posted
Disagreeing with policy is not 'anti-american' like right wing yeehaws like to fram it, its the DEFINITION of being american (rebelling from a dictorial empire and all).
posted
Disagreeing in policy is not un-american but in time of war, we must unite. What policy will unite us? Is there one? Having terrorists declare war on us has not united us. Maybe thats where leadership comes in. Maybe united we stand, divided we fall. Maybe, politics should not enter war. Why have we not declared war? should the politicains fight the war or should our military?
The politicians fought in vietnam IMO. On the war on terror, we have a military for commone defense and politicians for policy. But as a start, maybe we should declare war. Then policy is made and upto military to fight it. If we dont want war, then we pull out. but we either unite to win or divided we fall.
why wouldn't I agree with getting osama 007 style? Thats exactly what they should be doing. But Bush doesn't have the testicular fortitude to tell Pakistan the way its going to be. Bush is only a big man when it comes to **** kicking bitch countries that even Canada could beat.
posted
OK Kevin. i shouldn't put words to you..LOL it just doesn't quite fit into an idealistic view... ideally, we could try him and put him in a cell and feed him bacon every meal for the rest of his natural life...
gold has much more appeal than cash to the people living the region we assume osama is hiding out in...
posted
talk about bad feelings..... the swift boat ad controversey is starting to remind me of another campaign screwup in the early 70's
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I don't know the specifics about nor know the future ramifications of a consumption tax--it does seem interesting.
Rather than being penalized via your income--especially you top 5%--tax the population on how much they comsume (exempting food).
Those that buy high ticket items are more likely to afford the subsequent taxes associated with such purchases, while those less fortunate wouldn't be able to afford them and wouldn't be taxed. Current tax code is far too complex.
Others more-in-the-know may be able to shed some insight as to pros and cons.
posted
how about a plastic surgery tax???? if your insurance comapny won't pay for the plastic sugery for valid medical reasons i propose a 200% tax....LOL
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
there was a luxury tax imposed on boats a while back... i lived near a large yacht building area and watched a lot of craftsmen lose their jobs.... a lot went from building yachts to cranking out hot-tubs...
Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luxury taxes were imposed in ADDITION to sales taxes, property taxes, and who knows what else making such purchases less attractive. A consumtion tax would replace these (I think) and would only be imposed on those buying the items.
I suppose it would work similarly to a sales tax--higher tax paid for higher priced item. I don't know what all it would replace. Or if it would be universal--not differ state to state as sales taxes do.
Present system penalizes success. Richer boys buy richer toys--could afford more: if they want to. Since income taxes are mandated by law, a consumption tax format could allow one to save more by buying less, but not nessecarily have to make more to do so.
Again details are sketchy, but the idea is intriguing.
skipped this thread, was gonna wait till april to figure out my taxes...
seems like you all beat the discussion to hell, it was hard to follow the thread.
i'm not chiming in on this one enoughs been said elsewhere.
.......again, i've seen kerry run a state first hand, brutal! scares me to see him with a country, never mind the beating my pocket will take. check out the money eating big dig, and other wonderful events he ignores in this state.
keith
[This message has been edited by keithsan (edited August 26, 2004).]
Posts: 9110 | From: boston, ma | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |