Well This Is Pretty Damn On The Money

[Roy Pitchford]

Sandra,
Have we heard Obama's plan??

I don't know, sounds vaguely familiar...
Does he even have one? If he does, is it any different from what has led us into the stagnant economy we're in right now?
Have you looked for Romney's plan? He hasn't given a grand speech about it, and its not as simple as something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan, but its out there.
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
I find some specific things at the URL above.

As for the "elitist millionaire", you do know that Barack Obama is worth an estimated $12 million, right? He gives of, not just his money, but of his time to help the people around him. If you can look past the interviewer in this article and videos, I recommend watching what you find here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-real-mitt-romney-beck-interviews-people-whose-lives-have-been-touched-by-the-gop-candidate/

I think the story about the Boston veteran's home and the milk is particularly interesting, because it doesn't just demonstrate Romney's interest in helping other with no chance of return, but also his business sense.

Thealexa,
I don't know much, if anything, about Gary Johnson or his policies, but I'll offer my own thoughts in regards to your questions.

1. Economist Art Laffer says that everything the government does can be funded by a...18% personal income tax and an 18% corporate income tax. I assume he included social security in it.
Or, maybe he's of the mind, like I am, that its a failing system that needs to be phased out. For the older people, nothing changes, but for the younger ones, its time to find something more sustainable.

2. Why not abolish the sales tax then? Those unfortunate people are paying a higher tax rate compared to their income than I am when they get their smokes.
Someone on the campaign trail keeps talking about "fair share." Well, let me ask, for someone who uses the government as a backstop for their home, has the government pay for their food, medicine and cell phone, shouldn't they be asked to put a little something in? They use the same roads, the same city services, went to the same schools as I do/did. In a world where common sense is common, usually you pay MORE for getting more, not less.
Before you call me a bevy of four-letter words...and heartless...let me point out that there are private charities that can help. The government doesn't need to do this work. I might also remind you all of a Franklin quote I have used repeatedly:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. "

3. A massive amount of the Department of Education's budget goes right back to the states and individuals. Why collect it at all? Let the states or cities handle it. Same for HUD, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of HHS. Money can be spent more effectively through smaller bureaucracies.

When you contribute to your local charities, you must give $1.10 for every $1 that is to be spent in good works. County welfare sees an increase in this overhead to where $1.23 must be raised for every $1 actually spent on welfare. At the state level it takes $1.49 and the federal government must raise $2.10 for every dollar it will spend on the recipients of federal welfare a $1.10 overhead for each $1.
--Ronald Reagan, 1961

now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
--Ronald Reagan, 1964

Do things need to be cut? As long as tax dollars are used studying how different kinds of music effects the mating habits of river otters, there's stuff that needs to be cut.

4. For me to get into healthcare would mean I could be writing for a while (and you reading for a while) so I'll leave that alone.

5. Here is where I will disagree most with just about every pure libertarian. We cannot simply abandon the rest of the world, militarily and economically. Should we cut some things back, yes, but complete isolationism, no.

[Will Brown]

.

1) If Fair Tax Legislation is passed, how on earth are you going to pay for SS?

2) Fair Tax Legislation would be so unbelievably regressive you would damage all the lower and middle income families. Please explain to me how this is a good thing. At least Obama and Romney don't want to explicitly raise taxes on the poor.

Fair Tax Legislation is set forth as a replacement for the income tax. SS is not funded by the income tax, at least not yet. When we have exhausted the trust funds, it is very possible that the politicians will choose to use income tax revenues. I'm surprised that a high school graduate would think the income tax funds SS.

Much of Europe already has a VAT, an alternative similar to the fair tax proposal, in that purchase of necessities often not taxed, but purchase of "luxuries" is taxed. If you really don't want to pay the tax, you just don't but the Lexus. It doesn't appear that the VAT has destroyed the European middle class. I think the term regressive is calculatedly emotional. A tax that would hit a rich man who buys a yacht, but misses me because I don't buy a yacht, hardly seems to hurt me, nor to be regressive.

Sorry, I know how economists have an aversion to facts, as they tend to disprove their theories. Every time an economist gets egg on his face, he blames faulty data.

[ryan costa]

here are some important messages for the youth. and bitter middle aged whites opiated by the Reagan dope.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stnGC9jL8Fk

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7457 ... Free_Trade

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1360 ... de-reality

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1253 ... of_Nowhere

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59651.Hard_Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_in_the_U.S.A.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekytTpFy96o

[Thealexa Becker]

.

1) If Fair Tax Legislation is passed, how on earth are you going to pay for SS?

2) Fair Tax Legislation would be so unbelievably regressive you would damage all the lower and middle income families. Please explain to me how this is a good thing. At least Obama and Romney don't want to explicitly raise taxes on the poor.

Fair Tax Legislation is set forth as a replacement for the income tax. SS is not funded by the income tax, at least not yet. When we have exhausted the trust funds, it is very possible that the politicians will choose to use income tax revenues. I'm surprised that a high school graduate would think the income tax funds SS.

Will,

See, in high school (which was almost four years ago for me) they taught us to look for the source of information:

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HowFairTaxWorks

I am surprised that as a proponent of this system, you would not be able to read that they want to eliminate the payroll tax as well.

So I ask again, as a current college student studying the tax system and entitlement programs, how are you supposed to fund SS without a payroll tax?

Because if you have a good answer to that, you will make a whole branch of economics thrilled beyond words. And I mean that sincerely.

Much of Europe already has a VAT, an alternative similar to the fair tax proposal, in that purchase of necessities often not taxed, but purchase of "luxuries" is taxed. If you really don't want to pay the tax, you just don't but the Lexus. It doesn't appear that the VAT has destroyed the European middle class. I think the term regressive is calculatedly emotional. A tax that would hit a rich man who buys a yacht, but misses me because I don't buy a yacht, hardly seems to hurt me, nor to be regressive.

Sorry, I know how economists have an aversion to facts, as they tend to disprove their theories. Every time an economist gets egg on his face, he blames faulty data.

Apparently not just economists, but regular people too.

You seem to not know that the VAT is only one component of the European tax system, much like our excise taxes are here. They also have income taxes, wealth taxes, etc. So I guess your argument about this is unclear because it seems as though you think they only have VAT.

1. Economist Art Laffer says that everything the government does can be funded by a...18% personal income tax and an 18% corporate income tax. I assume he included social security in it.

You assume or you know? Huge difference.

I assume you are referring to his article saying that Herman Cain's tax plan wasn't that insane (yes it really really was, by the way).

http://www.nysun.com/national/art-laffer-calls-cains-tax-plan-far-far-better/87524/

But I can't find anywhere anything that supports this 18% personal income tax and 18% corporate tax. Do you have a citation for this information?

2. Why not abolish the sales tax then? Those unfortunate people are paying a higher tax rate compared to their income than I am when they get their smokes.

For the record, taxes on cigarettes aren't a sales tax, it's an excise tax. Bad example. Don't use alcohol or gas either.

And my comment about the taxation is not to abolish sales tax, it is saying that I don't understand why we need to dump all taxation on a regressive tax. Because, technically, it is not a flat tax since a person making 50k a year pays more percentage wise of his income than does someone making 100k a year. That's the classic example of a regressive tax.

Someone on the campaign trail keeps talking about "fair share." Well, let me ask, for someone who uses the government as a backstop for their home, has the government pay for their food, medicine and cell phone, shouldn't they be asked to put a little something in? They use the same roads, the same city services, went to the same schools as I do/did. In a world where common sense is common, usually you pay MORE for getting more, not less.

There are varying definitions of "fairness" in regards to taxation. If you want to know how to look at "fair share" I invite you to do some research into the following theories and see which one you agree with. The Romney and Obama camps both have one they clearly favor, it's a fun exercise to try to line them up. And also to decide which one you like best. The theories are: utilitarianism, commodity egalitarianism, Nozick, and Rawls.

3. A massive amount of the Department of Education's budget goes right back to the states and individuals. Why collect it at all? Let the states or cities handle it. Same for HUD, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of HHS. Money can be spent more effectively through smaller bureaucracies.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I do not believe this to be the case, especially not for Transportation or Energy or Labor or HUD. We can have an argument about Education if you want, because that is not as clear cut and involved different elements than the others, but we are a huge country, not 50 little ones, there needs to be some Federal involvement in these areas.

Do things need to be cut? As long as tax dollars are used studying how different kinds of music effects the mating habits of river otters, there's stuff that needs to be cut.

Stuff is not specific. Like what? I want to hear an answer from Romney and from Johnson. They seem to be allergic to specifics.

4. For me to get into healthcare would mean I could be writing for a while (and you reading for a while) so I'll leave that alone.

Probably better since you'd then have to read all of my counterpoints to yours.

5. Here is where I will disagree most with just about every pure libertarian. We cannot simply abandon the rest of the world, militarily and economically. Should we cut some things back, yes, but complete isolationism, no.

And on this we agree.

[Stephen Eisel]

If you want to be unbiased, you have to admit that not everything that happens under a presidency is bad. In your case, you are just so anti-Obama that you lose some objectivity.

If pointing out the facts makes me biased then I am guilty as charged. You may not be old enough to remember but the two biggest issues in 2008 were deficit spending and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Hope and Change promised to end the wars and cut the deficit in half. He (Obama) absolutely had no plan for either in 2008. And now, we are no better off then we were in 2008.. More war.. More deficit spending...

[Stephen Eisel]

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

7.How is the Social Security system affected?

Like all federal spending programs, Social Security operates exactly as it does today, except that its funds come from a broad, progressive sales tax, rather than a narrow, regressive payroll tax. Employers continue to report wages for each employee, though, to the Social Security Administration for the determination of benefits. The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

Meanwhile, Social Security/Medicare funds are no longer triple-taxed as under the current system: 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.


Back to FAQ Index



8.How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?

FairTax.org is a one-issue organization: Tax replacement. However, its proposal does benefit any Social Security reform proposal. The FairTax.org plan does not change Social Security benefits or the structure of the Social Security system. All it does is replace the current revenue source (narrow, regressive payroll taxes) with a new revenue source (broad, progressive sales taxes paid by all consumers).

Additionally, research shows that consumption is a more stable revenue source than income. If Social Security is reformed or privatized in a way that reduces the government’s need for revenue, then the FairTax rate can be reduced. For example, if a mandatory private savings program is implemented where people must save ten percent of their income and Social Security benefits are curtailed, then the FairTax rate can be reduced just as payroll taxes would be reduced.

[Thealexa Becker]

If you want to be unbiased, you have to admit that not everything that happens under a presidency is bad. In your case, you are just so anti-Obama that you lose some objectivity.

If pointing out the facts makes me biased then I am guilty as charged. You may not be old enough to remember but the two biggest issues in 2008 were deficit spending and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.. Hope and Change promised to end the wars and cut the deficit in half. He (Obama) absolutely had no plan for either in 2008. And now, we are no better off then we were in 2008.. More war.. More deficit spending...

I was 18 at the time, so I'm pretty sure I remember, but you and I remember 2008 very differently if you think those were the only two big issues.

You can point out facts, my issue with you is that you aren't doing the same for Romney, therefore, you are biased.

Here is a fact about Romney, he says 47% of Americans are freeloaders who don't pay income tax. You know who also doesn't pay income tax and pays a lower average tax rates than people even in the top 1%? Mitt Romney.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers

7.How is the Social Security system affected?

Like all federal spending programs, Social Security operates exactly as it does today, except that its funds come from a broad, progressive sales tax, rather than a narrow, regressive payroll tax. Employers continue to report wages for each employee, though, to the Social Security Administration for the determination of benefits. The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

Meanwhile, Social Security/Medicare funds are no longer triple-taxed as under the current system: 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.


Back to FAQ Index



8.How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?

FairTax.org is a one-issue organization: Tax replacement. However, its proposal does benefit any Social Security reform proposal. The FairTax.org plan does not change Social Security benefits or the structure of the Social Security system. All it does is replace the current revenue source (narrow, regressive payroll taxes) with a new revenue source (broad, progressive sales taxes paid by all consumers).

Additionally, research shows that consumption is a more stable revenue source than income. If Social Security is reformed or privatized in a way that reduces the government’s need for revenue, then the FairTax rate can be reduced. For example, if a mandatory private savings program is implemented where people must save ten percent of their income and Social Security benefits are curtailed, then the FairTax rate can be reduced just as payroll taxes would be reduced.

So you mean to tell me, that Johnson, who you favor, doesn't see the need to reform SS? Even the basic reforms that almost all economists agree on that don't involve an overhaul or privatization? And he wants to be taken seriously? Ok. I like him less than either Obama or Romney.

Does he not see a flaw in one giant tax pool? You think legislators are incompetent now? Yeah, just give them one revenue stream to allocate from. See what happens.

Research says consumption is a more stable revenue source than income?

Are you serious? What research? And in hard economic times is he really saying he wants to make sure there is a tax on consumption for basic needs, even when people aren't getting any income because they are unemployed? What?

[Stephen Eisel]

You can point out facts, my issue with you is that you aren't doing the same for Romney, therefore, you are biased.

Ummm.. Romney has never been president.. just sayin...

[Stephen Eisel]

So you mean to tell me, that Johnson, who you favor, doesn't see the need to reform SS? Even the basic reforms that almost all economists agree on that don't involve an overhaul or privatization? And he wants to be taken seriously? Ok. I like him less than either Obama or Romney.

Are we moving to fast for you?

So I ask again, as a current college student studying the tax system and entitlement programs, how are you supposed to fund SS without a payroll tax?

7.How is the Social Security system affected?

Like all federal spending programs, Social Security operates exactly as it does today, except that its funds come from a broad, progressive sales tax, rather than a narrow, regressive payroll tax. Employers continue to report wages for each employee, though, to the Social Security Administration for the determination of benefits. The transition to a reformed Social Security system is eased while ensuring there is sufficient funding to continue promised benefits.

Meanwhile, Social Security/Medicare funds are no longer triple-taxed as under the current system: 1) when payroll taxes are initially withheld; 2) when those withheld payroll taxes are counted as part of the taxable base for income tax purposes; and 3) when the promised benefits are finally received.


Back to FAQ Index



8.How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?

FairTax.org is a one-issue organization: Tax replacement. However, its proposal does benefit any Social Security reform proposal. The FairTax.org plan does not change Social Security benefits or the structure of the Social Security system. All it does is replace the current revenue source (narrow, regressive payroll taxes) with a new revenue source (broad, progressive sales taxes paid by all consumers).

Additionally, research shows that consumption is a more stable revenue source than income. If Social Security is reformed or privatized in a way that reduces the government’s need for revenue, then the FairTax rate can be reduced. For example, if a mandatory private savings program is implemented where people must save ten percent of their income and Social Security benefits are curtailed, then the FairTax rate can be reduced just as payroll taxes would be reduced.

[Stephen Eisel]

So you mean to tell me, that Johnson, who you favor, doesn't see the need to reform SS?

http://www.ontheissues.org/gary_johnson ... l_Security

Replace the payroll tax with FairTax. (Feb 2012)
Raise the retirement age; plus means testing. (Aug 2011)
Reform all entitlements, including Social Security. (Jul 2011)
Open to personal accounts for Social Security. (Jul 2011)
Change escalator from wage-based to inflation-based. (May 2011)
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare. (Aug 2001)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hy4sdLsH_8

[Stephen Eisel]

Research says consumption is a more stable revenue source than income?

http://pafairtax.org/resrcs/govt.pdf


http://www.fairtaxplan.org/faq_item.php?id=49

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.salestax.org/library/cain_5-9-02.html

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would increase 10.5% in the first year and level off in succeeding years at approximately 5% annually. (Dr. Dale Jorgenson of Harvard University)
Consumer prices would decrease 20 to 30 percent by eliminating the nearly 250 billion dollars in annual compliance costs, and eliminating the taxes on corporate profits and labor (payroll taxes), which are imbedded in what we pay for goods and services. (Dr. Dale Jorgenson and other economists)
A single national sales tax rate on all new goods and services of approximately 24% (to be revenue-neutral) would replace the 1.7 trillion dollars of taxes on income.
Annual uncollected taxes of 210 billion dollars (IRS estimates) would not escape The FairTax. This amount grows by 12 billion dollars each year.
Taxes of 35 billion dollars on expenditures by non-residents would be collected.
Taxes from the “underground” economy would be a bonus to the federal treasury.
Imported goods would be treated the same as domestically produced goods. This means US businesses would be much less likely to locate their plants overseas.
All taxpayers would have an equal voice, not just people who can afford tax lobbyists and skilled tax accountants.

[Roy Pitchford]

You assume or you know? Huge difference.

I assume you are referring to his article saying that Herman Cain's tax plan wasn't that insane (yes it really really was, by the way).

http://www.nysun.com/national/art-laffe ... ter/87524/

But I can't find anywhere anything that supports this 18% personal income tax and 18% corporate tax. Do you have a citation for this information?

That's not the article...I'm looking for it. I think I have a video clip, but I can't listen to it at the moment, and so I'm not sure. Art was on a few different times.
You'll hoot and holler that is from the Glenn Beck show, but that's where I saw it. He said either 17% or 18% would do the trick.

And my comment about the taxation is not to abolish sales tax, it is saying that I don't understand why we need to dump all taxation on a regressive tax. Because, technically, it is not a flat tax since a person making 50k a year pays more percentage wise of his income than does someone making 100k a year. That's the classic example of a regressive tax.

Ok. I think I see where there's some confusion. I sometimes get fair tax and flat tax mixed up.

My point was a sales tax is the same percentage for everyone. If you're poor, you're still paying 7.75% to the county.
Do we want to talk about percentages or dollar amounts?

I'll have more time to look at those theories later. I'll come back to them.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I do not believe this to be the case, especially not for Transportation or Energy or Labor or HUD. We can have an argument about Education if you want, because that is not as clear cut and involved different elements than the others, but we are a huge country, not 50 little ones, there needs to be some Federal involvement in these areas.

Why? Why does there have to be federal involvement?

I contend that if this money was received, through taxes, at the state or the county level, instead of the federal level, it could be better spent because there is less bureaucracy. For example, I'll use the HUD numbers.

HUD Budget: $41.7 billion
Of that money, 19.22 billion is "tenant-based rental assistance" and 9.469 billion is "project-based rental assistance". That's almost 3/4 of their budget. You could easily transfer all services of HUD over to the states or counties and that's $41.7 billion that the Federal government doesn't need to take from us (or that won't be "borrowed" from China or the Federal Reserve). Now, sure, the states would have to increase taxes some, but based on the statement by Reagan that I posted, which makes common sense, the states would either be able to provide better/more services or do the same work with less revenue (which would reduce the burden on us).

[Will Brown]

[quote="Thealexa Becker"]
Do you have evidence to support this claim? I do not believe this to be the case, especially not for Transportation or Energy or Labor or HUD. We can have an argument about Education if you want, because that is not as clear cut and involved different elements than the others, but we are a huge country, not 50 little ones, there needs to be some Federal involvement in these areas.

[quote]

Many concerned people feel that the country we established was in fact an alliance of small sovereign states, and that the federal government had very limited powers. The federal government did not even have an army. Over the years there have been minor changes in the Constitution, but major changes in the structure of the country. often by judicial fiat, that have almost eliminated the idea that the states could handle business their own way, which ideally would lead to innovation (you certainly won't find innovation in the massive bureaucracy that the federal government has become).

I think a major issue in the current election, beyond the talents and personalities of the candidates, is whether we should move toward a more massive and smothering bureaucracy, as Obama seems to want, or whether we should reduce the expensive federal government, and let the citizens solve these problems, through local government, or through individual action. As an example of why I prefer local action, I would cite an article I read about a remote beach in Hawaii, that became isolated when rains washed out a bridge. The government said they could go on a list to get the bridge replaced, but it would take years to complete the job. The people who needed the bridge to get customers to their business banded together and rebuilt the bridge in something less than a week. We could solve many of our problems in Lakewood locally, but we have become addicted to government aid, so we just get in line until the government throws us a sop.

Simply put, if the federal and state governments were not taxing us so heavily, and controlling us so thoroughly, we could choose to have better or worse schools, and make it happen. If the people in Louisiana choose to have poor schools, I could care less, as I don't feel an obligation to subsidize them. If they need help, some charity can help them. I prefer the option of the charity, because they would not have the smug attitude about entitlement that comes with government grants.

But I think I will check out of this thread. Becker is, frankly, uncivil and offensive, to the extent that any good idea she had would be poisoned by her personality, and that is not an environment in which I want to live.

[Thealexa Becker]

You assume or you know? Huge difference.

I assume you are referring to his article saying that Herman Cain's tax plan wasn't that insane (yes it really really was, by the way).

http://www.nysun.com/national/art-laffe ... ter/87524/

But I can't find anywhere anything that supports this 18% personal income tax and 18% corporate tax. Do you have a citation for this information?

That's not the article...I'm looking for it. I think I have a video clip, but I can't listen to it at the moment, and so I'm not sure. Art was on a few different times.
You'll hoot and holler that is from the Glenn Beck show, but that's where I saw it. He said either 17% or 18% would do the trick.

I won't hoot where he said it, I just want to quote so I can see what he means. But no worries if you can't find it.

And my comment about the taxation is not to abolish sales tax, it is saying that I don't understand why we need to dump all taxation on a regressive tax. Because, technically, it is not a flat tax since a person making 50k a year pays more percentage wise of his income than does someone making 100k a year. That's the classic example of a regressive tax.

Ok. I think I see where there's some confusion. I sometimes get fair tax and flat tax mixed up.

My point was a sales tax is the same percentage for everyone. If you're poor, you're still paying 7.75% to the county.
Do we want to talk about percentages or dollar amounts?

I'll have more time to look at those theories later. I'll come back to them.

I agree, taxation gets really confusing, and there is so much misinformation out there.

In general, and I don't mean this specifically about you Roy, it can be difficult to have a conversation about the theories of taxation without everyone in the conversation knowing all the theories represented and what each one's notion of "fairness" is. Some people just go into conversations with a limited idea about "fairness" and then the whole thing gets really off topic.

A fun anecdote to go with that came from my Public Finance class where the first day the professor asked us all what we thought a fair tax rate for the top 1% was. Then after studying all the theories, he told us we were all Romney supporters based on our answers. A few women in my class got rather annoyed.

Personally, I think that I would have more respect for politicians (and commentators) who have one theory they stick too and don't vacillate every other month, even if I disagreed with them.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? I do not believe this to be the case, especially not for Transportation or Energy or Labor or HUD. We can have an argument about Education if you want, because that is not as clear cut and involved different elements than the others, but we are a huge country, not 50 little ones, there needs to be some Federal involvement in these areas.

Why? Why does there have to be federal involvement?

I guess this is the point where your views are a tad bit more libertarian than mine. We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Stephen,

Perhaps you could consider consolidating your posts so that I would be easier to make some sense of them?

http://www.salestax.org/library/cain_5-9-02.html

So this post is merely coming out in support of lower taxes. And this is not from a reliable academic source despite it's own citation of various facts. Therefore, I do not know with certainty the reliability of this information.

Research says consumption is a more stable revenue source than income?

http://pafairtax.org/resrcs/govt.pdf


http://www.fairtaxplan.org/faq_item.php?id=49

And this is merely the website promoting itself. This is not academic research. Do you have an economic study suggesting this? Access to a journal article where an economist claims this? Heck, I'll even take a mathematician somewhat sure he has a formula that supports your claims at this point.

You are not moving *too* fast for me, but rather, you don't seem to but up to date with the current discussion among economists about SS reform.

You can point out facts, my issue with you is that you aren't doing the same for Romney, therefore, you are biased.

Ummm.. Romney has never been president.. just sayin...

So that means you can't criticize him? I mean, he does have a record as governor. But perhaps your dislike of Obama clouds your judgement on Romney as well.