I'm convinced he's not a real person and just a parody account by another poster. No one can believe and say everything he posts.

Actually, Bash, I could be you! Did you notice we have the exact same join dates?!

I've always believed Federal tax should be much lower and local and state taxes could be higher. I like the idea of money being closer to home.

 

Same hear. It never made sense to me that for social programs, how often the money goes from the tax payer to the federal government, then to a state agency then to a local agency (possibly a not for profit charity) to run the programs. Why does the money need to change hands so many times? Each time administrative costs eat away at the money leaving less to the final recipient. Is it correct that of all the money spent on welfare, only approx. 40% makes it to the recipients? At a bare minimum could we at least bypass the federal government and have the tax payer pay the state and then down the line?

 

To a large degree I feel the same with education. I find it difficult to believe that someone in Washington DC understands the unique education challenges in KY, California, Idaho, etc. better than the people of KY, California, Idaho, etc..

 

Obviously some things HAVE to be on the national level. Each state does not need its own Army. Each state does not need its own space program. However, would it make sense for Obama Care to be run by the states? The federal government set some guidelines and minimums but after that, each state has the freedom to do as they chose. A benefit of that would be the state could compare themselves to surrounding states and to benchmark themselves. Find out what other states are doing better and try to do the same.

 

Just my thoughts

I'm convinced he's not a real person and just a parody account by another poster. No one can believe and say everything he posts.

 

Boy, that brings back the days when people wondered the same thing about CheerNBHappy. We were just talking about her at the Louisville get together.

I was thinking about posting, but after reading the above 27 posts I'll just do my p***ing in the bathroom down the hall and take a pass here. Good luck to everyone.

 

:walk:

 

Chicken!:idunno:

You're absolutely right. I read somewhere that pro wrestling was the most Democratic sport, while golf was the most Republican sport. My complaint is that too many members of the BGP Spiro Agnew Fan Club pulled a "Scalia" and boycotted the President's excellent speech last night. I'm just assuming they tuned in to pro wrestling instead. Wasn't much else on the tube.

 

You know...that kind of makes senses to me.... In wrestling, who wins is kind of doled out based on audience popularity, etc. In golf, you either beat the course or you don't...there are no free strokes (except for the ladies tees).

Corporate taxation is the greater problem. The President addressed this in his speech last tonight. Individual taxation is complicated, but I wouldn't say it's unfair.

 

Agreed, our corporations are taxed way too high and the tax on dividends received is very unfair.

Pro Wrestling: Completely rigged outcomes with lots of flash and little if any substance playing to the lowest common intellectual denominator

 

Golf: a sport predicated on honor, rules of the game, self governing and dignity

 

I see your point

 

Sorry...didn't see this before I posted.

Same hear. It never made sense to me that for social programs, how often the money goes from the tax payer to the federal government, then to a state agency then to a local agency (possibly a not for profit charity) to run the programs. Why does the money need to change hands so many times? Each time administrative costs eat away at the money leaving less to the final recipient. Is it correct that of all the money spent on welfare, only approx. 40% makes it to the recipients? At a bare minimum could we at least bypass the federal government and have the tax payer pay the state and then down the line?

 

To a large degree I feel the same with education. I find it difficult to believe that someone in Washington DC understands the unique education challenges in KY, California, Idaho, etc. better than the people of KY, California, Idaho, etc..

 

Obviously some things HAVE to be on the national level. Each state does not need its own Army. Each state does not need its own space program. However, would it make sense for Obama Care to be run by the states? The federal government set some guidelines and minimums but after that, each state has the freedom to do as they chose. A benefit of that would be the state could compare themselves to surrounding states and to benchmark themselves. Find out what other states are doing better and try to do the same.

 

Just my thoughts

 

You make some good points.

I'm 100 percent behind the Obama-Biden-Pelosi plan for growing America. The alternative would be backing a draconian GOP plan that would body-slam the average working person to reward corporate fat cats.

 

Are talking points faxed or emailed these days?

You know...that kind of makes senses to me.... In wrestling, who wins is kind of doled out based on audience popularity, etc. In golf, you either beat the course or you don't...there are no free strokes (except for the ladies tees).

Wrestling: "Yeah! Yeah!"

Golf: Zzzzz. Zzzzz.

I believe their should be no federal tax, payroll tax, death tax etc.

 

Ive always been of the belief there should only be a sales tax therefor eveyone pays the same. When federal tax was first instituted it was only supposed to be a temporary thing but as everyone knows that when a politician gets his hands on free money they never want it to stop.

I'm 100 percent behind the Obama-Biden-Pelosi plan for growing America.

 

Consumption tax is truly the best answer. It would still be progressive but would capture all the illegal money in the country when it's spent.

 

Consumption taxes aren't progressive, they're frequently regressive; a higher percentage of a poor person's total income would likely go to taxes even though she would pay less in total tax than a wealthy person.

You should read the proposed national consumption tax plans before assuming that.

 

There would be huge credits per person that would exempt basically all spending for lower income people/families and much of the spending of middle class families.

 

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs#3

 

If you're interested, read that linked page. And pay close attention to the bar chart.

How would they determine lower and middle incomes? Unless of course people still had to file a gasp!!! Annual return. They they'll start adding the regs to that until we're back where we are today, only with a dual tax system.