If I'm the president of united states,I could make it more rich

If I'm the president of united states,I could make it more rich.

Here is my way.there are 300 million American citizen in USA.I ask everyone to donate 1 dollar per day.Thus,I could gather 300 million dollar a day.

300 million dollar=300x(one million dollar).I select 300 people everyday randomly,to give them each one a million dollar.Thus,I could make 300 millionaire per day.

300 people is a large number,maybe a town have 300 people.that's saying i could make a town everybody to become millionaire per day.Then,it will be soon all of the American citizen to become millionaire.

How smart i am.

So in theory it would take 1,000,000 days to make everyone a millionaire. That is 2740 years. Wouldn't you feel cheated if you lived to be 70 years old and didn't make the cut?

Also, by the time 2740 years go by, the population will be much more than that in the US. It sounds like a good idea on the surface, but it is unworkable on paper. It is not sustainable, and even if it were and could be done within peoples lifetimes, everyone would pretty much quit working if they were wealthy (not everyone buy most people). You would have a nation of lethargic lazy people who live in wealth. Who are you going to hire to run the nations infrastructure? Would they not also get a million dollars eventually?

If this works so well, then I think you should send me a dollar.

Abolish the federal reserve, make the government print it's own money. Nationalise factories and stores. Stop importing from china, increase minimum wages, don't change the prices. Change to alternative power sources to fuel vehicles. Cut the country from the world market, since everything needed can be made in the USA, and if material is lacking, some kind of trade can be negotiated with canada. If any country defies us, we'll scare them with our nukes, end of story.

Originally posted by Radekus
Cut the country from the world market, since everything needed can be made in the USA, and if material is lacking, some kind of trade can be negotiated with canada.

Damn man, we're already sending you our comediens and hockey players, what more do you need?

BTW, you can keep Celine Dion.

Originally posted by intrepid
Damn man, we're already sending you our comediens and hockey players, what more do you need?

Thanks for the offer i. The most beautiful women in the world live in Vancover; would it be possible to get some of them down here in the high desert?

on topic.........

"If Im president of the united states,I could make it more rich"

supercoolferrari.......are you Dan Quayle?

[edit on 19-12-2006 by whaaa]

[edit on 19-12-2006 by whaaa]

Actually, I'm canadian. And I think that us and the states can prosper togheter quite well, no need to trade with any other country. Canada should also do what I proposed for the us.

Yes, the government gave us a tape saying that "OSAMA" said he would put our country into a financial nightmare. Something tells me OSAMA is what the people controlling our government are called.

Osama, the elite leaders of the world, creating economic crashes in order to buy out buisnesses they don't own. Or just the incompetence of American leaders, which ever.

Hey Intrepid, just wait till you guys get our storage bill for Celine: you're gonna have to seriously ratchet up production at your hockey-player factories to settle that debt.

Ferrari... please, please pretty mother-lovin' please tell me that you're just testing our intelligence.

For 300,000,000 Americans to give one person a million dollars, they'd each have to give 1/3 of a cent. So I get 300,000,000 x 1/3 of a cent, aka 100,000,000 cents, aka 1 million smackers. But I've also got to give my 1/3 of a cent during each other person's turn. This means that I will give 300,000,0000 x 1/3 of a cent.

0+ 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 = 0. Nobody makes any money. Only the slow pace of your 300 people a day plan would create winners. In other words, you have suggested somekind of bizzare death lottery.


How do you make America more wealthy? Depends on your measure of wealth. Despite how poorly everyone I know seem to be doing, I'm told that by certain measures we're doing great- its just that our wealth is concentrated at the upper levels to an extent rarely seen before in history.

At the end of the day though, the measure of an economy is the movement of goods and services- the GDP is just shorthand for exactly that, it just doesn't work perfectly. So, how do we Americans cause more goods and services to be exchanged, thus giving ourselves more of the things we need and want?

Simple: Produce more.

Cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world will not do the trick. Bringing all production home just means running more industires at lower productivity.

I hear people go off about how we ought to be back on the gold/silver standard or getting rid of the Fed, but what makes gold or silver any more valuable than paper money? Apart from the laws of supply and demand which basically drive currency values, steel would be far more valuable than gold.
Money, at it's core, represents the value of a nation's wares for trade against the wares of other nations. So long as we produce things that people need, the medium in which we trade will remain valuable, and our government will retain the ability to institute reforms whenever that proves not so. So long as people need what we've got, we've got a bargaining chip and we're fine.

So as I said, produce more. How do you produce more? Efficiency. How do you achieve efficiency? Technology, Infrastructure, etc.

We need to target a few viable areas with stable demand in which nobody else has the resources to keep up and we need to invest heavily in any educational, transportation, and other infrastructure needed to give us the advantage. That's how you close a trade gap and ensure that we're employed and making the wages we need to afford the products we need whether domestic or imported.

This thread really went downhill when somebody introduced the idea of working to make ends meet. Should I be worried?

abolish the 16th amendment and income taxes and allow the US industry to come back home and enter a new age of economic prosperity.

fairtax.org...

it's up to us americans to get this done.

How will reducing infrastructure (implicit in reducing taxes) help American business? As it is Warren Buffet says he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. If anything we need to increase taxes at the top end and invest it in infrastructure that other countries can't offer, especially education and energy, forcing certain industries to locate here.

If the worlds best engineers live in the silicon valley, you can never fully outsource to India- you can send the grunt work out, but not all of it.

If the worlds experts in physics are Americans, we'll be the ones everyone contracts with for their fusion plants after ITER pays its dividends. If we've got the infrastructure to handle that energy and convert it to various uses (such as charging fuel cells etc) the advantage in energy efficiency and Kyoto compliance will draw industry here too.

Subsidizing industry with tax breaks isn't going to be enough to stop outsourcing, and it's a bad idea even if it would work, because it takes away things that our tax dollars buy- essentially lowering our standard of living just to raise our bank balances- that's backwards.

Only a qualitative advantage is going to overcome currency disparities and regulatory disparities that are leading to outsourcing.

did you even read my link? here read this, if would infact bring a more stable infrastructure back to america along with american industry.

fairtax.org...

fairtax.org...

fairtax.org...

fairtax.org...

please read through all of these links before coming to an opinion. this has been researched for over 10 years and is finally coming into play, it will solve our social security and medicare problems, people alot smarter than an ATS poster and an ATS editor have endorsed this.


[edit on 24-12-2006 by ape]

So what you're saying Ape is that the fact that I'm on ATS somehow limits my intelligence to a certain level, right? Afterall, publication makes you smarter. A book or magazine article from a washed up old hack who has devoted years of research and education to selectively choosing the facts best suited to their ideological end is necessarily of greater qualification than what somebody expresses online, always, right?
You're letting the zeitgeist push you around, and I don't recommend that. Right now, it's easy to make the superficial decision- I must not know as much as John Linder and other propoents of the "fair tax" because I'm just some college student you heard from on the internet and they are congressmen, authors, self-appointed experts, academics, whatever. But 12 years from now, who's to say I'm not a Ph.D and/or a senator? Then all of a sudden this isn't just some contrary response from a dude online, but one of the early works of someone just as credible as your false authorites. So don't be superficial and you'll have less trouble adapting to changes that time brings.


I hate to burst your bubble, because I have observed that people have A LOT of fun assuming that I live in a cave, but you're not the first person to post this fair tax nonsense. Assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about around here is usually not a safe bet. I'm a very curious person and I hate going outside- this means that I do more reading than any three people you'll ever meet.

The "fair tax" proposes to link taxation directly to consumption, in theory progressively taxing the wealthy and providing the poor and middle class a greater degree of self-determination by making frugality a legal mechanism of tax reduction, thus empowering them better to save up to advance themselves by through ownership. By not taxing capital gains or corporate earnings it encourages investment and the creation of jobs. This sounds great for the common man.

There are hidden flaws.

First and foremost we must address the juvenile simplicity of the prebate idea. It hurts everyone who earns and consumes over 20,000 a year. If you make more than twice the poverty level, a prebate of the tax rate times the poverty line is always less than the tax rate times the amount of non-prebated consumption. The president's advisory committee projects that only people earning under 15,000 or over 200,000 would benefit. Greater wealth would be concentrated in the hands of those who could not possibly consume as much as they earned and more wealth would be taken away from those who have to consume what they earn to get by but are not in poverty. I find it laughable that the suggestion that we raise taxes on the middle class and give tax breaks to the extremely wealthy could be called progressive.

Then there's the supposed guarantee of revenue neutrality.
By encouraging saving, the tax necessarily reduces both consumption and prices in America, making current numbers invalid for computation of a revenue-neutral national sales tax. It is also worth noting that because the numbers used by Americans for Fair Taxation count taxes paid by the government on purchases, in essence suggesting that you make money when you pay yourself, they have artificially lowered the number. Then of course there is legal and illegal evasion to consider. The preference for buying used or going DIY would further shrink the tax base even before the very real possibility of smuggling is factored in, and that IS a very real possibility given the state of our borders. For that matter, what is to stop a Mexican retailer from buying goods made in America, unpackaging them, bringing them back under the protection of NAFTA, and selling them as used at a swapmeet or second hand store? That would basically be legal. The Report (pdf) from the president's advisory panel on tax reform does not document any accounting either for changes in demand or the essentially legal smuggling loophole I just explained and therefore even its dire assessment is probably light.
The only way to square things then is a rate increase, but each rate increase triggers new drops, and we only stabilize when people are down to the bare necessities that they can't afford not to consume.

Now let us consider the kind of economy we build with a tax policy like this one.
It creates an incentive to export by offering the ability to sell tax free abroad and by encouraging savings, thus depressing demand and forcing domestic prices down. To sell in America, you have to be willing to reduce your price to accomodate the price raise created by the tax, and to convince the consumer that he can afford your product and still pursue things such as home ownership which have been newly opened up to him. The American market's ability to remain lucrative enough to attract all of the products we want at the quality to which we are accustomed becomes almost entirely dependent on other markets not having the purchasing power to "outbid" us as it were.

In the worst case scenario, we would be dependent on the willingness of investors to take risks for lower rewards to expand business enough to meet American demand as well, otherwise we would necessarily be limited to the wares of companies that couldn't gain enough of a foothold in other markets. This creates a supply-side price increase on whatever of the best stuff does make it to America and the days when a working stiff could aspire to put in enough overtime or earn enough promotions to afford a corvette or other such thing will be over. In other words it force the average American into subsistence very much the way socialism would, allowing him a decent home and the necessities but robbing him of grander aspirations and thereby reducing the incentive to work harder, pursue higher education, etc. This in turn disadvantages American industry of course by ensuring that the incentive to build oneself to the best and brightest is greater overseas. The spreadsheets will look great because we'll be producing but we won't be the innovators, or the hard workers and we won't be setting the pace anymore.

In short, the "fair tax" combines the worst aspects of communism and capitalism- it creates a widely egalitarian society where the bottom 90% of wage earners live essentially the same regardless of income and get the things they really need, if little else, while the wealthy get richer than ever and are free to take that money overseas for business or pleasure, where they need not be concerned with the wretchedness of the common man.


So, as I said, your "fair tax" proposal implicitly reduces our infrastructure and the motivation of our labor force, with the goal of fighting with poorer nations for production jobs whose output simply isn't valuable enough to be worthwhile to us. What we need to do is streamline the existing income tax system, make it truly progressive, and put our money into the infrastructure of innovation and higher technology to create the jobs worthy of American labor.


Incidentally, although I have been through your links, it doesn't pay to throw links around without an argument in your own words. It begs the question, did you read the friggin thing?

The mere mention of Hamilton, the rat of whom Patrick Henry spoke when declining to attend the constitutional convention, in the beyond the basics section should be a dead giveaway if you know your nation's history.
The man was an elitist thug who apparently saw democracy as an expedient front for plutocracy, and I am highly suspicious of any economic policy for which his words can be invoked.

Pleasure meeting you ape, see you around.
signed, Aaron Burr.

funny how you point out the 'flaws', if this was the case and if these 'flaws' were so serious then why would americas top economists and allen greenspan promote and endorse this? certainly they did not overlook such drastic flaws so much so an ATS editor can come the concluision he has with his wise insight and still continue to endorse it?, it must be because there is an agenda at play here from the harvard economist and princeston and greenspan and im just to stupid to realise it? save the conspiracy theories and misinformation for the UFO forums these people are alot smarter than you and I and the research and study and the money spent to do this has been going on for over a decade, you are no no position to challenge this because everyone that has, has been debunked and has not looked at all of the facts.

i suggest taking a look at the thread on chinas geopolitical strategy in the peak oil forum and the information i posted about fair tax, the last argument against it has been debunked and proven that it was manipulated( and im not talking about k4urupt).

personally you can have your opinion about it it really doesn't bother me because in the end you would just be disagreeing with greenspan and all other very reputable figures so fell free, fair rax is the future, basically you want to keep our current corrupt situation? continue outsourcing? please give me a break.

the only thing resembling a communism is spending money that we dont generate while doing nothing to address our current industrial situation and debt, and we will crumble like a communist nation if this continues.


[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
funny how you point out the 'flaws', if this was the case and if these 'flaws' were so serious then why would americas top economists and allen greenspan promote and endorse this?

This is called an appeal to false authority argument. Your argument invokes nothing more than names. If these names meant anything, you would present the arguments these people have made and use them only as references, so that the weight of your claim fell on the merits of your argument regarding outcomes.

The reason beancounters like the idea is because it looks so pretty on their spreadsheets. Economics has become a governing force and as such has lost sight of its original aim, which is to allocate what we have towards producing what we want. It makes no difference how many rich, elitists think it's a good idea- what matters is what the effect will be on the working men and women who comprise the majority of our society.

Not everything that raises GDP is good for the economy- GDP is intended as a rough measure of how goods and services are moving in the economy, and its relevance breaks down when too much of it is derived from the finance sector and not enough from retail and services.

The present economy is a perfect example of how the numbers can all add up when the economy is bad. We are told that we're doing great. Stock market indexes have broken records, and unemployment isn't quite as bad as expected, because investors have got boo-koo bucks, but without minimum wage increases, with our insurance costs and medical bills going perpetually up, with gas over 2 dollars to say and occasionally flirting with the 3 dollar mark, and with some of us becoming underemployed or finding ourselves changing jobs more, this booming economy is not delivering to us the same quality of life which it did 10 years ago.

certainly they did not overlook such drastic flaws so much so an ATS editor can come the concluision he has with his wise insight

You wouldn't think so, but they did. Unless of course, as you say, there is an agenda here, or as I have suggested, this is all coming from a bunch of ivory-tower morons who were born with a silver spoon up their butt.

these people are alot smarter than you

How would you claim to know that? I'm a smart guy, I've read the same books as these people, I've learned the same history, and on top of all that I've got two feathers in my cap that they don't: Number one, I actually live in the world that they can only read about, at the grass roots of the economy without which their capital would be useless. Number two, I have soiled my credibility by signing off on a tax plan that would skin the sheep rather than shear it.

the research and study and the money spent to do this has been going on for over a decade, you are no no position to challenge this because everyone that has, has been debunked and has not looked at all of the facts.

Karl Marx was probably the single most educated man on the planet Earth during his lifetime and any college student can point out the obvious flaws in his life's work, in which there was invested quite a bit of research as well.

i suggest taking a look at the thread on chinas geopolitical strategy in the peak oil forum

I understand China's soft-power strategy and how they are artificially devaluing their currency to keep a favorable trade balance that allows them to own us from the supply side while using our own dollars to manipulate prices of raw materials from the demand side. I agree with you that the over-taxation of the American worker strengthens Chinas advantage and that America's lack of export industries is a problem. I simply disagree as to the solution.

The logical solution is to tax our under-burdened upper class while maintaining the presence of their business by using those taxes to build infrastructure that make America fertile ground for industries in which other nations are not prepared to compete with us.

Despite the "engineer gap", the fact is that most of those engineers are associates or certificate holders with 2 or 3 years of education, the majority of whom are not prepared to compete with American engineers, and when they are excluded we have a percapita engineer advantage. We can press that advantage by improving our public schools and funding higher education, keeping us years ahead of the curve in terms of skilled labor for information technology and design engineering industries and thus forcing manufacturers of the most advanced equipment to locate in the US to produce products that foreign manufacturers in other industries can't afford not to buy from us.

Furthermore, an advantage in the sciences will likely translate in a distinct advantage in the post fossil-fuel energy market, which would leave us sitting pretty for decades, because somebody is going to have to put fuel in the tanks of several hundred million Chinese cars a few decades from now, and it's not going to be the Chinese themselves because they've got their plate full just figuring out how their going to feed their population, as their aquifers are already overtapped and their population too highly concentrated in the East of the country.

Ebbs and flows my friend. China is ascendant, but not forever, and America does not have to abandon the fight by gearing gearing down its economy to subsistence levels in order to subsidize exports in industries where we are inherently disadvantaged. All we need to do is position ourselves in front of the next wave, because that way as they begin to slow down, we will begin to speed up again.

The only way not to be undercut is to go into markets where they cannot follow, and that means producing qualitatively differentiated products, especially in technological fields.

and the information i posted about fair tax, the last argument against it has been debunked and proven that it was manipulated( and im not talking about k4urupt)

That was somebody else. Now you're dealing with The Vagabond, and you're in over your head. There's a fair chance that 10 years from now your false authorities just might be in my office lobbying the Congressman from California's 45th for this fair tax junk, and getting shot down just as hard as you. Stick around ATS, I'll post a tape of it for you, and then you can tell me that I'm just some simpleminded peasant with a Tinwiki editor badge and in no position to have doubts, just for old time's sake.

basically you want to keep our current corrupt situation? continue outsourcing? please give me a break.

False dichotomy argument. Just because I reject one bad proposal doesn't mean that I reject all reform. Income tax could be simplified and rendered appropriately progressive far more efficiently than a national sales tax could be imposed, because the machinery is already in place, we'd actually be disassembling some of it, not creating new machinery.

Feel free to argue on the merits of the idea now.

[edit on 26-12-2006 by The Vagabond]

hmm please vagabond save the posturing and lecutures, I already picked up what you're all about

originally posted by vagabond
The logical solution is to tax our under-burdened upper class while maintaining the presence of their business by using those taxes to build infrastructure that make America fertile ground for industries in which other nations are not prepared to compete with us

that would only do the opposite. first of all this tells me you dont understand our current tax system, the average/poverty level american pays only 4% of income taxes while the rich and mega wealthy pay the rest of the percentage, and yet you posture up on me like this?

please read through this www.reference.com...

www.bus.umich.edu...

are you suggesting the rich which is a broad base and would include corporate taxes because taxing corporate profits is taxing wealth ( see above ) pay a higher federal income tax and then have the feds loan it back ( with of course interest )? because that is the only way it would work in your little world of simplified taxation is if the people that run these companies and the companies with their profits get hit hard and then have the money loaned back to them for infrastructure development oh and also debt and submission to government demands, that doesn't make any sense at all what the heck are you talking about? you would rather tax the hell out of the people and companies that provide the current low wage jobs and even good paying jobs even more? also raising taxes on small business which is what your proposal would cause and having them suffer and forced to lay off employees? considering they are the sole reason of our low unemployment this would cause layoff's and economic recession? causing more outsourcing by big corp so they can make whatever profits they can achieve just by getting away form the draconian system that they currently support? thats a horrible example, the middle class and povtery level would only hurt from that and it would cause more government reliance for section 8, welfare and unemplyment because since the job makers are getting the living snot taxed out of them it is going to hamper their business decisions and that means cut backs. HAHAH come on man, this is exactly why you're not at greenspan level and indeed the 'vagabond'

once again i suggest looking into the fair tax some more, people smarter than you and I both have already been debunked, now i dont mean to insult your intelligence but if you were indeed smarter than the people I have mentioned well then you would be famous and rich and disgustingly wealthy and would not be debating with the average joe like myself on this site.

you have not provided a good example to convince me of changing my opinion not that it's your goal to do so but I have already done my own research and have come to my own conclusion, you have your opinion and thats fine, but this has been researched and endorsed and invested in with more money than you and I both prolly will ever see in my entire life time.

princeston univeristy did a study with 500 foreign overseas companies, it concluded that out of 500 400 would immediatly come to the US and build plants and move corporate headquarters to the US, it also concluded that 10 trillion dollars is waiting to come over to the US the second fair tax is installed.

"Corporations are legal fictions that have not, do not, and never will bear the burden of taxation. Only people pay taxes. Corporations pass on their tax burden in the form of higher prices to consumers, lower wages to workers, and/or lower returns to investors. The idea that taxing a corporation reduces taxes on, say the working poor, is a cruel hoax. A corporate tax only makes what the working poor buy more expensive, costs them jobs, lowers their lifestyle, or delays their retirement. Under the FairTax plan, money retained in the business and reinvested to create jobs, build factories, or develop new technologies, pays no tax. This is the most honest, fair, productive tax system possible. Free market competition will do the rest."


taxing income is not what our founding fathers proposed for us, we keep what we work hard and earn, This will bring us back to our founding father’s original tax plan with its checks and balances controlling the reckless spending and borrowing of Congress.








[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by ape
hmm please vagabond save the posturing and lecutures, I already picked up what you're all about

I'm an aspiring politician dude. Posturing and lectures are practically a bodily function for me.

that would only do the opposite.first of all this tells me you dont understand our current tax system,

Thats your problem. It's not just about taxes, it's about economics. You limit it to taxes because you're working on dogma rather than systems analysis.

Burden distribution is deceptive in that it doesn't account for payment per dollar. Warren Buffet calculated that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary after deductions, etc.
They don't pay a higher share because they have a higher rate: the fact of the matter is that their rate can easily be LOWER than that paid by common men once you factor in their expanded ability to utilize various forms of shelter and greater deductions. Comparisson should be percent of burden to percent of wealth, not percent of burden to percent of population.

and yet you posture up on me like this?

I'm not a modest person man, sorry. I know what I'm talking about better than you do and there's nothing unfair about me making this a point of the debate. I mean you no insult, I'm just saying that I have the facts to back my position, regardless of any dispersions you may cast on my ability to comprehend these issues simply on the basis of my class.

raising taxes on small business

I defy you to point to that proposal anywhere in my argument. My point has been quite obvious and you have chosen to argue from a position of ignorance by not taking the time to absorb and evaluate- the very thing you initially accused me of doing. I'm saying that you tax larger businesses as a means of forcing investments which they are wholly capable of making in their own future profit, yet which they cannot make unilaterally because of the inherent lack of cooperation in a competitive environment.
We would normally hope for the market to provide for this itself, and if that were possible businesses would make the investment without government help. The only problem is that it doesn't make sense for them in the competitive environment to invest in an educational infrastructure that will fuel their opponents as much as their own business. That's why before we had public schooling and federal student aid and trade schools, apprenticeships involved binding indentures. This is simply suggesting an organizational role for government, well in line with the conservative sentiment that governments domain is strictly those things which cannot be accomplished privately but must be accomplished.

I already told you, you can't outsource the jobs if America provides a uniquely advantageous infrastructure in terms of qualified workers, cheaper, cleaner, more abundant energy, etc. Some things can be outsourced, others can't. Just as there is no danger of rice farming being outsourced to Saudi Arabia, there is no danger of cutting edge R and D and the manufacture of resultant technologies being outsourced to nations which lack the infrastructure and experience to produce in those sectors. America is in a position to exceed ALL other countries in this regard because we've already got the schools, the labs, and the experience to a greater degree and most and we are large enough to pour more funding into those than anyone else, thus outpacing the competition and protecting a niche near the top.

this is exactly why you're not at greenspan level and indeed the 'vagabond'

I am not Greenspan, Greenspan is not The Vagabond. Who's winning out on that deal? It's too early to judge until both of our lives work are complete. I'm not too worried about it. The fact that I got this one right and he couldn't makes me confident that I'll win that contest.

once again i suggest looking into the fair tax some more, people smarter than you and I both have already been debunked,

Why are you so obsessed with ranking my brainpower? If it's been debunked, it doesn't matter who is smarter, you should have all the tools you need at your disposal to borrow information from past debunkings and debunk me without saying a single negative word about my intelligence. So do it, and in so doing you'll further your cause by giving the Fair Tax a win over one of the boards more recognizable debaters in front of all readers. Engage on the issue. We'll have a civil, logical discourse, we could even take it to the H2H forum and see if the judges think your sources are smarter than me.

now i dont mean to insult your intelligence but if you were indeed smarter than the people I have mentioned well then you would be famous and rich and disgustingly wealthy

I haven't been alive even half as long as most of those people and I already understand their profession at a level that shocks and occasionally intimidates men with doctorates. As I said before, you're letting the zeitgeist push you around.

I have already done my own research and have come to my own conclusion

And it's monumentally and tragically wrong. Not personal, I'll buy ya a beer and talk politics with ya any time, but the things you have presented don't add up and you pound them so dogmatically that you can't blame a guy for calling a spade a spade- it's friggin wrong.

The Princeton Economic Institute Proposal for Economic Growth and Tax Reform does not appear to be available online, even fron fairtax.org. Feel free to get some details. 500 companies in and of itself tells me nothing. Which industries were they from, what year was the proposal prepared in, etc etc. I'd be happy to set aside the discussion of what my wealth proves about my IQ and look over the matter in some appreciable depth with you if you'd like to gain a better insight into the subject and share some of yours with me at the same time, but you're gonna have to start getting a little bit detailed and citing sources, because there's nowhere to go with just a quick blurb about Princeton supposedly signing off on the idea.

taxing the rich as you proposed in the quote would only do the opposite. first of all this tells me you dont understand our current tax system, the average/poverty level american pays only 4% of income taxes while the rich and mega wealthy pay the rest of the percentage.

please read through this www.reference.com...

www.bus.umich.edu...

are you suggesting the rich which is a broad base and would include corporate taxes because taxing corporate profits is taxing wealth ( see above ) pay a higher federal income tax and then have the feds loan it back ( with of course interest )? because that is the only way it would work in your little world of simplified taxation is if the people that run these companies and the companies with their profits get hit hard and then have the money loaned back to them for infrastructure development oh and also debt and submission to government demands, that doesn't make any sense at all what the heck are you talking about? you would rather tax the hell out of the people and companies that provide the current low wage jobs and even good paying jobs even more? also raising taxes on small business which is what your proposal would cause and having them suffer and forced to lay off employees? considering they are the sole reason of our low unemployment this would cause layoff's and economic recession? causing more outsourcing by big corp so they can make whatever profits they can achieve just by getting away form the draconian system that they currently support? thats a horrible example, the middle class and povtery level would only hurt from that and it would cause more government reliance for section 8, welfare and unemplyment because since the job makers are getting the living snot taxed out of them it is going to hamper their business decisions and that means cut backs. HAHAH come on man, this is exactly why you're not at greenspan level and indeed the 'vagabond'

small business buries the burdern of higher taxation vagabond, you completly ignoraed the points I made above which is why i reposted, the people who own a small business still generate a higher income than most and would be impacted, please dont insult my intelligence as you obviously have not looked this through, where do you draw the line in your simplified world? eventually if the bigger busniess is taxed more than the smaller busniess the smaller busniess will become larger and then starts getting taxed hard and so on and so forth, that system sounds to be horribly complicated and flawwed lol. almost like a busniess can never growth to it's full potential without getting into bigger government debt, hahaha, you're for biger government?? because the feds would be collecting the taxes and 'building the infrastructure', talk about owning someone, that totally goes against our democracy, thats border line communism.

posted by vagabond
The logical solution is to tax our under-burdened upper class while maintaining the presence of their business by using those taxes to build infrastructure that make America fertile ground for industries in which other nations are not prepared to compete with us

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

[edit on 26-12-2006 by ape]

Originally posted by apeyou completly ignoraed the points I made above which is why i reposted

Dude, everytime I hand you your own butt you play dumb. I'll debate you on the issue in H2H and relieve you of your dillusions if you like, just say the word and I'll arrange a judged debate. I'm done with you in this thread though, because we're getting nowhere.

Moment of truth ape, do you believe your own line or are you just trying to save face?