Except that if Kerry won in ’04, John Roberts and Sam Alito would not sit on the court, but their polar opposites would. The Washington DC gun ban would have won 6-3, and many of the other decisions of the court that were 5-4 would then go 3-6 as well.

Sandra Day may have stayed on, but Chief Justice Rehnquist involuntarily resigned.

God I wish Kerry won in ’04.

FYI

Gates: Military looks to accelerate Iraq pullout

NPR-Defense Secretary Robert Gates signaled a willingness Tuesday to forge ahead with two key priorities for the incoming Obama administration: accelerating the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

As the only Republican Cabinet member asked to stay on by President-elect Barack Obama, Gates told reporters that military commanders are looking at ways to more quickly pull troops out of Iraq in light of the 16-month timetable that was a centerpiece of the Democrat’s campaign.

He also said it will be a high priority to work with the new Congress on legislation that will enable the U.S. to close the detention center at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, where about 250 terrorism suspects are still being held.

In a blunt and occasionally personal briefing, Gates acknowledged his unique position in the new Democratic administration — a job he said he did not want or seek but felt he could not turn down.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97725622

Yes, good point to make, Indy.

You mean yor not from Indiana?

Of course, both parties are corrupt, that’s why I’m Indy.

The Dems have never been relevant to me. The GOP, however, occupies the turf of being the party that SHOULD represent my interests and those of conservatism. When you have an impostor like Saxby in office, the only way to gain representation is to throw the incumbent out, sacrificing the seat for one term, otherwise you NEVER, EVER get representation because the party loves power more than principles and will NEVER go against the incumbent.

Saxby has been in DC and is very much a part of the corrupt system. His votes taken with consideration of his principle financial support leads me to question his integrity, too.

Hmmm. So Indy, would you say the democratic party is not corrupt?

Taxation of government is defended by Boortz in “the BOOK” the fairtaxers demand everyone read and it is in THE BILL.

The exception is education purchases of goods and services, plus charitable/relgious institutions……which become enormous opportunities for tax evasion.

Saxby doesn’t want to run on the Fair???tax and the Dems wish to engage him on it for the same reasons – when the truth gets out, no one past the age of 45 is for it and even the younger ones see it as decidedly UNFAIR.

VAT works, but in nearly every country that has it, the people have to pay income taxes too.

At some point, simple math says that all manner of taxes must be raised to cover the reckless irresponsibility of Chambliss and the GOP. Worse, the wholesale pumping of (where this is headed) $10 trillion will bring forth horrendous inflation tax, on which every other tax will feed.

The flaggers had an axe to grind with Roy Barnes over the flag change. The flaggers thought by punishing Barnes it would bring the flaggers to the bargaining table. It didn’t.

Apparently the Libertarians believe by punishing the GOP through Chambliss, it will punish the GOP and somehow advance the Libertarian cause. After four years of Obama’s political agenda supported by Martin, the one’s to walk the plank will be the Libertarians if it’s percieved that the Libertarians supported Martin to teach the GOP a lesson.

The VAT (Fair tax) part would capture some underground economy money via a sales transaction tax. One of the issues with the Fair tax is the high transaction % would more than likely hurt the economy. With a small flat tax with no write offs that would lower the % of the VAT which would make a smother transition. Also if you waived the flat tax for low income people instead of rebate checks we would save money. Also with a no write off system it would lower the cost of audits and we could use that money to enforce the VAT.

Not sure that the government would be paying the FairTax since they aren’t the final consumer since they would be doing B2B transactions which are tax free.

Besides, collecting taxes from yourself to pay yourself just seems counterproductive to me.

As for the flat tax, there’s nothing wrong with it provided it stays flat and that no deductions can be taken–it is superior to the current system and I’d be for it as an intermediate step for moving to a consumption tax.

Actually, that’s what the FairTax is trying to avoid in the form of double taxation.

You see, a consumption tax is a very effective method of taxation so much so that it’s invisible to the consumer.

One thing that must be taken into consideration is not the quoted percentage but the marginal rate actually paid (which is why I said the flat tax is regressive–but only in terms of marginal percentage rates paid).

What concerns me about a hybrid system is that it introduces too much obfuscation into the process as I could easily see a politician say I’m going to cut the income tax rates 2% but increase the consumption tax rate 1% and call it a tax cut when it really increases taxes because the consumption tax has a broader base.

Could you elaborate as to how a hybrid system can grab those underground dollars since both could be subverted?

Also, I don’t see how transaction costs would be lowered when you have to collect two sets of taxes because it increases complexity when reporting receipts.

As a result, you’re increasing the compliance costs in terms of man hours used to file the new taxes.

Saxby doesn’t believe in it, otherwise it would be the centerpiece of his campaign.

Blue, flat taxes have been enormously successful in the former Soviet Block countries, so the negatives against it are dubious.

As far as trying in a state, that isn’t going to happen because the Fair???tax is imposed on county and state purchases of goods and services where the state is the consumer…i.e. that the utility customer/citizen is not charged the tax on a service……..so the payrolls of fire and police are assessed the tax and the local governments have to pay the state and feds….of course this would be recouped in higher property taxes or, as described, in direct charges to the citizens…….

No state or local official who is sane or knowledgeable about the Fair???tax is for it. It is ruination at the local level and those folks know it.

Saxby knows enough and is smart enough to never run on the Fair???tax as expressed in THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION, just as Boortz wants no part of debating THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION. Since Saxby is the ‘daddy’ of the Fair???tax bill, HR25, HE won’t talk about it either.

Actually I support a hybrid between the flat tax and fair tax.
A low flat rate would stabilize the tax revenue and lower the transaction cost. It would also capture under ground economy.

While I appreciate your suggestion of a flat tax, it doesn’t work because it doesn’t reduce taxes prior to retail sale.

I also don’t see it having political traction because it’s a regressive tax.

And regressive tax systems will be demagogued since there are many people who believe they are too poor to pay taxes but not poor enough to buy a massive flat screen TV.

Add to the fact that the poor people who would be paying under a flat tax would not like to have their tax bill increase from a negative amount.

Thanks for your writeup on the FairTax as it was top notch (especially the fleshing out on incremental taxes). I’m with you in that I see a vacuum if the tax code is abolished but I’m not surprised given how long it’s been in place and that serious alternatives haven’t been discussed until recently.

Here’s a suggestion and I’d like to see what you and everybody else think–implement the NRST on a statewide level to see if it’s effective and then attempt to have it enacted nationwide.

Would this have better luck instead of the current all-or-nothing approach?

Big business growing by eating smaller business is what is wrong with our country. Free markets work when there are many players, not a few large ones. It is easy to collude when there are 3-4, but it is impossible when there are several hundred. The free market is like sand flwoing through an hour glass. When you have lots of small grains of sand, it works fine, but replace those with a few bolders and it stops working. Large corporations have more resemblence to communist planning boards than free enterprise.

But still, nothing you have mentioned disputes the fact that our tax system increases the cost to bring good to market, which is the one and only point I was discussing in this thread. Businesses are in business to make money, not seek VC funding as an end to itself. That means that the goal is to make a profit. Any commercial entity that turns a profit is taxed by the federal government, which means that their cost basis is effect for each layer in the supply chain. Thus, goods under a sales tax system can be delivered more cheaply, and the sales tax would be applied to that lower cost.

I do ask that no one confuses my defense of this one point into a blanket approval of the NRST, as I think there are problems with it that go beyond this one issue.