. I also believe that our governmental structure makes it possible for those who are more intelligent, more industrious, more aggressive and, yes, more conniving to accumulate great wealth. I think goverment operations and structure are infinitely more valuable to people with those characteristics and they should , therefor, pay more in taxes. Not just in dollars, but in percentage of their income. We’ve had periods in our history of very high marginal taxation and there’s no indication that I’m aware of that it has stymied investment, innovation, wealth accumulation or the will to work. Truth be told, beyond a certain point, the accumulation of wealth is score-keeping and ego-driven and has little to do with vastly greater consumption in most cases.
In my OPINION, the Fair Tax is anything but. As Mr. Laitres has pointed out, the promotion of it is by those who either don’t understand the ramifications of taxation on a productive, stable society or are those who would most benefit.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Re: RLaitres’ comment, above:
You claim that the “Fair Tax” is something the wealthy and corporations are pushing to keep from paying their share, and then go on to point out that they don’t pay taxes at all (corporations, at least). So why would they care?
And, I have to tell you, I’m usually quick to jump when people start singling out posters and engaging in Ad Hominem arguments, but really, you sort of ask for it when you imply someone is not “open minded” or just doesn’t grasp a situation, because they disagree with you. To state that your conclusion is the only one that can be reached if someone truly looks at something is a little bit intellectually vain, isn’t it?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s a 27 page document comparing the different methods currently under discussion on this site.
“Comparing Average and Marginal Tax Rates under the FairTax and the Current System of Federal Taxation”
”
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Comparing%20AverageandMarginalTaxRates-110206.pdf
It begins:
Executive Summary:
The FairTax is a proposal to replace the federal personal income tax, the federal corporate income tax, the federal payroll (FICA) tax, the federal estate tax, the federal gift tax, and the federal generation-skipping tax with a federal retail sales tax, assessed at a single rate.
The FairTax also provides a rebate to each household based on its demographic composition.
The rebate is set to ensure that households living at or below the poverty line pay no taxes on net.
This paper compares average and marginal labor income and saving tax rates under the current federal tax system and the FairTax.
As specified in H.R. 25/S. 25, the legislation that would implement the reform, the FairTax’s tax rate is 23 percent.
This tax rate is measured on a tax inclusive basis, meaning that a dollar’s expenditure would yield 77 cents in consumption after payment of the retail sales tax.”
“For some low- and middle-income households, the marginal tax on working under our current tax system is more than twice the 23 percent FairTax rate!
Take, as an example, a middle-aged married couple earning $30,000 per year with two children.
Given the level of their federal marginal tax bracket, their loss, at the margin, of the Earned Income Tax Credit from earning extra income, and
their exposure to marginal FICA taxation, their current total marginal effective tax on earning an extra dollar is 47.6 percent!”
Read the paper for yourself.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Another ‘bonus’ from switching to a ‘consumption’ tax.
Drug Dealers DO NOT pay income taxes, or any of the other withholding taxes. But they throw money all over the market place that would be taxed under the ‘Fair Tax’.
Nor do people like teddy kennedy pay any personal taxes due entirely to laws passed to protect THEIR particular situation.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I gotta admit the whole thing sound pretty appealing. I understand the percentages idea that RL talks about–if a dude makes 20K and spends 10k on new parts for his diesel pickup, he gets taxed on half his income, right? But a dude that makes 100K buys the same parts for his pickup only pays on 10% of his income. Okay, but wouldn’t 100K dude also buy a motorcycle and a snowmobile and a trailer to haul it all? I mean, today’s day and age, lets face it, rich people spend money on stuff just to have something to do. I see alot of people’s homes in my line of work, and the stuff people buy, and the sheer amount of stuff people buy is astounding. Especially higher income people.
What about thing like milk, hamburger, cheese, bread…staples that nobody can live without, would they be taxed? If 20k dude bought only food and skipped the lift kit, would he pay zero tax?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Neal Boortz? The extremist far right uber-con sleaze bag Neil Boortz? LMAO You’d probably read more provocation and truth in a Paris Hilton book on celibacy.
The gigantic sales tax increase would undoubtedly put the U S economy in shambles. Read indepth analysis about the sham proposal of the unfair tax increase here, here and here.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Good question.
From the website:
” “The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people”
The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line.
This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax.
Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes.
Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent — a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today.
Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.
Under the federal income tax, slow economic growth and recessions have a disproportionately adverse impact on lower-income families.
Breadwinners in these families are more likely to lose their jobs, are less likely to have the resources to weather bad economic times, and are more in need of the initial employment opportunities that a dynamic, growing economy provides.
