Fair Tax and Huckabee
 

I am all for the Fair Tax, though I hate the name :laugh:

Here is some info.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

which states:

Pros and Cons here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I cannot tell you how many people I know who do not work for salaries and/or supplement their salaries with cash income that never gets taxed. That sucks and there is no way to catch that. So, I say the fair tax is the way to go because everyone pays for what they consume and there is a built in stipend for the poor and needy.

Huckabee supports this platform, which makes me almost like him.

Imagine having NO IRS

Imagine keeping your entire paycheck

Imagine the govt. giving you a stipend ahead of time

Imagine anyone who is able to pay tazes paying their fair share

Sounds like Nirvana to me :cool:

Sounds like a dream to me, but taxing items at what percentage?? It seems like it would be terribly expensive to purchase even something as small as a CD... On the other hand, I have a good salary, and it would be so great to keep it all.
I have a feeling we won't see this in my lifetime.

Essentially, the govt. sends you a prebate of a few thousand dollars (it depends on your family size. Here is a link to the fair tax calculator and the site explains it in painstaking detail :laugh:

So we play a quick game of Who Have You Done? I point to a picture of Fleetwood Mac, a Clinton favorite. "Did 'em all," she says. "Even the women?" I ask. "Close, but no cigar," she sighs.

But, if you got paid all of your check, you could afford the 23% sales tax, esp. considering the prebate.

LMAO!!! Check you're paste.
That's hilarious!

Oops --

Actually, thank goodness it was not some sex ad from a stripper :eek:

If you go to the fair tax site above - there is a link to a calculator that shows what you are paying now as opposed to what you will pay under the fair tax. I suggest do your salary and deductions first and then do one for some poor person making $15,000 a year, paying rent and putting no maney away. The results are shocking.

You're so bad... haha!
I will go to the site in a few. I'm reading the wiki article now...

According to several tests I did, I should be voting for John Edwards. If he drops dead before November, Hillary Clinton would be a good choice for me as well.

Huckabee? Eh, no.

Sounds like a great idea! :thumbsup:

But if it's instituted, would there be enough money coming in to keep our Leviathan from beaching? Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see the Leviathan beach itself on the Shores of Shrinking Government. But I don't think the functionaries would like it.

The presidential candidates are a train wreck this time, except for Paul, who seems to have actually read all the papers in the National Archives -- & understood them. He's probably the only candidate who has read & understood Locke & Burke & Madison, the only candidate who knows that the state's power is the power of coercion at the point of a gun.

Another really amazing thing to me is that I haven't heard any of these dip****s in either party discuss the "terror" of violent crime at home (instead of abroad). Where's the goddamn war on THAT? My chances of being killed by an American carjacker are significantly higher than they are of being killed by an Islamic suicide bomber -- higher consistently throughout the year. In my old age, I have zero tolerance for violent crime & the thugs who commit it. I favor taking all prison sentences currently in place for all violent crime & multiplying them by a factor of at least 3. Thugs have forfeited the privilege of living & walking among the rest of us. But has there been any discussion in this stupid campaign about the rising tide of blood domestically?

Well, if these assholes would quit throwing stoners in jail for mandatory time, maybe there'd be enough space to keep violent offenders behind bars for more than 30% of their sentences.

But noooo. Let's keep the prohibition going, because history has taught us that it definitely works... :rolleyes:

Oh, that idiotic & ruinous "drug war." A completely illegitimate task of government, if ever there was one. Apart from its immorality, what a complete waste of police time & money.

I am pretty sure there would be enough money to keep the govt. running. But, I think along with the institution of the "Fair Tax," they ought to get rid of about half of the govt. BS like the $500 hammer.

As for the war on drugs, I wonder how much it actualy cost. I mean, they need to keep meth, heroine, etc. off of the streets. But, pot -- I think that ought to be allowed. In fact, they ought to tax it like they do cigarettes and booze. I also think protitution should be legal and it should be taxed as well.

If I had the power, I would eliminate the Department of Education, the Administration for Native Americans, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Drug Intelligence Center, the National Institute for Literacy, the Department of Transportation, & the Drug Enforcement Administration. For starters.

But "they" don't keep meth & heroin off the streets. It's all over the streets. The government fails miserably -- & expensively -- at this.

Well, yes, but I say "allowed" is the wrong word because it implies that the state is granting me the right to smoke weed. That's my right naturally, as the owner of my life & my body & my decisions. It isn't for the state to either "allow" or disallow. Agree? It's akin to saying the state "allows" me to wear my Levi's.

Why tax these things? Why co-opt our money & property over & over & over again? Where does all that money go? Rather, into whose pockets does it all go? 'Tain't goin' in mine, that's fer sher. I just checked.

^^^

Well, I am for the Fair Tax -- so, with that, there would be no need to tax any excise :cool:

As for outlawing heroine, etc. -- I think the epidemics of these would be far worse if they were legal and I do not know anyway to try and get rid of them for good. Atlanta, like many other cities, has a huge meth addiction problem now and crime is up because of that. By crime, I mean crime to get money to buy it, not the crime of having it. If there is another way to help keep it off of the streets, I am all for it. But, I cannot think of any other way. If you are for making it legal, I just can't support that position because I have seen it ruin people, the ones they love, and kill. Once it gets ahold of people, that is it. Maybe it should be free and natural selection will weed out the addicts in society and the race will be stronger :shrug: