« Thanks Pops! | Main | Worst. Word. Ever. »
October 11, 2005
Flat Tax?
Brad Plumer's got a very strong post poking holes n the supposed magic of "The Flat Tax". Read it. And remember this -- there's nothing complicated about taxation. You make X dollars a year, you multiply that by the percentage you should pay, and you mail off a check. See? Easy as pie. It's not paying taxes -- getting exemptions and credits and deductions and so forth -- that's complicated. So when Republicans begin advocating for flat taxation, call it what it is: an assault on the progressivity of the system. They don't want taxes to be easier, they want them lower on the rich and higher on the poor. This debate isn't about simple taxation, it's about simple fairness.
October 11, 2005 in Taxes | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/3350715
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Flat Tax?:
Comments
Ah, it works now. This statement:
You make X dollars a year, you multiply that by the percentage you should pay, and you mail off a check.
Is untrue in the progressive system we currently have, even if there were not deductions, credits, exlcusions, etc.
Posted by: Ugh | Oct 11, 2005 4:36:19 PM
Yeah, it's true, you have to do some marginal taxation book-cookery, but it's still quite minor.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 11, 2005 4:55:47 PM
Literally as it stands: not true (but I was being picky).
Posted by: Ugh | Oct 11, 2005 5:16:29 PM
This debate isn't about simple taxation, it's about simple fairness.
What could be more fair than everyone paying the same tax rate?
Let's say the flat tax rate for everyone is 17%.
You make $25,000 per year, you pay $4,250 in taxes.
You make $100,000 per year, you pay $17,000 in taxes.
You make $1,000,000 per year, you pay $170,000 in taxes.
Do you want to redistribute wealth? Punish those who strive and work hard?
Eighty seven percent of millionaires in this country are self made(they worked for what they have).
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 11, 2005 5:23:56 PM
It certainly isn't true when you take into account different types of income, capital gains is not taxed the same as regular income, for example.
However, that is a quibble and you are quite correct that most of the complexity is a result of deductions and special loopholes.
It is unclear to me that this is about simple fairness. Certianly you can argue that everyone paying the same rate is 'fair.' You could even make an argument that everyone paying the same ammount is 'fair.' And of course you and other proponants of progressive taxes would argue that paying different rates based upon wealth is 'fair.' None of these results is self evidently more fair than others as far as I can see, it requires a lot more to show one is more fair in specific circumstances than another.
I maintain that as a whole our tax rate is pretty flat now (the rich have a higher rate, but more access to tax shelters and loopholes), so a reduction in complexity (removal of loopholes and deductions) with our current system would be a tax hike. It is even less likely to happen than a flat tax (which I expect to see about the same time I go ice skating in hades.)
Posted by: Dave Justus | Oct 11, 2005 5:25:36 PM
What could be more fair than everyone paying the same tax rate?
Make everyone pay the same amount! What could be fairer???
If "fairness" is the goal, how do you feel about a 100% estate tax? Let's see some real fairness.
On preview: darn, Justus beat me to the "same amount" retort.
Posted by: Allen K. | Oct 11, 2005 5:42:14 PM
You make $25,000 per year, you pay $4,250 in taxes.
You make $100,000 per year, you pay $17,000 in taxes.
You make $1,000,000 per year, you pay $170,000 in taxes.
I just don't understand why conservatives would find this as acceptible. The millionaire just paid $170K to the government, and is getting the exact same return in governmental services as the 25K earner who paid substantially less. (Its possibly even less return through services, although it is more when we take into account that the government does insure a large portion of that person's estate through security and economic regulations and enforcement, but I digress.)
You may be right Dave, that this is less about fairness. Its probably more about them not wanting to pay as much as they do know, hence selfishness for some, who knows how many.
Would simplifying the tax code, drive down the cost of enforcement and drive up revenue? And if that turned out to be enough to fund government without deficits and maybe even generate short term gains on the deficit, could we able to do so at a rate that is lower than the current base, assuming no exemptions? Essentially, the base rate is down, we lowered taxes, even on the top income bracket, making it "more fair" for everyone. Once again, answers I'm not smart enough to know. But questions I'm not sure the rich care all that much about.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 11, 2005 5:53:16 PM
"Make everyone pay the same amount! What could be fairer???"
Make that guy who makes $25,000 per year pay $17,000 in taxes? Or $170,000?
You liberals are so mean! You just want to make sure that the poor stays poor, don't ya!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 11, 2005 6:06:41 PM
The real issue is that even a flat tax is heavily progressive. Liberals would like to see more and more progessivity. If you aren't poor and uneducated, you are not worthy of "fairness".
Posted by: Fred Jones | Oct 11, 2005 6:36:59 PM
If you want to unleash economic growth, repeal the corporate income tax.
Posted by: Ugh | Oct 11, 2005 7:19:26 PM
Who does corporat income tax directly impact? Hmm, Let's see the rich, white males. Enforcement -- yea ask Tom DeLay and Bill Frist about that issue.
Actually, the flat tax would keep the poor down(rebulican goal) and hurt the shrinking middle class.
Estate tax, don't even get me started!
Posted by: catherine | Oct 11, 2005 8:24:44 PM
Another thing worth mentioning is that if you changed only the income tax to a flat tax and left the rest of the code alone, the poorer would end up paying a higher rate than middle or upper class taxpayers. Taxes like the payroll tax, sales tax, and a few others hit the poor harder than other groups.
Posted by: Dustin | Oct 11, 2005 10:22:55 PM
"Actually, the flat tax would keep the poor down(rebulican goal) and hurt the shrinking middle class."
It is a good thing you pointed out keeping the poor down is a Republican goal or else some of the people reading this blog might have been tricked by my comment. You're a smart one, I can't get anything past you.
Could you explain how the flat tax keeps the poor from getting out of poverty?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 11, 2005 10:36:02 PM
You may be right Dave, that this is less about fairness. Its probably more about them not wanting to pay as much as they do know, hence selfishness for some, who knows how many.
The real point is that, sooner or later, we're going to have to jack the tax rates up or become the bulk-sized Argentina. How we jack said tax rates is going to be an issue.
Posted by: Dustbin Of History | Oct 11, 2005 10:57:14 PM
It's fair if you take luck in life seriously, and I do. Read your Rawls, it's good for you.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 11, 2005 11:48:43 PM
Ezra,
I don't see how luck in life makes one sort of tax fairer than another. Is it that you feel we must counter-balance luck in some fashion to restore fairness to the universe?
I am not sure that unfairness in the universe (luck) would justify being unfair in our dealings with one another as a result.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Oct 12, 2005 10:07:31 AM
If you follow Sully's link the iris site has updated his post with the following:
Update 3: The critics were correct: these numbers are not compelling given that the entire area appears to be experiencing extraordinary growth. I ran the numbers on the non-flat tax countries of the former Soviet Union and there is only a slight (0.3%) advantage to the flat tax group. This difference is probably not statistically significant given the weakness of the underlying reporting mechanisms.
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/422-IRIS-Exclusive-All-Flat-Tax-Countries-Experiencing-Explosive-Growth-Rates.html
At least this guy tells the truth. I wonder if sully will run an update.
Posted by: Erik | Oct 12, 2005 11:25:57 AM
"It's fair if you take luck in life seriously, and I do."
People make their luck in life happen.
Someone who works a little harder than those around him or her gets a promotion. It was lucky their employer noticed their hard work.
Someone who worked hard in college, stayed at home and studied while everyone else is partying, that person gets the kick ass job out of college. How lucky can a person get?
Someone is a little more persistant and offers a better product than their competitors and makes the sale. Boy, they sure were lucky.
Someone has worked hard, researched and has figured out a way to lower their costs so they can bid a little lower and still offer the same quality, and they get the contract. What luck!
You want to punish this kind of behavior? Cuz everyone else was too lazy or stupid and would rather watch TV than try to get ahead?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 11:30:22 AM
"You make X dollars a year, you multiply that by the percentage you should pay, and you mail off a check. See? Easy as pie."
It's obvious that you've never paid taxes (and probably won't until '07). Those W-2's aren't "as easy as pie". First you compute your TAXABLE income, which is quite different than your gross income (what you make) - and no, that's not derived directly from "loopholes" as there are social security & state taxes involved, as well as other things.
Also, you might want to do some research into the fair tax (the book was #1 last month), as the poor would pay no income taxes - just as they do now and under every feasible flat tax plan put forth. To say your rhetoric in the post is incorrect would be an understatement.
Do some research. Pay some income taxes. Then talk.
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 11:41:27 AM
Toke, could you explain how a flat tax rate is fair?
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 12, 2005 11:44:03 AM
"Who does corporat income tax directly impact"
Every person who buys a good or service from a corporation. That should've been covered in one of your 9th grade classes.
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 11:45:01 AM
RW, what are the book's claims on revenue? Do they claim the government would currently taken in more, less or the same?
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 12, 2005 11:47:15 AM
"What could be more fair than everyone paying the same tax rate?"
First of all, fairness is a relative term. To illustrate this, and how a flat tax is regressive and disproportionally punishes lower income earners, let’s look at whose life is going to be affected more by a flat tax.
Take the example being examined here. If someone making 25,000 a year is taxed 17% (4,250) that leaves 20,750 to pay living expenses: housing, food, clothes, car, gas, insurance, etc. If some has a family, these expenses are going to be even higher. For a family of 4, the poverty income level for 2005 was 19,350, which makes them only a little over a thousand dollars away from poverty status. For people like this, 4,250 could go along way in simply paying for necessities. More then likely, they will have to cut some necessities because they simply can’t afford it. On the other hand, if someone making 100,000 a year is taxed at 17% (17,000) that still leaves 83,000 to cover living expenses. That’s still a good chunk of money and shouldn’t leave the family having to sacrifice any necessities. I imagine they could live pretty comfortably on that.
What no one talks about in this flat tax debate is 17% of low income leaves even lower income, while 17% of high-income still leaves a high-income. It’s not about the percentage, but about the base income of the percentage and where it leaves people with take-home money. My point is that is it fair to tax those close to the poverty line and those earning six-figures equally and also say that how it affects each household in real life is also fair?
Posted by: Whipscrap | Oct 12, 2005 12:06:59 PM
You want to punish this kind of behavior? Cuz everyone else was too lazy or stupid and would rather watch TV than try to get ahead?
Yes, because people deserve it when they get hit by cars, or when the weather unexpectedly changes, or when their genes gang up on them and give them cancerous colons, or when Enron f'ed them in the wallet, or when their parents are less holy than thou, etc.
I'm sure you're not familiar with it, but this is commonly known as the "just world hypothesis," and is one of the many ways peopl assuage the bad feelings that witnessing suffering engenders (in normal people).
Posted by: TJ | Oct 12, 2005 12:15:03 PM
Adrock,
Read the 4th post down. Then keep reading before you write"Why shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?"
You see Adrock, I back up my assertions, unlike catherine and a lot of other people who spit out the liberal tripe on this blog. "Bush lied, People died", "Democrats want to help the poor get out of poverty", etc. all sound good to liberals and those who think they can comment intelligently on politics based on sound bites, but those statements have no basis in truth.
I have said it before and I'll say it again. The reason liberal talk radio is a resounding failure is because when you get down to talking about issues, delving into the details, the liberal side of the argument does not appeal to most Americans.
And for all you progressives, the flat tax is progressive in the sense that the more you earn, the more you pay.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 12:15:44 PM
adrock,
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 12:47:34 PM
" I imagine they could live pretty comfortably on that."
Some text should really be in green font.
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 12:55:55 PM
TJ,
Look back on societies that reward hard work and perseverence compared to societies that redistribute wealth for the 'collective good'. Which have done better?
In socialist societies, the only thing people strive for is power, because having power is the only way to get ahead in socialistic societies. There is no incentive to invent or create.
We have plenty of safety nets in this country. Liberals and progressives just hate or won't recognize many of the safety nets because they are sponsored by religious organizations, who, by the way, are far more efficient than gov't.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 1:53:03 PM
Read the 4th post down. Then keep reading before you write"Why shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?"
...
the flat tax is progressive in the sense that the more you earn, the more you pay.
I read the post then, and I just read it again. You still haven't answer my question.
I agree that a flat tax is somewhat progressive! Except that progressivity and fairness are mutually exclusive terms considering there are different levels to both, just as Dave Justice mentioned above. Wow, look at me, agreeing with a conservative.
I'm asking you to square the fairness of taxation with the benefits of what citizens get for the taxes they pay. Claims that paying that same percentage/rate/whateveryouwanttocallit is fair, as far as I'm concerned, is just a way to make people like you feel better. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
You then spout off something completely unrelated about the liberal media. If you don't want to answer it fine, but if you do, put down the crack pipe and stay on topic.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 12, 2005 2:07:39 PM
Here's a suggestion. Eliminate all payroll taxes (which are extremely "regressive"). Adopt a single flat rate income tax with no deductions or credits of any kind for anyone. What would that rate have to be to yield the same revenues? I have no idea. Anybody here know?
I do know, however, that adopting this tax system would (a) save tens of billions of dollars per year currently spent on tax compliance and tax planning and (b) based on the experience of other countries (e.g., Hong Kong, Ireland), lead to much more rapid economic growth and many more jobs.
If the Democractic Party could get over its fixation on income distribution and start focusing on growth and job creation, it could ride a plan like this back into the White House.
Posted by: DBL | Oct 12, 2005 2:09:32 PM
Thanks for the link RW.
Something jumped out at me though. If revenue was tied into American's spending habits, how could we possibly guarantee revenue neutrality? The only way I could see this is if the rate was increased or decreased in subsequent years to cover deficits. They study they mention only shows the elasticity of the income tax base, not the inelasticity of consumption. Addtionally, when people lose jobs, yes they don't pay into the system as much or at all. But neither do they buy as many goods. And if we subsidize them through welfare, than we are essentially taxing ourselves, unless we provide an exemption, but that doesn't sound all that simple.
I certainly like the idea of removing all loopholes and shelters, if this would indeed accomplish that.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 12, 2005 2:23:32 PM
Adrock,
I didn't know you were too stupid to realize you shouldn't have to pay for the tax on a Lamborgini when you are buying a Ford Escort. If you can't understand that analogy, I can't help you.
If you can name and illustrate a more just way of taxing citizens than taking the same percentage from everyone, then do it. If you tax everyone the same amount, then some people will go into debt to the gov't because they owe more in taxes than they make. I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old.
Look at tithing. Giving to the church ten percent of what you make, not what your neighbor makes. And who is more fair than God?
The funny thing is, I can out think you when I am blistered stoned(probably could out think you high on crack too). Kind of like Rush still being able to out reason liberals when he was hopped up on pain pills.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 2:27:48 PM
Captain,
Your reply had nothing at all to do with my post. The point of mine was that misfortune exists, and you're way too willing to blame the unfortunate for things frequently well beyond their control.
Posted by: TJ | Oct 12, 2005 2:41:42 PM
"They study they mention only shows the elasticity of the income tax base, not the inelasticity of consumption."
You pay according to how you live and the nation's economy follows suit. Isn't that preferrable to someone in DC deciding how much people will pay NO MATTER WHAT, and we adjust after the *it hits the fan?
"Addtionally, when people lose jobs, yes they don't pay into the system as much or at all. But neither do they buy as many goods. And if we subsidize them through welfare, than we are essentially taxing ourselves, unless we provide an exemption, but that doesn't sound all that simple."
Sounds a lot like the current unemployment insurace program we already have.....haven't heard too many people rail against it except when they want extensions granted.
"I certainly like the idea of removing all loopholes and shelters, if this would indeed accomplish that.
That - on top of a large group losing their political power via a grasp on our purse-strings - will be a huge hurdle.
There is a lot to debate over the fair tax. The argument that the poor would do worse is not one of the topics than can be logically attempted. Which is why I nudge Ezra to read it, since that's the knee-jerk response to anything other than a liberal-Democratic plan (right before "tax cuts for the rich").
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 2:45:27 PM
TJ,
One of the biggest problems the poor have in this country is obesity. What a country! Our poor eat too much food!
We take care of the poor and those who fall on hard times in this country. It may not always be gov't, it may be a charity, who are generally more cost effective and efficient than gov't.
People may be born into poverty, but they don't have to stay there. In this country, if you are poor and want to be educated, you can. There are grants, loans, scholarships and if you are a poor minority, there is even more help available.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 4:14:20 PM
I didn't know you were too stupid to realize you shouldn't have to pay for the tax on a Lamborgini when you are buying a Ford Escort.
But thats the entire point, Toke! You're NOT getting a Lamborghini from the government for the tax money you give them! The guy who can afford the Lamborghini is getting the same benefits back from the government as the guy who can afford the Escort. Lamborghini guy and Escort guy are on the same plane.
Let me ask you this, why does Lamborghini guy pay more (excluding gas guzzler tax) v.s. Escort guy to the government for a car that will use the same roads the government cares for, likely even less frequently? Its because he has the ability to pay. Hence, your percentage argument is just a way to make you feel better about yourself and the money you give to the government.
If you can name and illustrate a more just way of taxing citizens than taking the same percentage from everyone, then do it.
Yes, its called progressive tax brackets. And people in the top bracket do have quite the ability to pay more of a percentage. Which is why things work out just fine for the filthy rich right now.
I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old.
This is what happens when you smoke too much pot. You don't bother to understand the question. I know, I still smoke as well, except I don't do it when I'm trying to argue tax policy. Go smoke another one if you think you've out-thinked anyone so far.
And who is more fair than God?
Did you get a chance to watch the evening news lately? God doesn't seem all that fair in this world lately.
But all of this is probably beside the point as it doesn't look like Bush is going near flat tax terrority this year. See here.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 12, 2005 4:18:29 PM
In this country, if you are poor and want to be educated, you can. There are grants, loans, scholarships and if you are a poor minority, there is even more help.
This is the argument that the left really hates because it't true. Do you get to go to Harvard? Probably not, but you do get to go to excellent schools to become somthing other than a pimp, thief, drug dealer, etc.
I know because I was without help and got grants and loans. My only wish was that I was black at the time because there was so much more out there for the minorities.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Oct 12, 2005 4:44:22 PM
Since the tax cuts have kicked in, gov't revenues are up. You see, little adrock, generally those that have money invest it. The more they have, the more they invest. Those investments create jobs, which creates more taxpayers. And the way things are right now, the people in those new jobs are paying a lower rate than those investing the money, just think if the investors had even more to invest! More jobs, more tax revenue!
Look at the Bush tax cuts have done. Even tho your propaganda may say otherwise, the economy is doing well.
"Did you get a chance to watch the evening news lately? God doesn't seem all that fair in this world lately."
I thought it was Bush and Cheney's fault. Maybe global warming? Oh well, you have to blame someone, right? It couldn't just be nature.
Oh yeah, the churches didn't help very much in the recovery effort, did they? Well, I guess they should since God and Bush caused all that death and destruction.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 12, 2005 4:49:23 PM
Actually, the lamborghini vs escort argument is essentially one of a "flat tax" in the "road usage" sense. Gasoline taxes pay for road repair/construction and a lamborghini driver will pay much more than an escort driver (assuming that they drive the same # of miles).
Under the "progressive" tax bracket scale, we have the never ending practice of those on the bottom tiers demanding that those in the top tiers pay for their every whim. A politician's vote robbing Peter to pay for Paul, Mary and Steven will losethem Peter's vote almost every time, but they're in line for three in return. It's always nice to declare a "fair rate" for someone else to pay in your stead.
Reminds me of Bill Gates' dad coming out against the repeal of the estate tax & proclaiming how bad an idea it was for folks like him to reap the rewards. Of course, I'm sure he amended his personal will so that the US government kept most of his estate upon his death, right?
Posted by: RW | Oct 12, 2005 4:49:32 PM
Also, you might want to do some research into the fair tax (the book was #1 last month), as the poor would pay no income taxes - just as they do now and under every feasible flat tax plan put forth. To say your rhetoric in the post is incorrect would be an understatement.
And buy some painkillers, as your sides will hurt from laughing so hard.
Saying "the poor would pay no income taxes" is about as dishonest a selling point of the Fair Tax as my saying that bikes have to replace cars because they use no gas. The poor wouldn't pay income taxes...but given that consumption tends to make up a larger and larger portion of your total expenditures the poorer you are, it does mean that you pay a higher effective tax rate the poorer you are. This doesn't even get into the fact that the calculated tax rate of 30% (not 23%) is lowballed, and that the Fair Tax system essentially promises that the same money be spent twice so that you both "get more money" and prices stay the same, an impossible outcome.
The flat tax would, in the end, become a vehicle of heinously regressive taxation. The Fair Tax just does it outright.
Posted by: Jesse | Oct 13, 2005 4:10:17 AM
Do some reasearch. You're offering the talking points that Neal Boortz flushes on an almost daily basis (you guys are really scared of this, aren't you?).
The poor would pay zip - nada - nothing.
Posted by: RW | Oct 13, 2005 6:28:00 AM
I'll post this again, since it obviously wasn't used by some:
http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/faq.html
There are even some graphs & pretty pictures so that it's even more understandable (#47 covers the preiviously noted uninformed talking point).
I reiterate: "There is a lot to debate over the fair tax. The argument that the poor would do worse is not one of the topics than can be logically attempted." Do some research. Enlighten yourself.
Then discuss.
Posted by: RW | Oct 13, 2005 10:03:12 AM
The poor would pay zip - nada - nothing.
Fair Tax is different than flat tax, no? The Fair Tax system is not that flat if the "poor" pay nothing. All it is is simpler. Certainly a goal worthy of itself. I still don't think that FAQ 'proves' that its revenue neutral. Seems that analysts have come out in both ways for and against its neutrality.
I thought it was Bush and Cheney's fault. Maybe global warming? Oh well, you have to blame someone, right? It couldn't just be nature.
Oh yeah, the churches didn't help very much in the recovery effort, did they? Well, I guess they should since God and Bush caused all that death and destruction.
Wow, you really put me in my place Toke. Funny though, 'cause I really don't remember saying anything like that.
You see, little adrock,
Thats the 2nd time you've stooped to demeaning me instead of just arguing your position. The first was when you called me stupid. You must have read the playbook that Cheney and Rove did when they heard about Joe Wilson's claims. Their first reponse? What can we do to slime the guy? Why is it when "your side" doesn't like what someone else is saying, that is the first response? If what you're saying is so good, if your position is so strong, it should stand on its own without need to demean. My conclusion, and again, I have no evidence to back this up, is that your the actual "little" person. The kid who feels he has to kick the geek in the face to gain respect, when really it's just to overcome his own personal shortcomings. I'd really like to attribute this behavior to you just being aggravated with me, but really, I think you're just a dick. To quote Will Ferrell, "Get off the shed or I will punch you in the face."
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 13, 2005 12:13:45 PM
"Fair Tax is different than flat tax, no?"
Yes, very different. With a flat tax you still can have the high probability that various pols will jump in constantly & try to include various exemptions from taxation.
"The Fair Tax system is not that flat if the "poor" pay nothing. All it is is simpler. Certainly a goal worthy of itself."
It would remove much of the underground economy and allow for the gov't to be funded via how people actually LIVE, with life's necessities being taken into account. It also would end the grapple hold that now exists where you have politicians endlessly declaring what group of people to punish via the tax code in order to fund their pet social programs. With the fair tax, that ends. Hence the great apprehension to the idea from the segment of the political stratosphere that desperately wants to maintain its power, funded via someone else's property and work.
"I still don't think that FAQ 'proves' that its revenue neutral. Seems that analysts have come out in both ways for and against its neutrality."
You have various analysts that have questioned the revenue projections of almost every proposed budget of the United States since I've been alive. The usual suspects who question it are the same usual suspects who have a political interest in keeping the current system in place (the aforementioned 'rob Peter to pay for Mary, Paul and Steven' syndrome, which literally funds the pet causes). That should be suprising to no one.
That there would be a de-empasis on the obsession of getting the government's hands on the possessions of those who outperform in the free market, would be a bonus.
Posted by: RW | Oct 13, 2005 12:33:34 PM
"You see, little adrock,
Thats the 2nd time you've stooped to demeaning me instead of just arguing your position."
I guess I just proved you a liar. Anyone that can read can see that I argued my position(which you don't address) and talk down to you at the same time.
"Since the tax cuts have kicked in, gov't revenues are up. You see, little adrock, generally those that have money invest it."
Notice the bold lettering around the insult? Why didn't you cut and paste the whole statement? I guess that is the only way the left can win, to mislead.
As I mentioned earlier, little fella, talking to you is like talking to a twelve year old.
Uh-oh! Adrock can say I am avoiding the issue by calling him "little fella".
The truth hurts, so I am a dick. That sounds like the liberal mentality. Anyone who doesn't go along with the liberal line of thinking and puts facts out there has to be an asshole. What tolerence!
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 13, 2005 5:52:58 PM
prescription pharmacy online prescription pharmacy online
Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy store
Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription
breast enhancement increase breast
loose weight without diets loose weight without diet
Posted by: repair bad credit | Jan 24, 2007 7:39:18 PM
Across the world it is seen that diabetes contributes to the occurrence of impotency in men to a far greater extent. But no worries if you are an erectile dysfunction patient on account of diabetes as the FDA approved erectile dysfunction pill http://www.levitrabliss.com/about_levitra.html levitra can provide you the necessary succor and relief as http://www.levitrabliss.com/diabetes_and_levitra.html levitra benefits effectively cure erectile dysfunction in man with diabetes. By logging into a comprehensive erectile dysfunction website, you can get hold of the necessary details on http://www.levitrabliss.com/diabetes_and_levitra.html diabetes and levitra benefits. And after you get access to all the tidbits on http://www.levitrabliss.com/index.html levitra benefits in treating erectile dysfunction patients, you can easily opt for http://www.levitrabliss.com/levitra_prescription.html levitra prescription from the doctor and treat your impotency.
Posted by: levitra | Mar 22, 2007 5:24:47 AM
Among all the erectile dysfunction pills available in the market, it is levitra that has carved out a niche name for itself and levitra prescription has become much sought after for the impotency afflicted patients. The chief factor responsible for the tremendous popularity of levitra is that this medication to treat erectile dysfunction has shown successful results in treating impotency in men with health risks like hypertension, diabetes and prostate surgery and as such you should opt for levitra prescription online instantly. Bear in mind that levitra without prescription would not be able to show off the necessary results as levitra is a prescription-based drug only and should be taken only according to the instructions of the doctor.
Posted by: levitra | May 7, 2007 4:13:58 AM
Posted by: Dominic | Jun 26, 2007 3:40:12 PM
FLOMAX is the first and only prescription medication
developed specifically for BPH. For many men, Flomax
improves male urinary symptoms due to BPH in as little as one week.
Posted by: flomax medication | Jul 10, 2007 1:31:09 AM
Weight loss is one of the most concerned issues in western countries. The issue is credited to the increasing sitting jobs, busy schedules that leave no time for taking care of one’s shape and health. By the time, one realizes it through comments or funny gazes of others, it gets too late. No worries as weight loss truths provide you plenty of information on weight loss and helps you get back to your shape and health simply by adhering to certain weight loss exercises including aerobics, treadmills, cardio and following a healthy and balanced diet. Apart from exercises, you can take help of various weight loss therapies if required; though after making sure what therapy suits your body type the best. Weight loss issue has become too vast to be discussed in mere few words and space, though valuable tips and information always makes its space anywhere. So, just get hold of this chunk of weight loss information and get started with your weight loss plans now!
Posted by: weight loss | Jul 19, 2007 3:15:37 AM
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference pfizer's viagra online:
Posted by: buy viagra online | Aug 3, 2007 2:16:31 PM
debt consolidation Today student loan debt consolidation is a big debt free issue in the United States. consolidating debt Most students in the US pursue debt consolidation loan further studies through external finance. bad credit debtThe government debt free too pumps in millions of dollars into the economy to finance these studies and provide a congenial environment for proper and high class study to the students. cheap debt consolidationEvery student has a different set of financial requirement. There are several mortgage refinance organizations and student loan best debt consolidation consolidation companies, which provide student debt consolidation. debt consolidation help There are several programs for credit card debt individual needs debt help of the student. The result of all the programs is similar. All the programs work debt consolidation help towards designing debt consolidation online a payment plan suiting your individual needs in which the program will merge all your student loan existing loans into a single consolidate debt sum and reduce your existing interest rate in an effort to bring the repayment debt consolidation help monthly installment to a sum debt consolidation solution which you can pay easily with your existing income.debt plan
Posted by: debt consolidation | Aug 5, 2007 5:01:23 AM
In the fast-paced uncertainty of the modern hoodia it's all too easy to fall behind with payments until one day you realize you have serious hoodia chaser problems. Other than the blow to your self-esteem this causes, the stress that arises from being in debt can also have devastating effects on your hoodia gordonii and mental health. So if you're living from paycheck to paycheck and suffer the constant gnawing worry that your property will be repossessed, you really need to sort out your how much debt problems as quickly as possible. If you're a homeowner, a very attractive revitol known as sell and rent back is open to you. So if debt is making your life unbearable, consider the many advantages of this scheme.
First you contact a reputable menozac specializing in sale and rent back schemes. After surveying your property, the company will make you an offer on your home. Then in addition to an immediate cash payment, they will issue a contract for you to stay on in your home as a tenant paying rent at the market rate. Very often, debt loan they will offer a rent holiday. penis enlargement You have a lot of say in the contract you agree to; you can specify for example whether you want a short-term rental or long-term arrangement. You can also request a buy back option which gives you the option to later buy back your house when your situation improves.
Why It's The Best Way
The major bowel advantage of course is that you can stop smoking all your debts and continue living in your home as before. You don't have to suffer any of the upheaval that accompanies moving house especially if the move is unwanted. What's more, you get a quick, guaranteed sale with none of the debt consolidationwaiting around and having potential buyers traipsing through your home day after day. Plus, you don't have to pay and estate agent's commission on the sale.
There's also the matter of discretion and privacy. Reputable prostate health can arrange a sale that's private and confidential. There's no need to put up a 'for sale' board in front of your house or put an advert in the local press. So friends, neighbours and colleagues are none the wiser to your circumstances.
A number of other methods exist to release the equity tied up in yourunderstanding debt home. These include lifetime mortgages and home reversion plans.