Retaining the present tax system makes economic progress needlessly slow and frustrates attempts at upward mobility through hard work and savings, thus harming low-income taxpayers the most.
In contrast, the FairTax dramatically improves economic growth and wage rates for all, but especially for lower-income families and individuals.
In addition to receiving the monthly FairTax prebate, these taxpayers are freed from regressive payroll taxes, the federal income tax, and the compliance burdens associated with each.
They pay no more business taxes hidden in the price of goods and services, and used goods are tax free.
How can the FairTax generate lower net tax rates for everyone and still pay for the same real government expenditures?
The answer is two-fold. Firstly, the tax base is dramatically widened by including consumer spending from the underground economy (estimated at $1.5 trillion annually), and by including illegal immigrants, those who escape their fair share today through loopholes and gimmicks.
In addition, 40 million foreign tourists a year will become American taxpayers as consumers here.
Secondly, not everyone’s average net tax burden falls.
For households whose major economic resource is accumulated wealth, the FairTax will deliver a net tax hike compared to the current system.
Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400.
These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends.
In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly.
Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent.
In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted.
In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.”
One is beginning to wonder where Mr. Laitres and Mr. Borgen derive their ‘income’.
Is the old system a much better deal for them personally?
Do they personally profit from the myriad loopholes in the current system, and a change would cause them to pay more of their ‘fair share’?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now, Willis, you were making good points…why do you have to get personal and fall into the same old crap? It undermines the credibility of your argument.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Now, Willis, you were making good points…why do you have to get personal and fall into the same old crap? It undermines the credibility of your argument. ”
Well, it’s not “personal”, but fair questions to determine why they are against changing the system.
From their posts, neither has read, or understood, what the Fair Tax Plan actually does.
But they are dead set against it. WHY?
Do they profit under the current plan, through very little ‘earned income’, but nice ‘tax exempt’ incomes from various sources?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is what that teacher who made you so mad was talking about; an “Ad Homiem” argument, meaning you’re arguing with the man/men (i.e, Why are YOU for it..etc etc etc), instead of just arguing the facts, as you were doing. Your making personal implications is just as bad as RLaitres’ implying that anyone who’s for the Fair Tax just isn’t smart enough to see what it really means.
Forget it, you guys deserve each other. I don’t think either one of you can help yourselves.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know about any “teacher that made ‘me’ so mad”.
I’m using data that is included in the proposal, while my erstwhile opponents are arguing from the same old tired political rhetoric.
Questioning personal motives is perfectly permissible when one party is not being particularly ‘honest’ in is/her positions.
From your last post, one would assume that questioning Idi Amins anti human rights position would be absurd and ad hominem?
For the vast majority of the American citizen, the Fair Tax is a win-win situation.
For a very few, it would cost more since they pay no, or little ‘income tax’ under the current system, but would be required to pay ‘their fair share’ under the consumption tax.
Had either studied, or even read the proposal, AND derived most of their income from ‘taxable’ sources, they would be all for the idea of lowering THEIR taxes. But they are against it. WHY?
And like it or not, it is a fair question.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For Willis edification. I get my income from a corporate pension–remember those?–, Social Security, and from savings through An IRA. Every bit of it taxable. And remember, the taxes on the IRA is at normal income levels, not capital gains. Yeah, I’m ripping the rest of you off! Considering all of the places where taxes are “invisible” I don’t know how one could possibly compare today’s taxes to the hypothetical comparable Fair Tax. Remember, the Fair Tax is supposed to generate comparable income, but in a “fairer” way. Does everybody pay exactly the same in both schemes? I don’t think so. So who are the “winners” and “losers” if we all don’t pay exactly the same taxes in either system? Who ends up paying a higher share of national tax revenue than before? Higher income people? Nasty income redistribution! The lower income people? That’s fair? Or is the Fair Tax just meant to be much simpler? Guess again. Voodoo tax plan meant to confuse.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The sad part is, I agree with you, Willis. I just find your tactics disagreeable.
Welcome back to the show, folks; The smug, superior, “If you were smart, you’d agree with me” liberal vs. the foaming at the mouth, hostile “Oh, Yeah? Yeah?…Well, So’s your MOM!” conservative….
Again, you guys deserve each other. Maybe you should get an apartment together. You could open a smart little coffee shop, and the customers would all say how cute it was, how you two bickered…..
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
now Now curmie, nobody said any of the following;
” The smug, superior, “If you were smart, you’d agree with me” liberal vs. the foaming at the mouth, hostile “Oh, Yeah? Yeah?…Well, So’s your MOM!” conservative….”
Now, John B.
Pretty much the same position that I’m in, although I do have a side business that garners just enough to cover its expenses.
So, if the Fair Tax is a good thing for me, and yes, I have studied it, and done a lot of research on the subject, why would it not be a good thing for you as well?
The Fair Tax would be a boon to the Nation as a whole, and only ‘bad’ for a select few, but would force the congress critters to be a little more accountable.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How can the Fair Tax be a boon for most people and “bad” for a select few? Easier to deal with, sure. But if it is revenue neutral, those select few are really going to take it in the shorts, are they not?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Conservative? What is it exactly one is attempting to conserve? It would seem to this, apparently intellectually handicapped and elitist individual, that one would first want to answer that question. Or is it perhaps that some use it as a “cover” to avoid facing reality and accepting-
+- responsibility? Perhaps such individuals would care to drop the standard of “me” and “I” long enought to realize that they are doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. Their so-called “thinking” goes as follows. “Yes, there is a problem, and someone should do something about it but not me Lord. They are the ones responsible and they caused it (finger pointing and avoidance of responsibility).”
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 1:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To answer a question raised as to my first post in this string, the answer is yes. I have read the book in question, not only once, but several times. And, the more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that it was a “sham”, based not on reality but on what the author “believes” reality to be. And that, “it should work” as opposed to “does it work?” lays at its foundation. Such is living in a theoretical world, not in the real one, the world of the practical and in being pragmatic.
The poster “hitekredneck” responded with what I believe is a civil response and therefore I respect his opinion. I may not agree with it, but yet he was courteous in his response. He read the book and I did, and our views differ based upon our perspective as to what the so-called “Fair Tax” would mean and in its effects. He sees benefit and what I perceive are the injurious effects to various segments of the population and, in my humble opinion, to those who can least afford it.
If one is to see the fallacy in the idea of the “Fair Tax”, one key lies in what they propose as a “remedy” for those in poverty. They call it a pre-bate I believe. What I find quite onerous in that remedy is when one asks the question: Who is it that is to determine what the amount of that check would be? Is that not someone in government? If so, then is it not the government that is establishing what the individual is “entitled” to and by what standards he/she is to live? It would seem,to this individual at least, that such would constitute nothing less than dictating to the individual what he should/should not do; i.e. dictating personal behavior?
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JohnB.
Those ‘few’ that i spoke of would be the ‘trust fund babies’ ie; the big majority of people like teddy kennedy.
They literally pay no taxes because they have no ‘income’ as described by the IRS.
Which, by the way, is the ‘pointed gun and threat of imprisonment’ used to steal money from one person to give to another who did nothing to EARN the money involved.
An added benefit of the FAIR TAX would be the disappearance of the IRS.
Now wouldn’t that be a shame?
No more filing taxes, scrounging for ‘deductions’, praying you don’t get caught in some ‘random’ audit scenario.
All the illegal aliens would be paying taxes instead of the free ride they get now.
Drug dealers as well as a wide assortment of others in the ‘cash only’ back market that avoid taxes, but buy stuff.
Mr Laitres,
” If one is to see the fallacy in the idea of the “Fair Tax”, one key lies in what they propose as a “remedy” for those in poverty. They call it a pre-bate I believe. What I find quite onerous in that remedy is when one asks the question: Who is it that is to determine what the amount of that check would be? Is that not someone in government? If so, then is it not the government that is establishing what the individual is “entitled” to and by what standards he/she is to live? It would seem,to this individual at least, that such would constitute nothing less than dictating to the individual what he should/should not do; i.e. dictating personal behavior? ”
THAT is precisely what the government does under the current risky tax scheme.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I for one don’t understand John B.’s position that the more you make the less you spend. In my younger day’s when I was raising my family I bought the necessities, (which taxes would be rebated under the fair tax), and bought used Fords or Chevy’s for transportation. Now in later years I have accumulated a little money I buy the toys that I could not afford before and buy new Buick’s and Lincoln’s. In other words, my consumption taxes now would be several times that of my younger years. Enlighten me, Please!
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers, Yes, up to some limit you may very well keep spending. But the issue is not people like most of us. There comes a point when you have a surplus beyond your needs/wants. Very few amongst the top 5% of earners, who comprise a huge share of national income, spend to the limit of their income, or even close to it. It’s those people whose spending as a percent of their income continously decreases as income increases.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, where are illegals not now paying taxes? Income, FICA? Are they filing and collecting on these? Sales taxes on any taxable item they buy. If they pay rent, they’re contributing to the landlords property taxes.If they are working on a cash basis their employer cannot deduct their labor as a business expense. The proverbial emergency room and other health care they get has nothing to do with the Fair Tax. That’s a seperate issue. I’m not endorsing illegal immigration. Enlighten me.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John I have to respectfully disagree, in my opinion those people are NOT going to do without their yachts, Gulfstreams, and Rolls Royces, right now their Corporations are buying them and charging them off as business expenses, but with the consumption tax, they will pay the sales tax on all of this when they are bought, regardless of the idenity of the purchaser.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
john b., it isn’t a seperate issue…illegal’s pay nothing but sales tax and that isn’t fair to the rest of us because then we share the burden of “the proverbial emergency and other health care” that’s supported by our tax money….with the fair tax, they pay the same as everybody else….and, to be honest, those top 5% people spend much more than the rest of us middle to lower class folk ever dream of….luxury cars, sports cars, jewelry, etc all would be taxed with no possibility of deducting their way out of it….at this moment, if i remember correctly, the top 5% money earners pay 85% of the tax burden in this country…i doubt seriously that would change one iota, as it’s not the quantity they buy, but the price that theey’re taxed on…
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 6:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitekredneck, I don’t know what percentage of illegals are on employer books but I think it is fairly high. If they are they pay witholding and FICA. Do they file returns or do they lose what has been paid in? Many local health facilities are funded, at least partially, by property taxes. If illegals pay rent they are supporting local property taxation.I’ve heard all kinds of figures all over the board about the percent of taxes paid by the top 5%. I think more info is needed because all the figures are so different. I’m not an apologist for illegal immigration but I question whether the tax free-loading thing isn’t a red herring based on emotion rather than fact, at least partially.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gfbyers, you have a point but I’m not sure that the percentage of income they will pay won’t still be quite a bit less than the average taxpayer. It is a controversial issue and its co-author is far from non-partisan. My question still remains unanswered: what is the share of govermment revenue collected from each income group level and how does it oompare to current shares ? I am lead to believe current shares are skewed toward lower income people by everything I’ve read. The enthusiasm for the proposal by high income people I think is telling. We are a consumer driven society and putting more of the burden for taxes on the very people who are preponderant in consumer spending seems to me to be counterproductive, not only for the economy but for income for those who live off investment income. Is a lower share of the burden of government meant to be compensation for less spendable income for consumers and therefor some harm to profitability? I don’t know, but I’d like to find out from a comprehensive review of the effects of Fair Tax made by a neutral party.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 7:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
john b, one of the main reasons employers hire illegals is to avoid paying going wages and matching taxes, so i believe that argument’s a wash….yes, they pay rent, but at a much reduced rate when they cram 2-3 families into a 2 bedroom apt…as for the shares collected from each income level, as i stated before, the more money you have, the more you spend…maybe not the same things in quantity as before, but at a much higher cost…the precentages might be less, but the amount spent is way more…
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 9:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JohnB,
Perhaps you have never heard of illegal aliens using a Citizens Social Security Number in violation of the law.
They get a job with a stolen number, claim 12 or more dependents, ergo, no taxes withheld.
Their families come up and live several families to an apartment, they have no visible means of support (their hubby is using a stolen number and probably a stolen name so nothing shows).
They get food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, etc ad nauseum.
They drive without licenses and insurance. Before the grocery stores took out the “bulk food” barrels, they would take their kids out for breakfast, lunch and dinner where they could reach in, grab a handful and munch away. if they didn’t like what they grabbed, they would throw the rest back into the barrel.
Makes you pine for the good old days don’t it?
So, yes John, they cost more than they pay, and they pay very little.
Posted April 29th, 2008 at 10:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am always interested, when people begin speaking about illegal aliens and what they “cost” us. I hear and read many things, but what is seemingly always lacking are specifics based upon statistics from some authoratative source. In fact, most uses generalities. Some, or so it would seem, refer to emergency rooms full of “illegal aliens.” The question I always ask is: How do they know that all are illegal aliens or, as I suspect, they see a Hispanic and assume that he is here illegally. Then we have those claiming that they “cost” more than what they pay in. Very well, but again provide us with some quantifiable amounts or, at the very least, again some reliable statistics.
And of course, we have the “complaint” that some are smuggling drugs into the country. Let me ask the following question. How much smuggling of drugs, or other contraband, would be smuggled if we didn’t have so many American idiots buying drugs? Maybe, if we really want to solve that problem, we should address the reason why we have so many of our own idiots using drugs, don’t you think?
