Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for letting me
rant)

Mark



TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012



The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.



1) Federal income taxes must not be levied on the following:

States Income tax payments

Local income tax payments

Real Estate and school tax payments

Sales tax payments

Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or
other fees

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street



2) State income taxes must not be levied on the following:

Federal Income tax payments

Local income tax payments

Real Estate and school tax payments

Sales tax payments

Charges by municipalities for water sewer garbage collection or
other fees

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street







3) Local income taxes must not be levied on the following:

Federal Income tax payments

State income tax payments

Sales tax payments

Fees for using roads and bridges i.e. tolls

Fees paid to park on a public street

Seems Mark wants to pay less in taxes. Admirable.
However, you would first have to set priorities where the diverse
governments would cut their expenditures. Without doing that you can't cut
taxes. So far NO ONE in or outside of Congress or government has set
anything like a useful baseline for discussions, except perhaps the failed
gang of six plan that (irresponsibly) was canned by both left and right.

If you want more deductions from federal taxes for taxes paid to other
levels of government, or vice versa, you would have to raise rates to keep
tax receipts at an "appropriate" level. Appropriate is of course a
laughable term here.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
....
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?

--
Dan Espen

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

Doug Miller writes:

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?
And what is it supposed to accomplish?

Sorry Doug, but the recent trend in American thinking to just say
everything is screwed up and we have to change things rubs me the wrong
way. Sounds like a perfect prescription for making things much, much worse.

--
Dan Espen

On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

And what is it supposed to accomplish?

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed.

It would encourage saving.

It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

On Apr 17, 3:10*pm, wrote:
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:37:33 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:
It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

And this advanced economic theory is based on what?

Everybody spends money, but not everybody "makes" money (on the books).

That's true. One benefit of a national sales tax or a VAT
tax is that it's harder to avoid.




And what is it supposed to accomplish?

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up paying more taxes.

The problem is that the rich would pay a lot less than
they do under the current system or with a flat income tax.
The rich do spend more, but I think very few are
spending enough to come anywhere close to making
up the income tax that would be lost.

Take Warren Buffet for example. He's paying around
18%. Even if he spent everything he makes, you'd
have to have an 18% sales tax to equal it. And Buffet
lives relatively modestly. I'll bet he doesn't spend 5%
of what he earns.

And the tax would hit the poor, who pay no tax at all
the hardest. You could partly offset that by making
food, housing up to a certain point, etc exempt.

It's interesting, but I believe it would shift a lot more
of the tax burden to the poor and middle class.



The overall rate would be lower because every dollar spent would be taxed..

It would encourage saving.

Yes, but with an economy just barely moving, it could also
put us in a depression when people reduce buying.



It would eliminate complex annual tax returns.

The infrastructure to collect the tax is already in place in most states.

In article
3466611.154.1334689829036.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynje10,
wrote:

For one thing it would ensure that everyone paid their "fair share." Everyone
would pay the same rate, but the rich spend more money so they would end up
paying more taxes.

I'd be a little more supportive if someone could give me a definition
of "fair share" that did not, in essence, boil down to "what offends me
personally".



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 18:15:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th Amendment, and institute a
sales tax instead.

It will never happen. Best is a flat income tax or even something like Cain's
9-9-9. At least there is a way of getting there from here.

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite effect. Think it through: who
spends more, the rich or the poor?

Doug Miller writes:

"Bob F" wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor starving
billionaires a break.

Ummmm.... no, actually it would have exactly the opposite
effect. Think it through: who spends more, the rich or the poor?

Ummmm, yes.

This is basic tax theory, I shouldn't have to explain it.

Current income taxes are on a graduated scale.
The more you make, the more you pay as a percentage.

With a sales tax that percentage difference goes away.
Everyone pays the same rate. Big benefit number 1 to the rich.

Add to that, the poor are likely to spend 100% of their income.
The rich are likely to save a good percentage of their income,
thereby deferring any sales tax paid.

--
Dan Espen

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
Dan Espen wrote in :

"MarkK" writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local
governments from imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For
example, a taxpayer should not have to pay taxes to the Federal
government on a dollars that are paid to the state or local
governments. This example is already true, state and local taxes
ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends this
to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

It's time to just dump the income tax altogether. Repeal the 16th
Amendment, and institute a sales tax instead.

Right. Move the tax burden over to the working class, and give the poor
starving billionaires a break.



Some people are much too stupid AND ignorant to express anything but
nonsense on the subject
Which is why such idiots constantly appeal to emotion instead of arguing the
subject rationally

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation using
professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants

Frank writes:

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants

The nature of taxes is such that no matter what the system is,
everyone will complain about it.

Why do we get deductions for dependents? Each dependent costs the
government more to educate. Especially true for my property taxes.
The bulk goes to schools but I haven't had a child in our local schools
for 30 years.

--
Dan Espen

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:



I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.
Maybe not. The estimated compliance costs (bookkeeping, time taken to
get the stuff together and fill out the forms, filing help from H&R
Block to a Big 8 Accounting firm, etc.) was estimated at $391.1 billion
in 2009. As of 2009 the income-tax industry employed more workers than
are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500
companies--more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel
Service, McDonald's, International Business Machines, and Citigroup
combined.
Researchers from the Fair Tax Blog note that complying with the
federal income tax code amounts to imposing a 22.2-cent tax compliance
surcharge for every dollar the income tax system collects. The
compliance costs are said to be highly regressive.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...
Frank writes:

On 4/15/2012 11:36 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
writes:

Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
...
The tax fairness act prevents the federal, state or local governments
from
imposing multiple taxes on the same monies. For example, a taxpayer
should
not have to pay taxes to the Federal government on a dollars that are
paid
to the state or local governments. This example is already true, state
and
local taxes ARE deductible from Federal income taxes. This bill
extends
this to all levels of government and all forms of taxation.

Is this a deficit reducing idea or are you just trying to add insane
amounts of complexity to the tax code and make the deficit that much
worse?

How will this help others with their home repair projects?


I once heard that there is more effort expended in tax preparation
using professionals then there is in producing cars in the US.

I doubt it. Even including the large staffs most corporations acquire
to avoid paying taxes.

The tax code is in need of vast reform, but then there would be all of
those unemployed accountants

The nature of taxes is such that no matter what the system is,
everyone will complain about it.

Why do we get deductions for dependents?
Each dependent costs the government more to educate.

WRONG !
It costs the TAXPAYERS, NOT the government


Especially true for my property taxes.
The bulk goes to schools but I haven't had a child in our local schools
for 30 years.


Maybe you should go back to school.
Clearly what little you may have learned before you have had kids has been
replaced by a lot or ignorance.

MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the U.S.,
then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal Withdrawing
Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother of
four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year. Are you
suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000. One
kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her tax
liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood platelets,
would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or more years. By
then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail), and she could go
back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5
trillion. Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million
people in the U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's
the end of it.
Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten
thousand dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or
her liability.
"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old
mother of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for
$50,000/year. Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and
toddlers?"
Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true
that mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't
expect her to provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what
she could do is contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth
$250,000. One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER
kidney?"
Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a
kidney!. What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have
her tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen,
or more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in
jail), and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction they're
taking us.

"Bob F" writes:

HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen
....
Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction they're
taking us.

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets"
(don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

--
Dan Espen

In the case of the over taxed people of the US.

Tax cuts lead to prosperity, and growth. Reduces
the stifling effect of over taxation.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dan Espen" wrote in message
...

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction
they're
taking us.

Every single one of these plans has "unspecified offsets"
(don't worry, everything will be okay, just vote for me).

Someone will be along shortly to explain this to you.

--
Dan Espen

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5
trillion. Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million
people in the U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's
the end of it.
Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten
thousand dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or
her liability.
"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old
mother of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for
$50,000/year. Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and
toddlers?"
Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true
that mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't
expect her to provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what
she could do is contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth
$250,000. One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER
kidney?"
Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a
kidney!. What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have
her tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen,
or more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in
jail), and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary
professions, like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.

Sounds like "good" Republicon thinking. That's certainly the direction
they're taking us.


Fools can only respond with stupid labels, instead of actually trying to
address the issue discussed.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the
U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her
liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother
of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year.
Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000.
One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her
tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or
more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail),
and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.



Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them out like
zits

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:06:15 -0500, "Attila.Iskander"
wrote:


"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
MarkK wrote:
Someone from the Tea Party please take this and make it happen

(Yeah it's useless to complain about death or taxes, thanks for
letting me rant)


Good idea. In that vein, I'd like to repeat my "Flat-Flat Tax" idea.

Assuming, in round numbers, the federal government needs $3.5 trillion.
Assuming, again in round numbers, there are 350 million people in the
U.S., then each person should pay $10,000 and that's the end of it.

Think of the simplicity!

"But," you might say, "what about the person who doesn't HAVE ten thousand
dollars?"

They could donate one unit of blood plasma per month for which the
government would credit $1,000 per unit (I call this the Federal
Withdrawing Plan). In ten months each person could eliminate his or her
liability.

"But, but, but..." you might complain, "what about the 18-year old mother
of four precious snowflakes? She would be responsible for $50,000/year.
Are you suggesting we draw blood from infants and toddlers?"

Of course not. That would be absurd, not to mention cruel. It's true that
mom is on the hook for fifty large, and we certainly can't expect her to
provide five units of blood plasma per month. But what she could do is
contribute a kidney.

A kidney could replace a dialysis machine and is easily worth $250,000.
One kidney would pay up her tax bill for FIVE YEARS!

"And at the end of five years, what would you do? Take her OTHER kidney?"

Absolutely not. That would be silly. She can't function without a kidney!.
What she COULD do, is contribute a cornea.

Assuming a cornea is roughly the same value as a kidney, she'd have her
tax liability controled for ANOTHER five years.

These two marketable items, coupled with the aforementioned blood
platelets, would totally solve her tax problem for twelve, thirteen, or
more years. By then, her children would be out on their own (or in jail),
and she could go back to being a single taxpayer.

Now I know the above is not a COMPLETE solution, we may have to make
exceptions for members of the military or those in necessary professions,
like members of Congress.

I'm sure there will be tweaks.

But it's a starting point.



Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them out like
zits


That's a fantastic idea! That could be your first tweak, HeyBub. Put
that in there just before the kidney then the lazy slut may be
inclined to contribute to society rather than being a burden to it.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Somewhere along the line, she should give up her ovaries.
If she can't afford having children, she shouldn't be popping them
out like zits


That's a fantastic idea! That could be your first tweak, HeyBub. Put
that in there just before the kidney then the lazy slut may be
inclined to contribute to society rather than being a burden to it.

But, but, but...that's, that's, that's EUGENICS!

TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012
...

At a town meeting in Boston in 1765, James Otis, Jr shouted out
"Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". Unfortunately, Mr.
Otis died in 1783 so he did not see the Whiskey Tax of 1791 and
the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Had he seen those
events he would have most likely said "Taxation With
Representation is still Tryanny"

So whenever somebody says "Tax Fairness", "Tax Simplification",
Tax Equalization, etc, I reach for my under my pillow and click
off the safety catch on my Smith & Wesson.

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

On Apr 21, 10:46*am, (Dick Adams) wrote:
TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012
...

At a town meeting in Boston in 1765, James Otis, Jr *shouted out
"Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". *Unfortunately, Mr.
Otis died in 1783 so he did not see the Whiskey Tax of 1791 and
the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. *Had he seen those
events he would have most likely said "Taxation With
Representation is still Tryanny"

So whenever somebody says "Tax Fairness", "Tax Simplification",
Tax Equalization, etc, I reach for my under my pillow and click
off the safety catch on my Smith & Wesson.

There are two choices. *The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. *The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. *This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. *Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.

Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
* * * *and Misc.Legal.Moderated

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to
put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the
Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt,
more govt employees, more govt programs, and most
importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the
country?

I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are
closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream
Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So
to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats
and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is
nuts.

The fed debt increased several trillion under GWB, so both sides of the
aisle appear to be deficit spenders. Perhaps time for a third party?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message news:9d7abc52-3e5a-4d1a-bd28-
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to
put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the
Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt,
more govt employees, more govt programs, and most
importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the
country?

I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are
closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream
Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So
to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats
and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is
nuts.

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.



"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

In article ,
(Dick Adams) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

So true...... I don't think voting does much at present.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Well, the USA was started with an armed insurrection.

And, I happen to like being a Son of Perdition. I'd prefer to be a son of
Petition. I'm making my voice known.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Well, the USA was started with an armed insurrection.

And, I happen to like being a Son of Perdition. I'd prefer
to be a son of Petition. I'm making my voice known.

If you want your voice heard, stop being a top poster.
It irritates people.

We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...
With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

On Apr 23, 11:26*am, "Grumpy" wrote:
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is
nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or
makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an
election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't
solve anything.

So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "Grumpy" wrote:
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is
nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or
makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an
election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't
solve anything.

So, if the continue the electoral BS, we have less power? I think that's the
point.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated