people that are against fair tax must like illegal immagrants not paying taxes and collecting on food stamps and Medicade
people that are against fair tax must like illegal immagrants not paying taxes and collecting on food stamps and Medicade
Ballin' on a Budget
You are always good at keeping up a reasonable debate, and I like that. If everyone agreed on everything, we'd all be nothing more than robots.Originally Posted by Jaimecbr900
Neither Boortz nor Linder have education in economics, nor do they have experience in business. The closest Boortz has come is a law degree. The closest that Linder has come is that he sits on the Way and Means Committee. So do professional economists or amatuers has more credibility? And what does Bartlett have to gain? He left the government in 1995.
[QUOTE=Jaimecbr900]
Boortz is very rich and very pompous, but he's far from the first person to suggest a form of a single tax. He and Senator Linder are in the spotlight right now due to their book and the fact that finally a State Representative, i.e. someone in a "gov't" position, is stepping up to the task.
[/QUOTE}
Correct. The Church of Scientology suggested the Fair Tax plan before Linder and Boortz.
I completely agree with above...
I mostly agree. There are many that are sharing a SSN# illegally, and constantly pay in as well. That is free money for the government.
Money being sent out of the country would not be taxed at all though, if you get rid of the income tax, and only have sales tax. Take the illegal that gets paid $600/wk, and sends $300 south of the border. That money would now have never been taxed, since you got rid of the income tax. Show me where the current proposal deals with that situation. Last year, Mexico received $18 billion in over-the-border transfers. Now you will be losing the tax on that $18 billion. That's a lot of money. Got a calculator handy?
On this part, you are right and wrong. Yes, companies are about profits. Taxes are a small portion though. Wage rates are what they look at. I know, I work daily with the largest outsourcer in the world, and on their biggest account. I work with India daily. Do you think they will move jobs back here, when it costs them $9K/month/per person here, and over in India, they pay $700/month per person? I see the numbers as I have to do the T/C estimates. Tax rates aren't even on the radar. In fact, they still pay US taxes, and aren't worried about it.
Agreed. But the real solution is to lower spending, otherwise, you are just creating a new wealth distribution system - nothing more.5. Finally, for now, I'm really really tired of paying for people to sit on their behinds doing nothing yet spending MY money. ...
Only the ones working for straight cash are not paying taxes, and a lot of legal non-immigrants do that as well. Fair Tax is welfare for the masses by the introduction of the prebate. That is wealth distribution, and is a cornerstone of socialism, not capitalism.people that are against fair tax must like illegal immagrants not paying taxes and collecting on food stamps and Medicade
Unless you reduce or eliminate food stamps and Medicade, you are not changing anything with a new way to collect the taxes. Even Boortz admits that.
Now, here is a novel thought. If new items are taxed,and used items are not, do you think that people will look for used items more? Of course they will as they would be much cheaper. People will also look to barter more. Look at other societies, their economic growth is no even close to the US. It stagnates business as people tend to look for the non-taxed deals instad of running to Wal-Mart and picking up new goods. Pricing is driven by supply and demand, not taxes.
Boortz and Linder didnt design the fair tax they are simply the supporters of it that have a national voice.
From Boortz's book: the fairtax was designed by a Houston businessman that was pissed about business decisions made based on tax considerations more than profit considerations. He started fairtax.org(not the name at the time) and after a few million in donations was made he asked several major universities for their proposals. After they had their proposals economists went over the proposals and with the aid of focus groups and polls worked out the basics of the fair tax.
Thats not a quote of the book as that was about a page and a worth, but its basicly how it happened.
Why thank you, my good sir.
All of our Presidents, good and bad, NEVER had "experience" at being "President" before they got elected into office, right?Neither Boortz nor Linder have education in economics, nor do they have experience in business. The closest Boortz has come is a law degree. The closest that Linder has come is that he sits on the Way and Means Committee. So do professional economists or amatuers has more credibility? And what does Bartlett have to gain? He left the government in 1995.
My point is that some of the most brilliant minds evolve out of experience rather than book smarts. Boortz may not be the most likeable person around, but he is not dumb. Neither is John Linder.
The politicians and accountants that are so against this move are doing so, not because they are economists or brilliant Harvard School of Business Magna Cum Laudes....it is because they see THEIR jobs being no longer needed and/or as important as before. See, politics revolve around power and money. Fillibustering things forever assures politicians job security. Same thing goes for the IRS. The more difficult and ambiguous they make the tax laws, the longer they get to keep their jobs because that keeps US all tangled up in junk for years to come. If you propose to totally shut down the IRS, just WHO do you think is immediately going to complain? The IRS and the GOV'T that feeds off the money collected by the IRS.
So again, as I've said before, so called economists are going to dig and dig until they find their smoking gun to rationalize this as a bad idea. Well, it's the best idea anyone has proposed since the IRS's conception.
How do you figure anyone that uses a fake SS# is "paying in"? Yes, I do acknowledge that there are quite a few illegals that are W-2'd, but an overwhelming MAJORITY do not get W-2'd at all. That majority far outweighs the few that leave a meager few bucks they may take from his/her check. Comparatively speaking it's not even a contest.I mostly agree. There are many that are sharing a SSN# illegally, and constantly pay in as well. That is free money for the government.
Yes it most certainly would be taxed. The difference is that it would be taxed up front when that illegal buys necessities such as food, clothes, and essentials. He/she would not receive the "rebate" for those essentials, like you or I would, because they are in fact illegally here. So, when they went to the store to buy something the money they use to pay with would be turned into tax dollars that otherwise they would have NEVER BEFORE paid at all.Money being sent out of the country would not be taxed at all though, if you get rid of the income tax, and only have sales tax. Take the illegal that gets paid $600/wk, and sends $300 south of the border. That money would now have never been taxed, since you got rid of the income tax. Show me where the current proposal deals with that situation. Last year, Mexico received $18 billion in over-the-border transfers. Now you will be losing the tax on that $18 billion. That's a lot of money. Got a calculator handy?
See, people don't realize just how many BILLIONS of dollars illegals earn every year that goes totally unreported and then shipped out, never to contribute to OUR LOCAL economy. To get an idea of just how much money goes out....take a look around next time you are driving around in just about any town U.S.A. Notice just how many Check Cashing places also have under the same roof a Western Union. Think about why that is. Think about how much business there must be for these types of businesses to be popping up in just about every street corner all the time. Why do you think that is? Because there is that much demand for them is the reason. Why is there demand? Because there really is that much money being made "under the table" each and every day. That money NEVER gets paid INTO any tax table, except for sales taxes since EVERYONE has to buy something at sometime.
No, I know I'm right about this. Corporations are focused on one thing and one thing FIRST before anything else....PROFITS. Why do you think it costs your employer $9k as opposed to $700/mo? It's not just about cheap labor, it's also about cheap costs. In India, they don't have income taxes, corporate taxes, or anything resembling our antiquated tax code. So your $700/mo employees don't have to have FICA, unemployment, disability, nor are they W2'd. Add in all those costs, and then that $700/mo is no longer $700/mo to the EMPLOYER. Yes, going to other countries makes sense to big corporations due to cheap labor. But an even bigger reason for big corporations to be based overseas are TAX shelters. Companies have to PAY taxes on everything they make. Why do you think they "sponsor" this for a gazillion dollars or buy Leer Jets for themselves to go to meetings? Because they either spend that money on stupid crap like that or they PAY taxes on that same money. Which do you think they choose to do with it? Once again, money that is not always benefiting our local economy.On this part, you are right and wrong. Yes, companies are about profits. Taxes are a small portion though. Wage rates are what they look at. I know, I work daily with the largest outsourcer in the world, and on their biggest account. I work with India daily. Do you think they will move jobs back here, when it costs them $9K/month/per person here, and over in India, they pay $700/month per person? I see the numbers as I have to do the T/C estimates. Tax rates aren't even on the radar. In fact, they still pay US taxes, and aren't worried about it.
Companies do care about the bottom line. I know from experience that if I didn't have to pay all the employment taxes that I've had to over the years, I'd certainly have a good chunk of change in the bank.
It will never happen. It hasn't happened in the history of this country, and it's never going to.Agreed. But the real solution is to lower spending, otherwise, you are just creating a new wealth distribution system - nothing more.
You keep using that line, "wealth distribution". How is a flat tax for EVERYONE that is exactly the same if you make 50K or 500K taking from one and giving to the other? The Fair Tax has provisions to keep low income people paying exactly what they pay now.....NOTHING. It's not going to change for those people. It's only going to make US more responsible and more importantly more in control of our own finances. Why? Because you now would have everything you've EARNED in your own hands to either A: spend and pay taxes on it, or B: save it and use it other ways. It really is that simple. The every day essentials are going to be taken care of for EVERYONE the exact same, so that means that part of the argument is taken out of the equation. EVERYONE will have the same amount of egg, milk, and cookies as proportioned by your family size. Now since that supplier of eggs, milk, and cookies no longer has to pay a gazillion dollars for stupid employee taxes....they no longer have to price eggs at $2/dozen to make the SAME money they make if they priced them at $1.50/dozen. This is where the "embedded" tax comes from. We prize our products based on the fact that we have to pay X amount of taxes in either making, distributing, or selling that product. If we no longer have to PAY those taxes, only 1 thing is going to happen: we will make MORE money selling the same product for the same price we sell it now because that 20% mark up that we had to have to cover our tax EXPENSE can go into our pocket where it belongs rather than Uncle Sam's to buy $5000 toilet seats. Get it?
18B is nothing. Trillions of dollars are leaving this country every year by corporations being based out of an office in the Bahamas instead of NYC or Atlanta. The Illegals spend for more than 18B now that is not being taxed while they send that money south. Why not get what we can out of them while they are here?
Companies are about profits, but they also base their decisions on the tax liabilities they will incur. A business that needs say 8 more people to run most efficiently. They have a budget of 110k per year for new employees. Pay for those positions in $6.00/hr and ends up being $240 a week. $240 a week is 12,480 . Everything works out great. 8 employees will cost just under 100k for the year. But wait that 6$/hr employee ends up costing the business owner 6.90/hr to cover payroll taxes. That comes out to 14352 a year. Well I guess we will have to do with only 7 more employees now because we are over budget.
I never said they were dumb, just digging in to see how you dealt with the question. Basically, you have made up your mind already, and are not going to listen to anyone else's point of view - even if that is what they do for a living and are trained. You will choose to side with advice from someone who has no economic training, not buiness experience, just because it supports your position. Is that correct? It's not a problem, as it is your opinion and you are entitled to any opinion you choose, of course.All of our Presidents, good and bad, NEVER had "experience" at being "President" before they got elected into office, right?
My point is that some of the most brilliant minds evolve out of experience rather than book smarts. Boortz may not be the most likeable person around, but he is not dumb. Neither is John Linder.
Fair Tax does not abolish the IRS or income tax. Please read the actual proposal and not just the website.
Economists would not be out of a job, they would actually have more work on their hands workign out the new details that have been left out. There is always something new, you know that.
Day labors that are paid cash don't pay in; however, those working for a business do. Since they are illegal, they do not have SSN#'s, so they use a fake. They pay income tax currently. I personally know of several companies that do this, and the majority of construction companies do. It has become common practice over the past 15 years. Come down on Buford Hwy, and I can show you.
The IRS created a nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number in 1996 for foreigners who don’t have Social Security numbers but need to file taxes in the U.S. But it is increasingly used by undocumented workers to file taxes, apply for credit, get bank accounts or even buy a home. The IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs in 2006 — a 30 percent increase from the previous year. All told, the tax liability of ITIN filers between 1996 and 2003 was $50 billion. The agency has no way to track how many were immigrants, but it’s widely believed most people using ITINS are in the United States illegally. One number hints at the number of illegal immigrants having income taxes deducted from their paychecks. In 2004, the IRS got 7.9 million W-2s with names that didn’t match a Social Security Number. More than half were from California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, states with large immigrant populations, leading experts to believe they likely represent the wages of illegal immigrants. Even immigrants who use ITINs to file taxes are forced to make up a Social Security Number when they get a job.
The Center for Immigration Studies says that 10-11 million illegal aliens present in the U.S. The US Border Patrol estimates 12-15 million.
Do you have anything to back up your assertation that the MAJORITY does not get W2'ed? Any proof at all, or is that your "common sense" answer?
That is only true for the day laborers, not those already paying income tax, but it is still significant.
I do know. I gave you the figure $18 billion last year.
The real reason is the standard of living and the average wage is much cheaper, plus their is an ample supply of labor over there. People will work much cheaper in India. They live much cheaper, and they have a lower standard of living. There are no minimum wages. People are paid what the market will bear. Taxes are a tiny slice of the pie, except in where you HQs are located. I know this very well. If you worked in a major corporation in a position similar to mine, you would see that as well.
In reality, getting rid of unions and their costs appears to be a more relaistic answer than taxes. Even though only 8 percent of U.S. workers in the private sector belong to unions, 29 percent of production shifts out of the United States are from unionized facilities, including 44 percent of firms moving jobs from the United States to Mexico and 29 percent of firms moving jobs to China. This is a notable jump from 2001, when only 14 percent of companies moving to China, and 26 percent of those shifting production to Mexico were unionized. 17% of production shifts to other Latin American countries and 15% of production shifts to other Asian countries were in unionized workplaces. Only those moving to Inida (7%) were close to the national average.
Overall, 39 percent of all jobs leaving the United States are union.
Without spending reduction, nothing else matters. We are not improving the situation.
A prebate is welfare for the masses.
"The FairTax is progressive. What could possibly be fair about a progressive tax where some people have to pay a higher percentage than others merely because they are deemed to be "rich"? How is the FairTax progressive? I thought it was a flat 23 percent on all new goods and services? It is and it isn't. Under the FairTax plan, everyone pays the 23 percent tax on everything, but "every household receives a rebate that is equal to the FairTax paid on essential goods and services." The rebate is given out each month, and is based on family size and the poverty level. But like the current tax code, the FairTax can also function as a tool for income redistribution because "the poor [will] actually pay less than zero-percent retail sales tax on their spending. Much like with the earned income tax credit of today, the rebate may give them more money than they actually spend on retail taxes." - Vance
He explains it pretty well, don't you think?
Here is another point:
The claim that the IRS will be eliminated under the FairTax is bogus. Although the national sales tax will be collected by the states from retailers, it is still a national sales tax, and as such, its collection will have to be overseen by some agency of the federal government. Just because the bureaucracy will no longer be called the IRS doesn't mean that it will be eliminated. According to The Fair Tax Act of 2005:
"There shall be in the Department of the Treasury a Sales Tax Bureau to administer the national sales tax in those States where it is required pursuant to section 404, and to discharge other Federal duties and powers relating to the national sales tax (including those required by sections 402, 403, and 405). The Office of Revenue Allocation shall be within the Sales Tax Bureau."Title II, chapter six, section 603 of The Fair Tax Act sets up the Problem Resolution Office and authorizes "problem resolution officers." There will still be tax courts according to title II, chapter six, section 602 and chapter nine, section 7451. Changing the phrase "Internal Revenue Service" to "Department of the Treasury" and "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" to "Secretary" doesn't eliminate the federal bureaucracy.
With the FairTax, the federal government will also be a tax collector in a new way: at the post office. There is no exemption of postal goods and services mentioned anywhere in the Fair Tax Act of 2005. I suppose this means that stamps, P.O. Box rental services, and package mailing services will be subject to the new 23 percent tax. No list of taxes that are supposed to be eliminated under the FairTax includes the federal gas tax or the special taxes that exist on hotel rooms in most areas of the country.
Good Documentary on the IRS and income Tax made by film producer Arron Russo
http://<a href="http://video.google....3867390173</a>
01' Mercedes C320 $10500 o.b.o. or trade 4 G35 coupe
http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...9#post38098929
am a single perant of two making 10.00 hour at work and sense everything going overseas am not getting my hours am getting 32 hours a week now . it has its pros and cons on the fair taxes act but i like my taxes at the frist of the year its like a saving for me.and am a male if i did not have my kids i would be paying chid suport for them .at 150 a week plus ins. that would leave me with nuthing aweek but at least wen i was going thur everthing to get the kids i was working 7 days aweek then and i was making more a hour then companys has sense cut jobs so i had to take a lower paying job in the plant. but now i had to move back in with perants to help me with kids and have loss my house and car had to buy a cheaper car from what the wife did not take but sense she toke her stuff i was building back up till latly.i need my hole pay cheack but i like my taxes at the frist of the year it my let me get on my feet again wen i do get the taxes but thay dont last long to go out and buy alot of stuff taxes my last me a mouth sense am going to need anuthere car .and help out with bills and help perants if t was not for perants i would not have anything on the streets sense all the plants are going overseas. and bush is not going to ament that he f-up the country by opening up the free trade letting them ship any amount of cheap s#it over to this country
I'm hoping this is not real, because if it is it is the worst display of grammar, spelling, and direction that I have ever witnessed in my life.
If you are serious, you need to realize 3 things:
1. The money you get "back" every year is money YOU ALREADY paid. So it's not "free" money or some kind of rebate. It is money you OVERPAID in the first place. So, would you rather take home your WHOLE $400/wk check or take home $300 every week only to get back $1000 once a year in your tax return? Take the calculator out and add that up.
2. The Fair Tax would BRING IN MORE companies to the U.S. because they would have a Tax INCENTIVE to be here, rather than an additiona COST like they do now. The reason for outsourcing IS additional costs, which include TAXES. Those companies WANT to be here, but the enormous TAX burden and additional costs are keeping them from doing that. It's simple math. If it costs you $100 to do something here and it costs you $50 just across the border, then where do you think these companies are going to move their operations? It's not rocket science. So the solution is not whining about it and buying into false propaganda in the media and putting the blame where it really lies. The solution is to dangle a carrot for those companies to come here. The Fair Tax would be a HUGE carrot.
3. If your tax refund only lasts you a month, why would you want that over getting your WHOLE check year round? You'd rather have a little money once or a little money every week?
I applaud everyone who posted accurate information in this thread. Now, I have a clearer understanding of the Fair Tax proposal.
With that said, I honestly feel that it would put more people in check at the end of the day with thier finances.
I will say it pisses me off that Jim Martin makes the Fair Tax out to be nothing more than a 23% sales tax, John Lewis is doing the same thing. Very misleading, the Fair Tax will forever struggle because it requires more than stupidity to understand it.
its real spelling is not my strong point
I agree! I'm glad I did my homework on the topic to understand the local candidates views. The ads are VERY misleading if you don't research and figure out what each message is telling you.
"Saxby wants to tax exerything you buy @ 23%. Is that what you want?"
I will say that the campaign people are sly cats, lol.
Again ive said this 1000 times, FORBES did a survey of 100 Japanese CEOs.
They were asked if we went to the FAIR TAX would they do business in the usa.
20% said they would move SOME of their operation here
80% said they would move their ENTIRE Operation here
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
without taxes at the frist of the year i wont never have 4g in my pocket
its simple math.
Instead of getting that big sum back at the end of the year, you get it back EVERY PAYCHECK just in smaller amounts,.
you just need to learn how to save and budget
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
The system won't let me, but I'd give you all my rep points if it would.....
You my boy, blue!!!!!
This is the only reason the Fair Tax has not gone as far as it could....the biased and misleading media. The majority of people that take the time to weed thru the BS and find out what it's really about and how it works......convert. That says a lot.
i dont make that much i know is easy for everyone to say budget how can anyone budget one 220 a week with 2 kids .wen am not working on unployment i make more then working its like a 100d rise just for being off work for a week but wen i go back the next week thay take more out of my pay chack two ins. and two weeks 41k pay back that leave me with making 120d wen i go back to work for the week how can you budget that
I'm going to use you as a whipping post for a sec here.
I told you to take out your calculator, because your math is not adding up.
If you make $10/hr, then there should be no way for you to get back $4k/yr unless some numbers are missing somewhere. That's the first thing.
Second, even if your numbers are right, wouldn't you be ABLE (everything else held equal) to keep far MORE than $4k if you GOT 100% of what you EARNED every single week? If not, why not?
Finally, if you put $100/wk MORE in your pocket, how are you not going to have $4k at the end of any given year? Furthermore, why would you want a single payment that NETS LESS over a steady and perpetual payment that NETS you MORE?
I'm guessing some serious help from Earned Income Credit here.
It's a losing battle, I've been telling people for years to adjust their withholdings and take home more each paycheck but they always end up saying "what about my refund?"... ugh... :facepalm:
Think about it.. you get a check for $4000 each year or you can get nearly $80 more every single week. Now wouldn't that help our more? Instead of getting it all at once and blowing it, you can use it to live, to eat, to get around and take care of yourself.
I'm trying to be as nice as possible but I can barely read these posts.
2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 -1.8L Turbo
Right??? So I'm not crazy, right?(She's a real accountant. So yall betta not try and argue or she'll whip out a slide ruler and own you.....
I've said the same thing to employees for YEARS. People think that if they get some big refund they're actually coming out ahead. All they're really doing is lending Uncle Sam money at 0% interest.....
While your post is true its a bit non productive, I can empathize with him/her since I am a single parent myself (I do take well care of my son though) it is redundant to say don't have two kids. Yeah, it'd be stupid to not use protection from here on out but really.. why not address the situation from now going forward rather than what should have been done.
Not flaming ya.. just saying, people do put themselves in situations where they could have used better judgement, but they didn't. Just leave it at that.. its nothing to get frustrated over.
BITCHING,
I'm not going to tell you how to live your life but with two kids, your every last ditch effort should be bettering your situation to provide more for your kids. There are tons of resources out there to help you get to where you want to be, the thing is you need to take the initiative to make these programs work for you.
Have you thought about taking college courses a couple of nights a week? There is federal funding for that. Taking up a new trade or looking into investing? How old are you by the way?
Agreed, can't argue that
Right??? So I'm not crazy, right?
I've said the same thing to employees for YEARS. People think that if they get some big refund they're actually coming out ahead. All they're really doing is lending Uncle Sam money at 0% interest.....
They think it's free money. People get mad when someone they know gets a larger refund than they received. That's money that came out of your paycheck!!!! The government is not just giving it to you.
People do not seem to understand that your tax liability is based on what you make and then your deductions from that. If you have two people who make the exact same amount, same deductions and one person gets back $300 and the other gets back $3,000... the $3,000 guy received much smaller paychecks all year. They both paid the exact same amount in taxes.
2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 -1.8L Turbo
every one wonts to b#tch about it but i was making 20d a hour back then how meny males do you see with there kids all the time not there mother . just my comany cut jobs went from 3 shifts to only one . sent most of there work overseas. fixing to send the whole thing over there .just use here is a werehouse.to repack everthing. but from making 20d a hour to 10d a hour .but bush would not have opened the would up to shiping all the stuff over here for cheaper. i would still be working 6 and 7 days
if i was still making what i use it i would love to here about the fair tax law
Bitching - I suggest you invest in getting an education. Your writing is so poor, it's barely readable.
I was a single father for a while with sole custody. It's becoming more common the more Judges figure out that it's not always the best to be with the mother 100% of the time. Luckily I have a wonderful wife that took my Daughter as her own.
On the Fair Tax, you should want it after getting laid off due to your company moving overseas.
Fair Tax would reduce taxes on companies that come from overseas to start companies here. Therefore your company would be more likely to come back in the states to set up shop and others like it, providing more jobs likethe one you lost for $20/hr.
01' Mercedes C320 $10500 o.b.o. or trade 4 G35 coupe
http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/...9#post38098929
What are you trying to accomplish here.. long term? And please don't say $20 an hour.
i have a good education and i have cdls i dont wont to be on the road and i have a beness degree. just spelling not my strong point.
I'm not bashing but it could not have been a school in the University System of Georgia, there is no way you could pass the Regents test with that kind of grammar. Seriously if you want to better your situation you're going to have to step up from what you are currently qualified for.. or take matters into your own hands and start a business. Complaining about your current state doesn't solve anything.
so my question is why if this is such a good idea (minus the few bad points that can be solved with compromise) havent we instilled this idea yet I havent seen much of an arguement really
because politicians arent open to the idea. For one it would make the IRS useless (in its current form) therefore killing all their jobs. No i think thats a BS arguement because there would still have to be a govt agency to oversee the tax collected from the businesses.
The system in place now makes too much money for certain people , and politicians use it to their advantage.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
There are plenty of people who point out the bad sides to such a system. Do a google search and you will see. It's always best to read both sides and make up your own mind.
2005 Mazdaspeed MX-5 -1.8L Turbo
Biggest reason imo, and the FairTax book's also, is that the plan takes away power from the government and gives it back to the people.
"Governments should fear their people, not the other way around" - some guy
Don't remember where I heard/read that, but its the truest words ever spoken imo.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
