now you're just dreaming! :winkwink:

but yeah, no, i wonder how many pages the current tax code is, i'd bet several thousand pages of baloney.

David Duke ran for President in 1988 as a Democrat.
Then in 1992 as a Republican.

they're trying!

White nationalist David Duke praises Trump's candidacy - CNNPolitics.com

How about 74,000 pages.


http://i.imgur.com/ZWgAUoi.jpg

LOL, not much of an endorsement. I just saw on his blog that he is freaking out about the media claiming it was an endorsement because it isn't.

And just think....before 1913 there wasn't an income tax. It was unconstitutional.

So Congress simply put in the 16th amendment and made it constitutional. :(

That is probably the plan -- the taxman will always be there.

The real question is what will be taxed? If it is just consumer goods consumption such a tax would be regressive.

If real estate as well as other securities and intangibles are taxed the rate could maybe be 3% or 4%. The big time tax evaders (or sheltered speculators) are not using Obamaphones and EBT cards.

Holy crap!

74,000 pages of tax code with 99% of them devoted to special interest exemptions and avoidance.

How bout that media, doing a heck of a job! Making up the story so they can make a backhanded attack.

Not unlike a couple gfy libs.

Thats the media for you.

1st U S Income Tax
 

Actually Lincoln, during the Civil War instituted the 1st U S Income Tax to finance the war.

Consumption taxes have gotten crazy with some state sales taxes nearing 10%. If the feds started one it could well be over 25%.

I had a friend in England who thought the VAT Tax was the worst thing ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861

I love the current system. I get half of the real estate taxes back on my house each year just because I'm physically disabled.

Yep, and once the emergency of the war was over....so was income tax because it was unconstitutional to have a permanent income tax until Congress wrote the 16th ammendment making it constitutional.

LOL :1orglaugh Exactly!

Nice! :1orglaugh

What "rut" is the middle class in? LOL. We are are walking around with thousand dollar mini computers in our pockets, sixty-five inch flat screen TVs in our living rooms, our houses keep getting bigger and bigger, and a BMW or Mercedes in every other garage.

But clearly we need change. The country has gone to hell. The unemployment rate is unacceptable, the cost of gas is too high, the economy is in the gutter, and the current administration has gotten us stuck in two wars with no end.

Gekko for VP!! :1orglaugh

He could do, but no one would buy them. And there's the;

http://www.asset1.net/tv/pictures/mo...atch-22-tc.jpg

It would mean people would have to buy less, a lot less. This would effect the retail sector of the economy.

I remember the time when the UK was an exporting industrial country. We bought a lot less, things had to last longer.

Because wages were never enough to buy the goods like we do today. If wages rise, so does the costs of the goods. And before you know it, that new widescreen TV, latest laptop, iPad, phone, etc. Are beyond your reach. You will have to use the one you have until it no longer works well enough.

Bit like 99% of the people did pre 1980.

That's what a billionaire doesn't understand. Until he finds his workers are on strike for 20% pay increase to keep up with rising prices, and bills for all the TVs, lights, electrical sockets, beds, sheets, mattresses, bathroom fittings, table, chairs, etc. In the hotels quadruple.

Unless he does understand and hopes you don't.

Sales taxes on non essential items, leaving out things like food. Is sensible.

The problem is spending/taxing. Do you want a country that has Justice, Health, Education, Transport, Defense, etc. That runs properly. Do you want laws made, roads built, protection of the environment, and everything else the Government pays for? Then pay taxes. Or do without them.

People can nit pick over certain spending, so long as it's spent in the country where the tax is raised. It's only moving the money around inside the system. But goods from overseas, fight wars, etc. Loses money our of the system.

As for the belief that wages will rise to fund the more expensive goods. Look around you and see what was made in the US. Then calculate how much more you will need to earn to buy those products. Don't forget these.

Now think of your market. how many of your customers are going to have less to spend on porn?

The only way is forcing these countries to buy our goods and services, then taxing the excess imports.

The problem with sales taxes is that the state becomes interested in higher prices. The higher price, the more taxes got paid, if you lower price you reduce state revenue. With taxes on profit it works slightly different, as the profits and taxes can be increased by cost reduction through, for example, innovations.
It does not mean the govt will actively push retailers to raise the prices, but one way or anoither it will affect the policies of the state.

the problem is already that it is a state thing

mostly everywhere else the sales tax (VAT) is handled on federal level, 1 rate all over the country, included in the prices already so you don't even notice you are paying it

also mostly everywhere you have at least 2 rates - a low one for basic things like food, books etc and a higher one for the rest

and in case it's a business expense, you get the VAT reimbursed

makes sense to me in general

Bernie Sanders doesn't play "Gotcha" and he sticks to the issues..

I never said Sanders played "gotcha"...I said the media does when they ask the questions. They don't ask about the issues the majority of the time, they are too busy playing "gotcha" with the candidates.

And yes, they will do the same to Sanders. They will hunt down something he wrote or said 40 years ago that might be contrary to what he believes today to try and make him look bad...instead of just asking the man the questions that are pertinent to what he will do as President in the future.

I always thought that was such a weird thing. The whole "flip-flop."

Why would you want someone that has the same exact opinion that they had 30 years ago and never grows based on new knowledge? It's one thing to change your opinion just to appease someone, it's another thing to change your opinion because of something that happened or new knowledge etc.

I constantly look at things I did only a few months ago and wonder "WTF was I thinking?" The world is changing quickly. Thoughts and ideas need to keep pace.

The problem with Bernie Sanders is that this is now a name game and a popularity contest. There are two big well known names - Trump and Clinton - and everyone knows everything about them. (Three if you add in Jeb.) I couldn't tell you the first thing about Bernie Sanders. Or his policies or thoughts.

I know about Scott Walker, but only because Minte was pushing him hard.

the race to become president has always been a popularity contest.

I wonder if Scott Walker has a water fountain.

remember the Minte!

a legend and class act in this business.

I agree. I don't really care what Bernie Sanders may have thought or did when he was a young man.

The media talking heads try to dress it up and say that it shows a person's background and how their thought processes work.
I say it doesn't show a damn thing.

I have different views in 2015 than I did in 1985 or even in 2010. I would expect that everyone does. If they ever find a candidate who doesn't live and learn from experience...then they have a robot on their hands. lol

You sound like Sarah Palin who spent her interview with trump complaining about her "gotcha" questions :1orglaugh

Sarah Palin couldn't handle them because she's two-thirds to a retard. Sanders and Trump will have no problem with it, specially not Trump. and these kind of questions do serve a purpose.

What purpose do you think the "gotcha" questions really serve?

At the debate for instance...they had a very limited time to speak. And yet the moderators kept asking "gotcha" questions and trying to provoke fights amongst the candidates instead of asking questions that had to do with the real issues.

They literally provoked fights between Rand Paul and Chris Christie for example.
And then they did it again with Bush and Trump.

Or when Megyn Kelly goes into her long "question" (diatribe was more like it) about Trump's freakin' Twitter feed.

All of that was just for ratings and pure entertainment.

The media wasted precious time in the "debate" (and no, they aren't even "debates"...but more like glorified question and answer sessions).

We got very little questions that gave us substance and a lot of entertaining nonsense questions.

I personally would like to hear the moderators ask some questions that actually affect the American people and let ALL of the candidates answer the questions.

Like:
Why is gasoline still over $3 a gallon when the price of oil is lower than it has EVER been? Will you, as President, investigate this?

What will you do about the NSA spying on us?

What will you do about the military budget and the U.S. over-involvement in foreign countries?

What is your stance on the "War On Drugs" and the fact that the U.S. has more of it's own citizens in prison than any other country in history?

That's the kind of thing I'd like to hear from the candidates. I don't give a shit whether Trump had a Twitter fight with Rosie or not. Or whether Rand Paul and Chris Christie don't like each other.

I'm sick of brain-dead politicians using "gotcha" questions as something bad. What does "gotcha" really mean? It means you got caught knowing nothing about what you are talking about, or you got caught lying.

Here is that fucking idiot train wreck Sarah Paling being asked very simple question, and her completely gibberish word-salad bullshit non-answer



This fucking dumbnut the nerve to coin the term "gotcha question".

Political hopefuls running for seats in any section of government need to know the answers to both the simple AND the complex questions, and the media has to stop accepting stupid catch-phrases as real answers.

Right now, Donald Trump is doing nothing but spew out bigoted opinions and one-liners about what he will do if elected. One day soon he will be forced to give proper answers to tough questions at which time he will just fall apart. This is why I think he will lose to Hillary, Bernie, Joe, or any democrat he eventually faces-off with.

You think he will make it that far?

who gives a shit what magazines palin read? **********.

I want to know the person I'm going to vote for President has mental agility, see the way they react when they are caught wrong footed. Many didn't like the way Trump replied to Megyn Kelly but many others did, it showed consistency with his way of being.

Sarah Palin to this day keeps complaining about "gotcha" questions but when she said she read loads of magazines and couldn't name one it showed she couldn't have a discussion beyond her brief. That she'd draw a blank in front of a head of state and that she had no interest in current affairs.

These candidates won't have that problem but it should still be a mix of questions you don't want them to recite their policies one after the other there will be plenty of time for that :2 cents:

that's not at all what it means.

for instance when Guliani claimed Obama doesn't love America, gotcha media used that statement to try and gotcha other politicians.

Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot and not too many people argue otherwise. Catching her in a lie about whether or not she reads a newspaper is not that great of an achievement.

What are some other worthy examples where a gotcha is more beneficial than a real question? People have been crying that Trump can't backup any of his crazy claims. While he could do that on his own, he hasn't, why not use these debate situations to dig into something like that as opposed to whether or not he called a woman disgusting?

If he can't back it up and you call him out isn't that a "gotcha" question? Guess it's the quality of the "gotchas" that bothers you... nobody will disagree there :2 cents: