Prodigal Son

[/quote]I'm sorry, I do that all the time. Right wing and conservative have come to mesh in most people's vocabulary and I often forget that. I meant politically conservative, with the smallest government possible.[/quote]

Then you mean a classical, 19th-century liberal? Libertarians are the nearest political descendents of those folks.

Confed999

I wouldn't call them liberal in the current US terms. Libertarians are about it though, minimal social and economic control from the government. The Constitution party has some similar ideals. Those are the only national, politically conservative, parties I know of.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Prodigal Son

Curse the two party system! :-)

donnie

first off they say that education is not currently tax deductable, thats not accurate. there is the hope and lifetime learning credits.

they are also wrong about how much student loan interest can be deducted.

under charitable contributions it talks about how colleges, and univerties currently must be paid with after tax dollars, and are not deductable

they say that fair tax is better at promoting education, i disagree, but i would like to hear your take on it.

also wouldnt this system punish middle class people like me who have 3 children?, (thus having many more expenses as compared to the single guy across the street who has no dependants)

arnt you then punishing those same people who will be providing this society with a perpetual society?

plus it states that i would now have to pay sales tax on my medical coverage, 3 kids and a wife makes for expensive health care coverage, more so than the single guy across the street, plus you would eliminate the tax incetives for employer provided healthcare, meaning that large incentives that keeps employers providing healthcare to most likely drop the coverage altogether. they say this wont be a problem because over time (that means that you wont be able to afford it right now but maby in 5 years) the healthcare cost will come down by as much as 20 to 25%, (sucks for me when my employer pays half right now)

plus my deductables and such would now be taxed, where as right now nearly all of my medical cost are completly pretax (pretax medical plan) which btw they say is not.

and here is an interesting scenerio, what about the guy who has been saving money for the past 20 years and has amassed say a million dollars, and now wants to retire, and bam!! we have this new tax system. now with this new tax every time he goes to buy anything he is going to pay tax on money he was already taxed on. thats kinda crappy.

btw im not saying that the plan wouldnt work, just giving you some honest reservations, this plan doesnt seem provide incetives to raise families, as a matter of fact, it seems to promote just the oposite.

__________________
Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the man comes around- Jhonny Cash

Confed999

No, there is a automatic monthly rebate based upon the household size. If this system works as it is advertized, even after tax is added the product/service would cost the same or less, but you get to keep your whole paycheck, and the rebate.

donnie

maybe, but i cant possibly see how healthcare is going to work in this system. there would have to be unbelievable changes in healthcare for this to even be concievable.

Confed999

Why? Just because of the way taxes are collected? Healthcare wouldn't change, for any reason I can see.

donnie

yes because companies would not have the tax incentives offered up to provide employee healthcare, (this is even stated as a likly outcome on thier website) this would be all out of pocket expense, have you seen the cost of publicly provided health care from like blue cross or blue shield?, and they are not means tested, so no matter how little money you make it cost the same. plus you dont get the benifit of blanket coverage.

right now i pay 175 bi weekly for healthcare for me and my wife and children, not to bad, but throw in another 175 bi weekly (the amount that my employer pays) and double it (because i would no longer be in a group plan) and it starts to get too expensive, and health care to them is not a tax free expense. so add this with all the deductables i pay for myself my spouse and 3 kids, as well as actualy medical expenses like prescription co pays, and the fact that its not prtax money, and your looking at most of my money now going to just medical cost. when right now all my medical expense's are pre tax expenses, and i enjoy a discounted health plan, plus my employer pays 1/2 the cost, due mainly because of tax incentives.

i wouldnt mind hearing an explaination on how this wouldnt affect my healthcare.

Confed999

Yeah, I have.
Make it a requirement first? Sorry, I truly care about unfair taxation, jobs, and economic progress, more than maintaining "tax breaks". Though, I understand what you're saying now. BTW, depending on your profession, the cost of Workman's Comp. could provide 24/7 health coverage instead. For example, electricians pay 18% for Workman's Comp., and I get my 24/7 medical insurance, + everything WC has, at around 12%.

donnie

does that include spouse and dependants?

Confed999

I don't have a spouse and dependants, so I can't tell you the current costs of adding people to the policy. With Workman's Comp. requirements we can't keep up the required profit margins by providing 24/7 health coverage for everyone's dependants, they have to add those themselves.