Sauf streep poker online poker cinco cartas jugar apostar sony ericsson ringtones seven card stud gratis

I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.

Muscle Gain Truth

Tips on choosing the right lawn mower …

Of old style cubs and more

Ha ha ha…levity is fun.

You’re wrong and you’re an evil Commie Nazi Statist. I’m right, and by virtue of my declaration of rightness I am superior to you and your ilk.

I can respect this reasoning. Naturally, nobody knows what it will actually be until it’s implemented. After all, who would have thought port security requires banning online gambling? I understand your qualms completely – it doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with your preference of keeping the status quo over replacement (actually, I’d work to initiate legislative reforms/limits on bill adjustments and repeal the 16th amendment before I’d bring an alternative replacement structure forward.)

But I think libertarians should be able to rationalize with each other and disagree respectfully instead of calling each other names, questioning their moral integrity and holding long term grudges against each other. That, more than anything else, is why the LP will never succeed – because we always prefer to be right than accepting differences of opinion, and we can’t walk away from any fight until we’ve won some “imaginary moral high ground.” And while we’re duking it out with each other and scaring away new recruits, the government keeps growing and none of us are any better off for it.

No. It is not. I am not proposing an entirely new tax scheme. You are.

I have NO IDEA whether a national sales tax would be less intrusive and less burdensome or more intrusive and more burdensome than the current income tax. I can merely speculate. Government has a loooong record of becoming more burdensome and more intrusive, whatever the program. I see no reason why it would be different in this case.

My best guess: if the FairTax was implemented tomorrow, then some things would be better, some would be worse, and in general there would be little difference in my overall tax burden and the size of government. Government would still grow and my taxes would still go up.

I’d rather fight the devil I know than build a new, unknown devil to fight down the road.

Actually, the burden of proof for this is on you – we’ve seen how sales taxes have been implemented in the past. Your argument that the required infrastructure will be immensely different simply because the rate is higher doesn’t stand on it’s own merit.

“Not if you’re providing a “prebate”. The government will still have to know who you are, your marital status, how many kids you have, etc.”

They already do for the most part, and regardless, filling out a form with this information (in order to get money back, mind you, which something one must do with any sort of tax refund from deductions claimed) is far less intrusive than a form with this information as well as specific income and expense information.

“I’d rather work to increase the standard deduction in the current income tax, which would be an across the board cut that would benefit the poor and working class the most.”

I would certainly go along with you on that. Like I said, there are two points I care about, and equally: progressive ends and shrinking government. This fills both criteria. However, it’s not the MOST progressive structure nor does it seem as likely to initiate massive reductions under the status quo system, which most people seem content enough with. I’m not entirely convinced that the Negative Income tax would do so either, although it’s certainly more progressive than the current system.

I would indeed support land, resource and pollution taxes as a replacement for the current system, and maybe even instead of the FairTax. But FairTax seems more solidly structured and simplified – maybe that’s just because the movement for it has already very publicly mapped out how it would work.

Land taxes with a rebate may indeed be the most progressive and the least intrusive – I don’t know. I’m still working out how land is revenue producing enough in the short term to cover the costs of the tax You’d be completely reliant on what happens around you development-wise as to how high your taxes and land values are, and thus might be forced to move by factors outside your control – sure you’d gain more profit from the appreciated value, but that does not mean you necessarily want to move out if you don’t have to. Furthermore, it might encourage people to intentionally devalue their land and thus it may be questionable that it will be environmentally beneficial in the long run.

But I’d be interested to see a more concerted effort to put it in the political dialogue. I think the Left would indeed buy it as a replacement, as would libertarians who recognize that land is a very limited resource and is connected with most of the valid functions of the federal government and thus is the most justifiable thing to tax (as we must pick a poison, in my opinion, because I see a valid reason for minimal government and that government needs funding.) I still don’t know. The FairTax still strikes me as the best poison on the political radar at this point.