However the Which Consumer Group reported that these other schemes tended to be expensive, inflexible and risky.
Studies have shown that being in diabetes debt is major cause of stress with serious consequences for both your mind and body. So if debt is wreaking havoc in your life, look into the sale and rent back scheme.
Be sure to choose a specialist firm with bad debt loan many years of experience in this field. Only a specialist firm can give you the efficiency and discretion you deserve.
Posted by: debt consolidation | Aug 15, 2007 5:23:19 PM
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl
Posted by: power | Sep 3, 2007 5:42:57 AM
http://www.teamkillers.com - Buy Generic Viagra
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_viagra.html - Generic Viagra
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_cialis.html - Generic Cialis
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_levitra.html - Generic Levitra
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_propecia.html - Generic Propecia
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_meridia.html - Generic Meridia
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_zocor.html - Generic Zocor
http://www.teamkillers.com/generic_soma.html - Generic Soma
Posted by: Teamkillers | Sep 3, 2007 12:51:34 PM
Buy Generic Viagra - Buy Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra - Generic Viagra
Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis
Generic Levitra - Generic Levitra
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generic Propecia - Generic Propecia
Generic Meridia - Generic Meridia
Generic Zocor - Generic Zocor
Generic Soma - Generic Soma
Posted by: Teamkillers | Sep 3, 2007 2:06:11 PM
generic effexor xr buy effexor xr 75mg online
generic lexapro buy generic lexapro Escitalopram online
generic pamelor buy generic pamelor Nortriptyline online
generic paxil buy generic paxil online
generic zyprexa buy generic zyprexa online
buy Depakote buy anti convulsants Depakote
generic depakote buy generic depakote Divalproex online
Cialis Online Cialis Online
Posted by: don | Sep 30, 2007 2:20:49 AM
oshjale dhfuigqm yfvlabt ayjfhtm pcxny gaxwlsfu qpzachyn
Posted by: wyqzahocu rxnay | Oct 3, 2007 4:51:01 AM
mqaynk gfxzrhbd xdro zaef bfupd hfsdpo fcbnsk http://www.htkizcljr.ocftjlhyr.com
Posted by: ygsealzwr uogrvjs | Oct 3, 2007 4:51:15 AM
fyacu ecabvwu ibdxaf yeujtiw psqktxizv npym xuqklic jbhe ljom
Posted by: vijuxlp vskizdam | Oct 3, 2007 4:51:23 AM
Amoxicillin amoxil drug kills or stops the growth of bacteria that cause infection. It treats many different kinds of infections of the skin, respiratory tract, sinuses, ear, and kidney. Amoxicillin also treats some sexually transmitted disease. Order generic amoxil amoxicillin online
Clindamycin generic cleocin, an antibiotic, is used to treat infections of the respiratory tract, skin, pelvis, vagina, and abdomen. Antibiotics will not work for colds, flu, or other viral infections. This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information. Order generic cleocin clindamycin online
Retin-A skin care drug is often used to improve the appearance and texture of the skin. It produces a mild, superficial peel of the epidermis. Retin-A has effects on the both the superficial (epidermis) and the deep (dermis) parts of the skin. The major benefit is to decrease the effects of sunlight caused aging by increasing the speed with which the surface cells are replaced. Order generic Retin-a online
Tretinoin skin care drug preparations are a family of drugs all similar to Vitamin A. In general, tretinoin gels are stronger than tretinoin creams because the medicine penetrates better when in a gel form. Tretinoin is used to treat acne and aged, sun damaged skin. Tretinoin works best when used in combination with alpha hydroxyacid preparations. If used over a period of years, tretinoin will continue to reverse aging of the skin and can continue improving the skin's appearance even ten years after starting treatment. Order tretinoin gel or cream online
Penlac skin care drug (ciclopirox) topical solution is used along with regular nail trimming to treat fungal infections of the fingernails and toenails (an infection that may cause nail discoloration, splitting and pain). Ciclopirox is in a class of medications called antifungals. It works by stopping the growth of nail fungus. Order generic penlac online
- Prescription drugs online
- Online pharmacy from Europe
- Discount online pharmacy
Posted by: Tim | Dec 4, 2007 6:11:25 PM
Qui si ritiro passare una videocamera - LINK.
Posted by: antoniomzi | Jan 7, 2008 12:17:28 AM
then. accomplish I was places still there. their names scissors acorns crown.
Posted by: englandsiter | Apr 30, 2008 10:21:40 PM
