Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sound a bit more conservative than I do on this (except when talking about estate and gift taxes of course).
I have some concerns about a national sales tax, such as, would basic necessities of life like housing, food, and medicines be taxed? If so, then would ALL housing, food, and medical care not be taxed? Would you say that a $700 per month apartment rental should be taxed? Or should there only be a tax when you buy a $1,000,000 home? What about on a second home? Should basic foods like bread, fruits, and vegetables be taxed? Or should only lobster and caviar be taxed? What about services? What services should be taxed? See my point?
When it comes to state/local sales taxes, most food (except prepared food/food at restaurants) is not taxed - at least not in most states, housing is not taxed, and medicine is not taxed - at least not in most states. But since we're talking about a need to raise so much more revenue, I think you'd have to tax at least some of this if we were going to have a national sales tax. I'm aware of the "Fair Tax" plan calling for services to be taxed and calling for a prebate, but I'm not sure exactly how it would work out (and I don't remember off the top of my head whether medicine/medical care would be taxed under that plan or not). The other concern I have is that different industries/corporations would lobby to have their products/services exempted from the tax and that the tax would ultimately be anything but "fair."
I think you just mail everyone a card with a pre-set tax credit to offset some minimal amount of annual spending that folks can swipe to claim part of their credit just like those supermarket rewards cards.
As to taxing homes and apartments there would be no income tax so it would essential be a wash and again you could use your card to take off some of the tax. The same would be true for food and medicine. The only people it would really hurt is people who are older and have been paying income tax and saving which is the only thing about it I don't particularly care for, but I will take it over what we have.
Also I don't see how it works without an estate and gift tax which is why I am not for the fair tax. You need to have those or the rich will pay, proportionally, a much, much smaller amount of their income/wealth in tax then low income/low wealth people who consume most of their income/wealth on an annual basis.
As to the estate and gift tax generally I tend to think the estate and gift tax is probably the most equitable, and efficient tax ever devised by mankind.
Which is why people shouldn't be forced to pay such large amounts into Social Security....
I was kidding Dependency on the government in one form or the other is at an all time high.
Contrary to what you and I would like to see/want - there are more of them than I think you are willing to accept.
The average retiree has only roughly $70,000 in savings, and that doesn't include the masses that have
even less than that. Like I said, don't outlive your money...
Do we have a major problem??? Of course we do. How do we solve it - Well, single payer for starters
No, you are the one who needs to pay closer attention.
Since you insist on using Wiki as a reliable source, at least use the correct link!
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel]Death panel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Even AARP said that the "death panel" claim was a myth and debunked it. The real death panels began when Bush was Gov of Texas and signed a law that gives a hospital the right to end a person's life even against the will of the patient or his family if the hospital expense was becoming a burden.
Ryan would be beyond an idiotic choice, the man who is the face of killing Medicare. I think he should pick a bland white guy that won't draw attention but Ryan would probably hurt. The best thing you can do is pick someone who will make no waves good or bad.
Even AARP said that the "death panel" claim was a myth and debunked it. The real death panels began when Bush was Gov of Texas and signed a law that gives a hospital the right to end a person's life even against the will of the patient or his family if the hospital expense was becoming a burden.
I wonder if you realize how many seniors do not subscribe to AARP and find them to be nothing but a liberal lobbying group. What they say is not the final word. I will also add, and I have had first hand experience, what you are saying about Texas is a down right fallacy.
I think he is a much better choice than Rubio actually.
I like Ryan as well; so does my husband and many of our family members. My biggest concerns are: 1- he comes from a state we are most likely not going to win regardless and 2-he doesn't have the vibrant personality that I would like to see. I know, I have said over and over the VP doesn't make that much difference and I don't think he/she does, but I would rather see someone from another part of the country and someone that might help somewhat. To me, someone like Suzanne Martinez (spelling) from NM has a personality, is Hispanic and comes from a totally different background. This adds spark and diversity to the ticket, if it is going to make any difference. So would Rubio, Christie, and a few others.
I like Ryan as well; so does my husband and many of our family members. My biggest concerns are: 1- he comes from a state we are most likely not going to win regardless and 2-he doesn't have the vibrant personality that I would like to see. I know, I have said over and over the VP doesn't make that much difference and I don't think he/she does, but I would rather see someone from another part of the country and someone that might help somewhat. To me, someone like Suzanne Martinez (spelling) from NM has a personality, is Hispanic and comes from a totally different background. This adds spark and diversity to the ticket, if it is going to make any difference. So would Rubio, Christie, and a few others.
Nita
We have a much better chance of winning WI than NM (or especially NJ). Obviously we have a much better chance of winning FL than WI, but I certainly don't think we need Rubio on the ticket to win FL. I don't think we necessarily "need" someone from any of the battleground states to win the state, but I also do like the idea of selecting someone from a battleground state and I don't think Romney's running mate should be from a state that we are unlikely to win since we are certain to lose MA.
I really think Portman is the best choice. He wouldn't swing the state if it was leaning heavily towards Obama but, if it is very close, he could help at the margins and put Romney over the top and, if it is already leaning towards Romney, it could help secure the state for him. Could we lose OH? Sure, but there's about an 80% chance we will lose the election if we lose OH, so we need to plan to win it.
Ryan is WAYYY too risky because of his budget plans - and I say this as a big fan of his.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-25-2012 at 09:16 AM..
We have a much better chance of winning WI than NM (or especially NJ). Obviously we have a much better chance of winning FL than WI, but I certainly don't think we need Rubio on the ticket to win FL. I don't think we necessarily "need" someone from any of the battleground states to win the state, but I also do like the idea of selecting someone from a battleground state and I don't think Romney's running mate should be from a state that we are unlikely to win since we are certain to lose MA.
I really think Portman is the best choice. He wouldn't swing the state if it was leaning heavily towards Obama but, if it is very close, he could help at the margins and put Romney over the top and, if it is already leaning towards Romney, it could help secure the state for him. Could we lose OH? Sure, but there's about an 80% chance we will lose the election if we lose OH, so we need to plan to win it.
Ryan is WAYYY too risky because of his budget plans - and I say this as a big fan of his.
I don't know about NM. She is very popular and Hispanic but I wasn't suggesting her because of NM, it only has 5 electorial votes, I was thinking as a popular Hispanic and one who is very conservative. I know the danger of Ryan is his budget plans which are something everyone should be glad to imbrace, but many are not.
Ryan would be beyond an idiotic choice, the man who is the face of killing Medicare. I think he should pick a bland white guy that won't draw attention but Ryan would probably hurt. The best thing you can do is pick someone who will make no waves good or bad.
One of the biggest problems we have is the large numbers of politicians, particularly Democrats but including many Republicans, who speak and act and conduct themselves as if Medicare as we know it ISN'T deader than a doornail, right now, and is doomed. If we could all admit that, then maybe we could have an adult conversation about what to replace it with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dependency on the government in one form or the other is at an all time high. 