The reason for not providing amounts or statistics is probably because they have none and, it may be that it is not the “cost” that bothers most such people but rather “race”, or the fact that these immigrants do not pass the “standards of conformity” wanted by these “super patriotic” Americans.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 5:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rl, i resent you intimating that i am racist. “The reason for not providing amounts or statistics is probably because they have none and, it may be that it is not the “cost” that bothers most such people but rather “race”. this statement is completely out of line, sir, and i’ve neverhad a problem with the color of a persons’ skin. what i do have a problem with, is the fact that millions of people, not just mexican, are breaking the law with what appears to be immunity from prosecution. what i have a problem with is the refusal to learn the language of the country that they choose to move to. no, i don’t have statistics, because of the nature of the issue. i would suggest, sir, rather than attacking my morals, that you address the issue at hand, which is the fair tax, not race relations.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 7:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
mr. laitres,
If you desire “facts” about the true costs of illegal immigration I would direct you to previous post on that very subject on this very same board.
There you will find more real, researchable, provable, honest, reliable facts than you are capable of comprehending in one sitting.
The problem with those facts are:
“- If someone tells me something, I will first make the effort to first, think about what he/she said is true and accurate.
If something I did not know, that does not make the other person “elitist”, all it does is point out my own ignorance (a malady with which we are all afflicted, and in more areas than those in which we are proficient), that I did not know it, especially when I should have already been aware of it.
My denying something, merely because I do not wish to admit it, does nothing but insure that I will remain ignorant.
That, at least to this individual, would mean that, not only would I remain in that state, but have lowered myself to the level of stupidity.
After all, one is not “stupid” but by virtue of choosing to remain in a state of ignorance.-”
— quoted from “RLaitres Posted April 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm ”
Now, would you care to stay on topic as much as possible and stop trying to distract other posters with your name calling and character assassination attempts?
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 7:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
willis, i agree with most of your stances…however, as long as you and rl continue to denigrate each other with personal attacks and insults, these debates will start to stifle…i enjoy this board very much, but am disheartened by the vitriol thrown about as well as the lack of courtesy shown….i understand the need to defend oneself, but to continue a discussion in that way is detrimental to the debate at hand which, in this case, is the fair tax…i really would appreciate at least one debate without the insults to a person’s character while putting forth evidence on the subject at hand…
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitekredneck,
I hereby do sincerely apologize for crawling below the gutter to his level.
I shall attempt to do better.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 8:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, that was productive.
Posted April 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
and i’m still waiting for rl’s reply to this with baited breath…
Posted May 6th, 2008 at 11:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, First off, you should read the new book that the fairtax founders created. It answers all of your critisims.
Moving on. You are using some serious doublespeak. to call an equal tax regressive is incompetant. A regressive system is one that we have now. a true progressive tax would be either a fair or flat tax, one that treats each person individually, not one that gives more power to the government, which is regressive since historically that is what was in control.
You also seem to think its progressive to make the successful and responsible people pay for everything. Tell me, why is it that we should legalize theft and communism just because its what the mob wants? Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the wealthy have an obligation to pay for the plight of others.
BTW, you like the “progressive” tax system a lot. Are you aware that the second most important policy that Karl Marx believed in to found communism is a progressive tax system that will lead to a 100% tax on everyone? (this was just after the abolishing of private property) way to go with supporting Marxist theory. Nice
Moving on, the fairtax does help people in need. You obviously forgot about the prebate. The thing that makes it possible for those below the poverty line can live well enough.
You also clearly hate economic succes on the grounds of hard work. Is there some laziness in your life, it seems that you wouyld prefer to sit at home and expect others to take care of you while you vote in politicians that promise you more stolen moeny.
You seem like a democrat, which is fine, so I would assume you are pro-choice. Why hold a double standard? You want social freedom, but you want to limit economic choice. With the fairtax, taxes become voluntary since you dont HAVE to spend money in the free market.
You also seem to think that the revenue that our government needs will go away since everyone will be taxed at an equal rate. Granted, its the same rate, but consider that the rich consume more and spend more, therefore, they will still contribute a large portion to the government. Also consider the rampant growth of foreign companies investing in a US that doesnt tax their earnings, but only their goods. Many economists believe that oversea jobs will come here and we can literally compete with China as a manufacturer. More moeny and spending, means more tax revenue from the fairtax. The economy grows, tax revenue grows, and then we can move to further help the world with that moeny.
WHy you are against this is beyond me.
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 8:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
very well put, jacob, but don’t hold your breath awaiting a reply from rl…even if he does reply, he’ll utilize double-speak and is more prone to debate with insults and accusations rather than fact….the only problem i forsee with the fairtax, is getting people to use common sense and get it voted in
Posted May 7th, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Jacobgunter - What in the world does being “pro-choice” have to do with the subject at hand? You also make the ludicrous assumption that all Democrats are pro-choice. Believing that a woman has the right to control what happens to her own body crosses all political and religious lines and is the position held by a clear majority of the American people.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.