Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-20-2008, 10:17 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,470,227 times
Reputation: 4013

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
$4.00 a gallon! Why? I bought milk here, yesterday - and it was not on "sale" for $2.80. When on sale, we get it as low as $2.20
Must be milk from illegal alien cows...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2008, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,252,821 times
Reputation: 4937
The amount of federal spending far exceeds necessities.

An independent group, non governmental, needs to review each line in the budget - make recommendations for elimination of certain items - make each agency / board, justify their continuing existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 10:43 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,213,099 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Must be milk from illegal alien cows...
Though getting a bit off topic, that was pretty funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,213,099 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
The amount of federal spending far exceeds necessities.

An independent group, non governmental, needs to review each line in the budget - make recommendations for elimination of certain items - make each agency / board, justify their continuing existence.
Carter did something very similar to this, called Zero Based Budgeting. You would not believe the time and cost involved in that review (and the documentation necessary for external critical review), and the minimal amount of change resulting from the evaluations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,129,823 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by odinloki1 View Post
The fair tax could work if you made low income exceptions.

Approx $150/month for food
Approx $200/month for healthcare
Approx $600/month for housing (flexible based on area)
Approx $200/month for bills (gas, electric, unexpected expenses)

Couple that with a minimum wage based on housing costs for a given area and it could be fair.

I don't see how making a poor person who has to have basic necessities pay taxes on them just like a person living "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous". Spending a minimum amount is inevitable and most poeple that don't make a lot, don't spend a lot and shouldn't be taxed in that same way as those that spend in excess.
The short answer is that they won't be taxed at all under the FairTax. Under the present system they are taxed, so they are worse off now than they would be if we made the switch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,213,099 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
The short answer is that they won't be taxed at all under the FairTax. Under the present system they are taxed, so they are worse off now than they would be if we made the switch.
You bring up an interesting point about those folks being better off, or a "winner" in the proposed Fair Tax proposal. Since it is intended to be a zero sum game, who would be the "losers" offsetting those who end up ahead?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,068 posts, read 10,129,823 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
You bring up an interesting point about those folks being better off, or a "winner" in the proposed Fair Tax proposal. Since it is intended to be a zero sum game, who would be the "losers" offsetting those who end up ahead?
They are all winners. If the poor don't pay any tax, and the rich are paying less tax (cap gains, and etc) then everybody wins, except illegal aliens, drug dealers, and foreign tourists...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,213,099 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
They are all winners. If the poor don't pay any tax, and the rich are paying less tax (cap gains, and etc) then everybody wins, except illegal aliens, drug dealers, and foreign tourists...
But since we have multiple statements in this thread pointing out that embedded taxes in products today equal or almost equal the Fair Tax, and that the folks who are illegals, drug dealers and tourists already purchase products, how will this be a supplemental income? Why would they purchase more under Fair Tax than they do today?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:11 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,470,227 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
The short answer is that they won't be taxed at all under the FairTax. Under the present system they are taxed, so they are worse off now than they would be if we made the switch.
Actually, they would be paying a 30% surcharge on every purchase of any new good or service. For a single adult, a prebate equal to the tax on $10,210 would be mailed out, but after reaching that level of spending, everyone would simply be on his or her own to deal with that 30% tax as best one could...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:12 PM
 
Location: DFW, TX
2,935 posts, read 6,715,302 times
Reputation: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
But since we have multiple statements in this thread pointing out that embedded taxes in products today equal or almost equal the Fair Tax, and that the folks who are illegals, drug dealers and tourists already purchase products, how will this be a supplemental income? Why would they purchase more under Fair Tax than they do today?
Why do people purchase more as their income goes up? While there are people who save and invest money as their income goes up, most people I know have found a way to spend as they earn more. Buy bigger newer TVs, new cars, vacations, nicer clothes, more stuff to store in a closet in their house, eating our more, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top