oh i neglected to state that the tax advirory
committee changed the plan by saying well we thingk
congress will change this or change that until they
cot what they ended up critiquing. they negled to take
into account that there aRE as many democrats
cxo-sponsering this bill as those from the GOP. and
the senators that are co-sponsoring it vow to
filibuster attemps to make changes. would they suceed
in blocking changes? i don't know the answer to that. 

--- ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> okay now some facts about the "facttwist" er
> "factcheck" site
> 
> i decide to call it the crap tax becouse some
> thought
> the other name was an oxymoron. what ever you call
> it,
> it is what it is. 
> 
> the purpose was to reform the tax code. reform has
> been tried in the past and sometimes it was actually
> was siomplified only to be made more complicated
> again
> as congress and lobbist for special interest started
> adding this and adding that until we are back with a
> 15000 page tax code that even the IRS can't be
> depended on to give a reliable answers to questions
> about it and we are as a nation spending more than 4
> billion dollas a year just to do paperwork to try to
> comply with this monster. 
> 
> the only way to stap this cycle is to get rid of the
> 16th admendment and the irs, get congress out of
> changing the laws in response to multimillionair
> lobbist trying to game the system. there in is the
> main opposition if you are making a million dollar
> salary lobbying for loopholes in the code then you
> don't want reform. for congressman this is a loss of
> power. it is a powerful tool to be able to reward
> cirtain behaviors or lack of behaviors with a tax
> break. so there is a lot of incentive to twist
> information against this. when they put in a change
> now no one notices until the next filling a yar
> away.
> if there is a sales tax people are going to know
> right
> away that taxes have went up. so it will be harder
> for
> congress to tinker with this. 
> 
> now some facts omitted by the fact omit site. 
> 
> 1. this is the most studied piece of tax legislation
> in history. 
> 
> 2. the politicians introducing this bill did not
> come
> up with the %. this was tast to a team of 20 
> harvard
> people with doctors degrees and many years of
> ecconomics experience. you know harvard that baston
> of
> right wing thought. 
> 
> 3 the Avisory council of tax reform was made up of a
> handfull of washington insiders and their staffs
> with
> experience in "compromise" washington style and not
> much in the way of ecconomics experience. they were
> task to study all the different ideas of tax reform
> and report back to the president. if you remember
> they
> came back with only a few suggestions to tweak some
> of
> the deductions and very little else. 
> 
> 4 corps do not pay taxes, consumers do. oh the corps
> did file papers and send in money to the government,
> but then they just add it into their cost of
> business
> and guess who gets the bill. their customers. if you
> don't understand this point just quit reading
> because
> you are not going to understand much of this. 
> 
> 5. derivived from fact 4 is that there are taxes
> imbedded in everything we buy already as part of the
> price. 
> 
> 6. the harvad guys were suppose to come up with %
> that
> would be revenue neutral meaning the government
> would
> collect as much revenue under the new plan as under
> the present plan. the % was stated inclusive just as
> the income tax was inclusive so as to compare
> "apples
> to apples"  not apples to oranges" as the advisory
> committee did after changing the way it was written.
> and as reported by "facttwist" site. 
> 
> 7 the advisory committee said "as written this plan
> is
> the only plan that completely takes the tax burden
> off
> the poor." that  was before they proceded to alter
> it
> washington style. 
> 
> 8 the harvard guys set the 23% and also set the
> imbeded taxes in the price at 22 or 23 % 
> 
> okay so now less address the "factcheck" facts.
> first
> the 34 percent is already addressed in fact omited
> number 6. 34 is and excluseive quote while leaving
> the
> income tax inclusive. so it that were all the
> supposed
> 10000 priced item would be $12300 not $13400, but
> what
> about the other facts omitted. the imbeded 22 %
> already in the price would in short order be forced
> out of the price by compettive pressure of the free
> market. the truely momopolistic  companies might
> have 
> to be handled by the anti trust laws. this would
> alter
> the $10000 item would now be $7800 before tax. 7800
> adding 23 % is $9594 not $12300 or $13400 as
> presented
> by the committee and further by "facttwist." some
> one
> is benifited already. the companies can sell good
> cheaper and compete better overseas. jobs quit being
> outsourced because now america is the tax haven. who
> benifits most by jobs staying in this country? hmm
> but wait. you get a increase in your takehome pay as
> there are no deductions for federal tax, social
> security tax, or medicare tax. you make $400 you
> take
> home $400 less only the state deductions. more
> monbey
> to pay for cheaper goods. who does not benifit, but
> wait there is the prebate of an amount = to the tax
> on
> amounts spent up to the povaty level. so you have
> money to pay the 23 % up to povaty level spending
> before you even spend. who does not benifit? of
> cousre
> those in povaty are not forced to buy at only povaty
> level the plan does not purport to make spending
> decisions for the poor, it just purports to make it
> possible for them to be tax free. 
> 
> questions. how doe the 23 percent replace the 22 %
> that the govermennt now gets thought corp taxes
> imbeded in todays prices plus the other feder taxes
> collected, income tax, ss tax, medicaRE tax, excise
> tax, gasoline tax. i do not know everything the
> harvard guys took into consideration, but some of it
> is that a considerable showdow ecconomy not paying
> taxes now would be forced into being taxed. those
> dealling in cash and not bothering to file would
> find
> it hjarder to avoid sales tax. oh i am sure some
> would
> try, but it would be harder i think. tourist
> visiting
> would pay. 12-20 million illegal aliens would pay.
> would they get the prebate, i don't know. should
> they
> get the prebate. it'd certainly be an incentive to
> try
> to get legal, but that is another discussion. 
> i am sure there is more that i do not know about.
> www.fairtax.org faq tries to answer questions.
> congressman linder co-arthored a book "the fair tax
> book" and is now doing another "answering the
> critic,
> the fair tax" sorry i can't call the books or the
> website crap tax they have their names. 
> 
> if you guys want to take the factcheck.com site as a
> tresure trove of information, knock yourselves out,
> but keep in mind that what they leave out might just
> make them a treasure trove of BS. 
> 
> again given what we have now, i'd take my chances
> with
> crap tax if it were my choice. hell just not having
> to
> try to keep all the records and filling out that
> onerous forms would be worth something to me. 
> 
> hope this is more lagically presented than when i
> was
> dead tired and 90 % asleep the other night.     
> 
> 
>        
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search 
> that gives answers, not web links. 
>
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY
> list, go here:
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy