JT, you're doing what Madison and many others rightly feared. The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
I had to revisit the idiotic idea set out above. To believe such stupidity one would have to believe that the drafters designed and the people that ratified the Constitution were giving unfettered power to the judiciary. This cannot be true as the Constitution was sold with the idea that the judiciary would play an insignificant role and as Hamilton called it "the least dangerous branch" of government.
Instead, the most logical interpretation simply means that the federal government cannot infringe on the rights of the people that it had already set out in each state's own constitution. Only with this interpretation can meaning be given to the 10th Amendment guaranteeing federalism.Â
This view was shared by James Madison when he wrote:
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that by enumerated particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights that were not placed in the enumeration, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently INSECURE.
The idea that pieter and his ilk promote is not supported by history. If the framers and those that ratified the Constitution believed that the judiciary branch was the weakest and most insignificant of the three it certainly does not square with the left's warped interpretation. That is because under the left's view the ninth amendment provides the judiciary with unfettered and unchecked power.  Furthermore, reading the Constitution as being written with the purpose of limiting federal power, which it certainly was, knocks pieter's "argument" "into a cocked hat." The truth is the left's "argument" is simply a facade to give cover to a naked power grab and to garner political support from those without a good sense of history.
Instead, the most logical interpretation simply means that the federal government cannot infringe on the rights of the people that it had already set out in each state's own constitution.
First, if you write like that in a legal brief, have you ever won a case in your life? That sentence implies that you believe the federal government wrote the states' constitutions, which would have been hard because it didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified.
Second, you are arguing the role of the judiciary, but the point in contention was JT's (paraphrased) "show me where such-and-such right is listed in the Constitution," an argument which Madison anticipated in the passage quoted, and a reason many of the delegates opposed listing any rights at all -- namely, that listing rights would lead to people saying that if a right wasn't listed in the constitution, it didn't exist.
What the Ninth Amendment says in today's language:
We have listed a number of rights in this document; the list is neither all-inclusive nor exclusive. If, in the future, someone argues against the assertion of an unlisted right on the sole ground that it is not a listed right, that argument has no merit.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 18, 2005 at 06:42pm.]
"Most of us here in Minnesota ARE members of the Minnesota Militia so I wouldn't use that as an argument in a right to bear arms."
Please. Forgodsake, you think anyone takes that statute seriously? I certainly hope not. I know for certain THEY DON'T WANT ME in any militia. I'm not prone to heroism.
As for the rest of the state, you'd have as much success trying to assemble a batallion of cats.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 19, 2005 at 06:56am.]
First, if you write like that in a legal brief, have you ever won a case in your life? Not that is any of your business but I have won my share.That sentence implies that you believe the federal government wrote the states' constitutions, which would have been hard because it didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified. It implies no such thing. The state's had their own constitutions. The purpose of the ninth amendment was to guarantee that the feds would not use an unenumerated "right" for a power grab.
Second, you are arguing the role of the judiciary, but the point in contention was JT's (paraphrased) "show me where such-and-such right is listed in the Constitution," an argument which Madison anticipated in the passage quoted, and a reason many of the delegates opposed listing any rights at all -- namely, that listing rights would lead to people saying that if a right wasn't listed in the constitution, it didn't exist. Your point was to clearly misconstrue in liberal talking points fashion the ninth amendment. The natural outgrowth of such non thinking is that the courts can "find" these rights and impose them without any check or balance. it is pure nonsense.
We have listed a number of rights in this document; the list is neither all-inclusive nor exclusive. If, in the future, someone argues against the assertion of an unlisted right on the sole ground that it is not a listed right, that argument has no merit.The point is that the federal court's have no power to enforce these "rights." It certainly makes no sense that they would give unfettered and unchecked power to a branch of government that they thought was of little consequence.
 Schumer said at the beginning of the hearing he would accept Roberts as a "mainstream conservative" but not an "ideologue." Is Roberts more of an ideologue than Justice Antonin Scalia, who was confirmed with 98 votes? Is Roberts more of an ideologue than former American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) general counsel Ginsburg, who got 96 votes? Chuck Schumer did not make his case.
I happen to think this is the greatest thing that can happen to government, even though it is devistating to us. It's too bad that we need to have a massive disaster to get congress to cut pork from the budget to pay for things that TRULY benefit the country.  The rest of the partisan dribble in that article I don't agree with. It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem is that tax cuts never seem to involve any spending cuts. Revenues go up and the congress says "Look at all this new dough we have to spend on my special interests!" I would love to see a "spending freeze" bill passed that would keep the budget to a set amount for say 5 years. That would force them to exercise a little fiscal restraint. It's time to take the American Express Gold card away from congress and give them the VISA Gold card with a set spending limit. Emergency funding is not included in the budget now so that wouldn't need to change. It's time to revoke their credit and force some better spending choices.
I'm fairly sure it's not as simple as "hey, cut taxes and you'll increase revenue."
I think the economy is more complicated than that. But the cliche plays well on the chat shows and talk radio, and if you don't look any further than that it's probably easy to believe. Because people want to believe that, because they want to get their taxes cut.
"It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue."
all you have to do is look at the government statistics. it shows that tax revenues went up after the years tax cuts were instituted. would they have gone up any way? There was a good chance. In most years the economy does grow to some extent. But the fact that revenues did go up after tax cuts refutes the socialists claims that cutting taxes will ruin the economy.
If it worked so flawlessly, why has the disparity between the rich and the poor widened?
There could be lots of reasons. The use of drugs, perhaps. Poor public education could be another. Maybe it is just as simple as having no ambition to improve oneself. But the fundamental fact that jobs are provided by those with more than others. And it trickles down to them until they can do something to provide for themselves. Often those that are able to provide for themselves are able to create new jobs for others.Â
I forsee a revolution. Not in my lifetime, but heads will roll.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
I did. And that was after my last post in which I cited education as a possible problem. But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer. Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned. Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same pecentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 21, 2005 at 03:16pm.]
There could be lots of reasons. The use of drugs, perhaps. Poor public education could be another. Maybe it is just as simple as having no ambition to improve oneself. But the fundamental fact that jobs are provided by those with more than others. And it trickles down to them until they can do something to provide for themselves. Often those that are able to provide for themselves are able to create new jobs for others.
Come on Jethro.
Provide me something that makes sense.
Not just old spoon fed Reaganomics.
There's no way in hell you can tell me that the top 10% work harder, don't use drugs, are more educated.... and therefor deserve 90% of the wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
It will be because of abortions, school vouchers, and too high taxes?
But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer.
But they are, on both accounts, and that's a fact.
Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned.
Or it could be for reasons you're not willing to admit?
Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same pecentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
And monkeys just might fly out of my butt. Here, look at my butt, are monkeys flying yet?
Don't take part of what I said out of context. Tax cuts DO increase revenues, but ONLY if SPENDING is also held firm or cut. If not, debt will follow. Example: Your boss gives you a 3% raise on your $100,000 salary - revenue increased ($103,000). After the raise, you go and buy a $30,000 gas-guzzling SUV. Revenue increased, but spending increased resulting in debt increase.
That's why I would like to see a national sales tax v. income tax. Income tax revenues take time to change, time we don't have during a crisis. A sales tax can be changed immediately and effects all equally. There's no tax returns to worry about so the money is collected in real time. It can be adjusted to pay for emergencies, if need be. But once again, if spending is not kept in check, we are going to spiral down that dark alley of debt anyway.
I do like your graph above, it's cute. BTW CONGRESS controls the purse strings, not the President. The worst part is that ALL of those bastards, DEMS and REPUBLICANS alike, are pork-barrel spenders. They ALL have an agenda to fund unfortunately. I'm not sure how we are going to solve that problem.
As you can see, except for a rise at the end of World War II, the Debt remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account.
Provide me something that makes sense.
I did. If you don't understand it then you need help.
Not just old spoon fed Reaganomics.
Are you a closet socialist?
There's no way in hell you can tell me that the top 10% work harder, don't use drugs, are more educated.... and therefor deserve 90% of the wealth.
I didn't say that. But many in the top 10% do work harder. But it may not be about work. If you have $100 invest and get 10% return you will have $110. If you have $1000 and get the same return you'd have $1,100. Now if you have $10,000 with the same return you'll Have $11,000. It goes on but I think you can grasp it.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
It will be because of abortions, school vouchers, and too high taxes?
It could be due to irrational folks that don't have a good grip on reality.
But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer.
But they are, on both accounts, and that's a fact.Iam not so sure the poor are getting poorer., at least not to any significant degree. It seems to be that those with less just are getting ahead as fast as others. How is that you fall for some of the left's propaganda so easily on some things but not others?
Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned.
Or it could be for reasons you're not willing to admit?
Such as?
Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same percentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
And monkeys just might fly out of my butt. Here, look at my butt, are monkeys flying yet?
You aren't making much sense today. Did you get into crabs stash?
That's why I would like to see a national sales tax v. income tax. Income tax revenues take time to change, time we don't have during a crisis. A sales tax can be changed immediately and effects all equally. There's no tax returns to worry about so the money is collected in real time. It can be adjusted to pay for emergencies, if need be. But once again, if spending is not kept in check, we are going to spiral down that dark alley of debt anyway.
the sales tax won't work like that. and it doesn't effect all equally. the poor take a bigger hit with a sales tax than they do with an income tax. and when things go bad spending goes down and there would be less revenue for the government.
The sales tax wouldn't need to be that high. Right now the wealthy can afford the lawyers to find tax shelters that wouldn't be present in a sales tax environment.
"all of the ones that my representitive lawmakers have made since I was of voting age"
Â
How many? If you can't answer, just admit you're a retarded fucking dimwit and that will be the end of it.
you made them too, dumbass... why don't you know?
you must be the stupidest person I've ever encountered.
JT, you're doing what Madison and many others rightly feared. The Ninth Amendment knocks that argument into a cocked hat.
I had to revisit the idiotic idea set out above. To believe such stupidity one would have to believe that the drafters designed and the people that ratified the Constitution were giving unfettered power to the judiciary. This cannot be true as the Constitution was sold with the idea that the judiciary would play an insignificant role and as Hamilton called it "the least dangerous branch" of government.
Instead, the most logical interpretation simply means that the federal government cannot infringe on the rights of the people that it had already set out in each state's own constitution. Only with this interpretation can meaning be given to the 10th Amendment guaranteeing federalism.Â
This view was shared by James Madison when he wrote:
The idea that pieter and his ilk promote is not supported by history. If the framers and those that ratified the Constitution believed that the judiciary branch was the weakest and most insignificant of the three it certainly does not square with the left's warped interpretation. That is because under the left's view the ninth amendment provides the judiciary with unfettered and unchecked power.  Furthermore, reading the Constitution as being written with the purpose of limiting federal power, which it certainly was, knocks pieter's "argument" "into a cocked hat." The truth is the left's "argument" is simply a facade to give cover to a naked power grab and to garner political support from those without a good sense of history.
[Edited by on Sep 18, 2005 at 11:45am.]
you must be the stupidest person I've ever encountered.
talking to yourself in the mirror again, crabs?
Torpedo is way too dullto be mistaken for a mirror.
You shot your mouth off and once again you can't back it up. So instead, you call someone stupid. You're as pathetic as they come, crabweed.
I don't call "someone" stupid... I call YOU, Torpedo, stupid... not because of anything I said, but because of the stupid shit you say.
See 9696, addict.
jethro bodine 9/18/05 11:40am
First, if you write like that in a legal brief, have you ever won a case in your life? That sentence implies that you believe the federal government wrote the states' constitutions, which would have been hard because it didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified.
Second, you are arguing the role of the judiciary, but the point in contention was JT's (paraphrased) "show me where such-and-such right is listed in the Constitution," an argument which Madison anticipated in the passage quoted, and a reason many of the delegates opposed listing any rights at all -- namely, that listing rights would lead to people saying that if a right wasn't listed in the constitution, it didn't exist.
What the Ninth Amendment says in today's language:
We have listed a number of rights in this document; the list is neither all-inclusive nor exclusive. If, in the future, someone argues against the assertion of an unlisted right on the sole ground that it is not a listed right, that argument has no merit.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 18, 2005 at 06:42pm.]
"Most of us here in Minnesota ARE members of the Minnesota Militia so I wouldn't use that as an argument in a right to bear arms."
Please. Forgodsake, you think anyone takes that statute seriously? I certainly hope not. I know for certain THEY DON'T WANT ME in any militia. I'm not prone to heroism.
As for the rest of the state, you'd have as much success trying to assemble a batallion of cats.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Sep 19, 2005 at 06:56am.]
"I'm not prone to heroism". Yeah, no shit. That was quite obvious from your list of things that scare you.
Gotta point or observation today, torpedo? Something interesting you've encountered?
Naah, why should today be any different from any other day?
[Edited by on Sep 19, 2005 at 08:40am.]
First, if you write like that in a legal brief, have you ever won a case in your life? Not that is any of your business but I have won my share.That sentence implies that you believe the federal government wrote the states' constitutions, which would have been hard because it didn't exist until the Constitution was ratified. It implies no such thing. The state's had their own constitutions. The purpose of the ninth amendment was to guarantee that the feds would not use an unenumerated "right" for a power grab.
Second, you are arguing the role of the judiciary, but the point in contention was JT's (paraphrased) "show me where such-and-such right is listed in the Constitution," an argument which Madison anticipated in the passage quoted, and a reason many of the delegates opposed listing any rights at all -- namely, that listing rights would lead to people saying that if a right wasn't listed in the constitution, it didn't exist. Your point was to clearly misconstrue in liberal talking points fashion the ninth amendment. The natural outgrowth of such non thinking is that the courts can "find" these rights and impose them without any check or balance. it is pure nonsense.
We have listed a number of rights in this document; the list is neither all-inclusive nor exclusive. If, in the future, someone argues against the assertion of an unlisted right on the sole ground that it is not a listed right, that argument has no merit.The point is that the federal court's have no power to enforce these "rights." It certainly makes no sense that they would give unfettered and unchecked power to a branch of government that they thought was of little consequence.
I certainly hope not. I know for certain THEY DON'T WANT ME in any militia. I'm not prone to heroism.
why say this? we already knew you were a democrat.
Hey Pete, talk to Winduh about winning cases. He's the one who couldn't make it as an attorney.
I "gotta" point and an observation, Ricky. You're a coward.
Tell that to John Kerry. jethro.
[Edited by on Sep 19, 2005 at 11:14am.]
"I "gotta" point and an observation, Ricky. You're a coward."
You're such an eloquent spokesperson for conservatism. The Republicans on this board must be so proud to have someone like you on their side.
Why, because i'm not pc, blind, partisan, party hack such as yourself?
That'd be a improvement.
Tell that to John Kerry. jethro.
Those people probably had more Silver Stars than him.
[Edited by on Sep 19, 2005 at 12:00pm.]
you can't put nothing past a man on the make.
 Schumer said at the beginning of the hearing he would accept Roberts as a "mainstream conservative" but not an "ideologue." Is Roberts more of an ideologue than Justice Antonin Scalia, who was confirmed with 98 votes? Is Roberts more of an ideologue than former American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) general counsel Ginsburg, who got 96 votes? Chuck Schumer did not make his case.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20050919.shtml
I happen to think this is the greatest thing that can happen to government, even though it is devistating to us. It's too bad that we need to have a massive disaster to get congress to cut pork from the budget to pay for things that TRULY benefit the country.  The rest of the partisan dribble in that article I don't agree with. It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem is that tax cuts never seem to involve any spending cuts. Revenues go up and the congress says "Look at all this new dough we have to spend on my special interests!" I would love to see a "spending freeze" bill passed that would keep the budget to a set amount for say 5 years. That would force them to exercise a little fiscal restraint. It's time to take the American Express Gold card away from congress and give them the VISA Gold card with a set spending limit. Emergency funding is not included in the budget now so that wouldn't need to change. It's time to revoke their credit and force some better spending choices.
Fold the drama queen.
[Edited by on Sep 21, 2005 at 06:51am.]
Common Sense Conservative 9/21/05 6:50am
Well said!
"It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue."
Prove that. Answer this question -- any conservative, but I suspect none will -- how much would that revenue have gone up, WITHOUT the tax cut?
And, does revenue ever do anything but increase?
I'll see if i can get you some numbers Rick.
"how much would that revenue have gone up, WITHOUT the tax cut?"
If you're going to be fair about it then you ought to find some projections for that since you are implying that they would have. Â
I'm fairly sure it's not as simple as "hey, cut taxes and you'll increase revenue."
I think the economy is more complicated than that. But the cliche plays well on the chat shows and talk radio, and if you don't look any further than that it's probably easy to believe. Because people want to believe that, because they want to get their taxes cut.
[Edited by on Sep 21, 2005 at 09:36am.]
I have to say, I'm with you Rick. It's more complicated than that, and I've never been a believer in trickle down economics.
I've never been a believer in trickle down economics.
"It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue."
all you have to do is look at the government statistics. it shows that tax revenues went up after the years tax cuts were instituted. would they have gone up any way? There was a good chance. In most years the economy does grow to some extent. But the fact that revenues did go up after tax cuts refutes the socialists claims that cutting taxes will ruin the economy.
If it worked so flawlessly, why has the disparity between the rich and the poor widened?
I forsee a revolution. Not in my lifetime, but heads will roll.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html
If it worked so flawlessly, why has the disparity between the rich and the poor widened?
There could be lots of reasons. The use of drugs, perhaps. Poor public education could be another. Maybe it is just as simple as having no ambition to improve oneself. But the fundamental fact that jobs are provided by those with more than others. And it trickles down to them until they can do something to provide for themselves. Often those that are able to provide for themselves are able to create new jobs for others.Â
I forsee a revolution. Not in my lifetime, but heads will roll.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
Read with an open mind:
I did. And that was after my last post in which I cited education as a possible problem. But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer. Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned. Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same pecentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Sep 21, 2005 at 03:16pm.]
There could be lots of reasons. The use of drugs, perhaps. Poor public education could be another. Maybe it is just as simple as having no ambition to improve oneself. But the fundamental fact that jobs are provided by those with more than others. And it trickles down to them until they can do something to provide for themselves. Often those that are able to provide for themselves are able to create new jobs for others.
Come on Jethro.
Provide me something that makes sense.
Not just old spoon fed Reaganomics.
There's no way in hell you can tell me that the top 10% work harder, don't use drugs, are more educated.... and therefor deserve 90% of the wealth.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
It will be because of abortions, school vouchers, and too high taxes?
But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer.
But they are, on both accounts, and that's a fact.
Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned.
Or it could be for reasons you're not willing to admit?
Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same pecentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
And monkeys just might fly out of my butt. Here, look at my butt, are monkeys flying yet?
"Provide me something that makes sense."
We live in the New Guilded Age.
"What is the chief end of man?--to get rich. In what way?--dishonestly if we can; honestly if we must."
-- Mark Twain-1871
Sky's falling, train's a comin'.
Read my lips...
It has been proven time and time again that tax cuts increase revenue.
It's been proven time and time again that it increases something, but I don't think "revenue" is a good word for it...
[Edited by molegrass on Sep 22, 2005 at 08:41am.]
That's a rhetorical request, right?
[Edited by on Sep 22, 2005 at 09:01am.]
Don't take part of what I said out of context. Tax cuts DO increase revenues, but ONLY if SPENDING is also held firm or cut. If not, debt will follow. Example: Your boss gives you a 3% raise on your $100,000 salary - revenue increased ($103,000). After the raise, you go and buy a $30,000 gas-guzzling SUV. Revenue increased, but spending increased resulting in debt increase.
That's why I would like to see a national sales tax v. income tax. Income tax revenues take time to change, time we don't have during a crisis. A sales tax can be changed immediately and effects all equally. There's no tax returns to worry about so the money is collected in real time. It can be adjusted to pay for emergencies, if need be. But once again, if spending is not kept in check, we are going to spiral down that dark alley of debt anyway.
I do like your graph above, it's cute. BTW CONGRESS controls the purse strings, not the President. The worst part is that ALL of those bastards, DEMS and REPUBLICANS alike, are pork-barrel spenders. They ALL have an agenda to fund unfortunately. I'm not sure how we are going to solve that problem.
Â
As you can see, except for a rise at the end of World War II, the Debt remained remarkably constant for nearly forty years when inflationary forces are taken into account. After 1983 however, with the notable exception of the Fiscal Years ending in September of 2000 and 2001, the trend has been upward even when inflation is taken into account.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
Â
Come on Jethro.
Provide me something that makes sense.
I did. If you don't understand it then you need help.
Not just old spoon fed Reaganomics.
Are you a closet socialist?
There's no way in hell you can tell me that the top 10% work harder, don't use drugs, are more educated.... and therefor deserve 90% of the wealth.
I didn't say that. But many in the top 10% do work harder. But it may not be about work. If you have $100 invest and get 10% return you will have $110. If you have $1000 and get the same return you'd have $1,100. Now if you have $10,000 with the same return you'll Have $11,000. It goes on but I think you can grasp it.
I don't necessarily disagree but it won't be because there are not opportunities now.
It will be because of abortions, school vouchers, and too high taxes?
It could be due to irrational folks that don't have a good grip on reality.
But simply because the rich get richer doesn't mean the poor get poorer.
But they are, on both accounts, and that's a fact.Iam not so sure the poor are getting poorer., at least not to any significant degree. It seems to be that those with less just are getting ahead as fast as others. How is that you fall for some of the left's propaganda so easily on some things but not others?
Some do and it could be for the reasons previously mentioned.
Or it could be for reasons you're not willing to admit?
Such as?
Unless the middle class falls into the poor category it doesn't much matter how rich the rich get. For instance if both the middle class and the rich increase their wealth by the same percentage the rich will always be getting richer faster when you look at raw numbers.
And monkeys just might fly out of my butt. Here, look at my butt, are monkeys flying yet?
You aren't making much sense today. Did you get into crabs stash?
That's why I would like to see a national sales tax v. income tax. Income tax revenues take time to change, time we don't have during a crisis. A sales tax can be changed immediately and effects all equally. There's no tax returns to worry about so the money is collected in real time. It can be adjusted to pay for emergencies, if need be. But once again, if spending is not kept in check, we are going to spiral down that dark alley of debt anyway.
the sales tax won't work like that. and it doesn't effect all equally. the poor take a bigger hit with a sales tax than they do with an income tax. and when things go bad spending goes down and there would be less revenue for the government.
The sales tax wouldn't need to be that high. Right now the wealthy can afford the lawyers to find tax shelters that wouldn't be present in a sales tax environment.
Right now the wealthy can afford the lawyers to find tax shelters that wouldn't be present in a sales tax environment.
tax shelters are highly exaggerated. and if you don't think there will numerous exemptions from the tax you are kidding yourself.
"The sales tax wouldn't need to be that high."
To make up for revenue lost by scrapping the tax code? The discussion has centered around a VAT of 23 percent.
But then I bet the politicians would start dropping things from taxation like food, clothing and, and, and....
Unworkable.
[Edited by on Sep 22, 2005 at 02:24pm.]