In response to:

Beginning of the End Starts Third Week of January

kenneth416 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:53 AM
Scrao Iron in Texas, I agree that the Fair Tax would be preferable to the current abomination of a Tax Code, but it is not politically viable. It could not garner a majority of votes in either house of Congress, not to mention the president's assent. Speaker Boehner, if he holds firm, has a chance to move us toward a consumption tax, as opposed to an income tax. This can be accomplished by: first, redefining "income" to include ALL income, even including welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc. Then, re-compute the current exemptions and deductions so as to approximate the poverty level, and tax everything above that at the current, progressive rates. This would effectively force everyone to use a "standard deduction" --------
FA Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 5:43 PM
Kenneth, you can't get rid of the housing interest deduction, because it would force a whole lot of people out of their homes, which would cause all housing to decline further in value. Too many people have put together their family budgets and directed their lives based on this calculation. It isn't fair to change it at this point, and it would be counterproductive.
Although, in general I agree that a Fair tax is better. But for conservatives to argue on the finer points of our ideal goals is silly when we can't even win a basic election when the economy sucks.
Scrap Iron in Texas Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 12:39 PM
Yes, spending is the problem.
But do you see the current congress (or any new congress of establishment approved congressmen) doing ANYTHING about spending?
I don't.
Bur when there are enough congressmen willing to pass the Fair Tax, they will be the same ones who WILL tackle the spending problem.
John in Gwinnett,Ga Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 12:38 PM
The "fair tax" is not a red herring. It does one thing that a flat tax cannot do.....removes the wealth envy pandering for votes.
TruthSetsUFree Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:21 AM
The "fair tax" is a red herring. If government was spending and taxing at 10% of GDP it wouldn't matter how taxes were calculated. The issue is government spending!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DagNabbit Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 11:21 AM
OK, Man: The "trophy wife" line made me laugh.
kenneth416 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 10:57 AM
rather than itemizing deductions. So, if one wanted to carry a $1M mortgage on one's extravagent mansion at 5%, resulting in a $50,000 deduction, it would no longer be deductible. Instead, he and his trophy wife would be limited to a "standard deduction." Admittedly, this would impact the housing market, as it would charitable giving, but this would be a small price to pay to shift us toward a consumption tax.

Georgia Boy wrote: Actually, President Obama has not raised taxes on anybody, but I think he will raise taxes on the wealthiest (back to historic levels) when he gets his second term. That said, Ransom is just another Rat-wing speculation, pretty much full of bovine manure. -France’s “No Limit” Tax Perfect for Zero

Dear Comrade Boy Georgia,

You’re right about Obama wanting to bring taxes to historic levels, although like most liberals you don’t understand what you are saying. Still, rest assured, if you did understand what you said about taxes at historic levels, you’d be for that too.