Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Highway funding does tend to be the lever, though (21 drinking age, etc.).On Jun 11, 8:54 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jun 10, 5:50 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:06:20 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffS...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:37:37 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.
SP >Couldn't they voluntarily agree to do so?
krw > IMO, no. That said, it's done every day.
krw > Think: highway trust fund. Note the
krw > strings that go with that mess (e.g. seat belt laws).
You're touching on a very interesting twist
having to do with state's rights.
It's not the only area in which the Federal
Government basically BUYS a law from each
state in exchange for massive funding.
A few years back the Feds pushed every
state to lower the Blood Alcohol level
for the legal standard for intoxication to
be so low that a person having a single
glass of wine with a meal at a supper club
could be nailed for Drunk Driving.
When I drove taxi I watched drunks STAGGER
to their cars and saw how unwilling they
were to give up the keys.
I saw a large number of SEVERELY drunk
people drive off. It occurs to me that Police
are now wasting a LOT of time on the
less severe cases and makes the reality
more about selective enforcement than
about addressing the more severe problems.
We have enough areas where laws are
set up to be enforced only when the
authorities have an axe to grind or
isn't related somehow to the "perp".
It's called "selective enforcement".
But the tactic of "buying laws" or "buying states rights"
has become much more common.
At some level it steam rollers over the
individuality of states and weakens
the distinction between states, trending
toward one huge nation state.
JKK > It seems that you remember the 55 mph game as well.
It's not restricted to highway laws either.
In CA and many other states they aren't simpler. They'll still want toOn Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:10:42 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 10:43 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 9:37 pm, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:37 pm, krw wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:26 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Ah, so property tax remains. State sales tax remains. State income tax
remains. No thanks, then I don't want the "fair tax".
Of *course*. The "Fair Tax" is only federal. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for the feds to dictate to the states how to raise revenue, or to do it for
them.
[snip]
That is simply not true. It was discussed here ad nauseam that they will
still have to file their state tax returns as usual.
Obviously, but that's STATE. Federal goes away.
So? What's the tangible benefit for Joe Q.Public in terms of compliance
effort and cost? Next to nothing ...
All the time you spend tax planning and retirement planning to avoid
tax, for one example. All the time and energy companies spend
avoiding tax. Investment tax.
So state taxes don't need to be planned for? Why is that?
State taxes are, by far, simpler than federal income tax. Goin to the "Fair
Tax" would be a major simplification, even if the states didn't follow, which
they will (pretty much have to).
To some extent, yes. But it goes on and on. Suppose a couple thatRetirement planning will all get upset and become rather intense if they
don't exempt savings beyond Roths et cetera. Because people would have
to find a decent place outside the country.
James has conceded this point.
Which means most states and, therefore, the majority of Americans.Joe Q. isn't the guy who carries the burden, but at least he'd get his
full paycheck, with *no* deductions.
Sorry, wrong again. Obviously, from what you and Keith have written
here, he will see state tax withholding.
If the state doesn't follow, sure. Anyone living (or working) in a state with
an income tax will still have withholding.
Needs a lot more than that. But the same is true for many designs thatsnip
You don't get it--this is _your_ chance. You can just wait for
someone else to do something you hate then grumble about it, or you
can offer a solution.
I did that: Fix the current system. Roll back exemptions and pork, ditch
AMT or at least properly inflation-index it, and so on. I cannot imagine
that you seriously believe that a so-called "fair tax" won't get
clobbered the same way the once simple income tax system has been. Just
faster, because budget shortfalls will happen faster.
If it has *any* exemptions, yes it will. Washington likes to grease slippery
slopes. If there are *no* exemptions it's harder to slide into the abyss
we're in now. That said, before the Fair Tax could be implemented the 16th
amendment needs to be repealed. That won't happen either.
As an engineer I am used to not just completely toss a clients system
and suggest a re-design from scratch. First I look at it, see what needs
to be fixed and optimized, and then come up with detailed suggestions
where, how, and what it's going to take.
...and if you came across a design as broken as the US is now you'd change
some resistor values?
I am all for limiting.snip
And an increased consumption-based tax fosters an increase in
underground economy. Big time.
a) So does increased income tax. b) If not this, we'll be getting a
VAT, plus higher income taxes, plus more. Do you like that better?
If spending is rampant we will get that anyhow and it doesn't matter
what the tax is called. A flat sales tax isn't miraculously going to
make such increasing debt go away. In fact, it makes it a whole lot more
unpredictable. We have to start looking farther than our own borders.
Case in point is Germany where for many years consumers have clamped
down. They just kept a whole lot of their money, didn't spend it, and
that has resulted in serious VAT shortfalls. If the VAT or "fair tax" or
whatever is your only source you're screwed if that happens.
In high unemployment the income tax falls short, too. Many states are feeling
this pinch (no, it doesn't explain CA). The "Fair Tax" does make funding
government more obvious, which would tend to limit it more.
I would suggest a straight sales tax or flat income tax for this purpose.