The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 10 months ago to Books
The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
Authors, Neal Boortz & Congressman John Linder
196 pages. ISBN 978-0-06-087549-7
This short book detailing the FairTax was a #1 New York Times Bestseller.
I looked through my library in search of and intending to write a review of a book that offered some solutions to our present problems. I believe this book fits the bill. If we wish to reform our government and reclaim our liberty there can be no more effective way than to remove the easily abused funding method. I have heard many suggestions and objections regarding this option. This book explores and answers them all.
The many seemingly insurmountable financial problems facing us make this option very attractive. From addressing the “Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15” this is the most fair, possible and workable solution. It is not the be all, end all, to all of our problems but it is likely the most effective first step we could take.
What would be the best way to fund our federal government? My preference has little probability of occurring, but this option has some chance of passing and is thus, I believe, the best option considering our present political climate. The proposal is fair; it treats all taxpayers equally and the benefits are manifold. The poor would not pay any more than they do now. The middle class and even the rich would benefit. The only losers are the grafters, special interests and lobbyists who care not that their efforts push the burdens of their successes on the backs of others.
Mr. Boortz and Congressman Linder have written a very important short read for anyone interested in learning about and promoting something that could really help. Mr. Boortz has retired from the radio and Congressman Linder retired from congress in 2011, but their book continues in the effort to promote the proposal.
Do you want to turbo charge our economy? Take back your liberty? Constrain the tyrants? Please read this book and investigate www.FairTax.org for detailed information about the proposal and how you can help. If you find it acceptable, then please urge your representatives in government to support the effort.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Authors, Neal Boortz & Congressman John Linder
196 pages. ISBN 978-0-06-087549-7
This short book detailing the FairTax was a #1 New York Times Bestseller.
I looked through my library in search of and intending to write a review of a book that offered some solutions to our present problems. I believe this book fits the bill. If we wish to reform our government and reclaim our liberty there can be no more effective way than to remove the easily abused funding method. I have heard many suggestions and objections regarding this option. This book explores and answers them all.
The many seemingly insurmountable financial problems facing us make this option very attractive. From addressing the “Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15” this is the most fair, possible and workable solution. It is not the be all, end all, to all of our problems but it is likely the most effective first step we could take.
What would be the best way to fund our federal government? My preference has little probability of occurring, but this option has some chance of passing and is thus, I believe, the best option considering our present political climate. The proposal is fair; it treats all taxpayers equally and the benefits are manifold. The poor would not pay any more than they do now. The middle class and even the rich would benefit. The only losers are the grafters, special interests and lobbyists who care not that their efforts push the burdens of their successes on the backs of others.
Mr. Boortz and Congressman Linder have written a very important short read for anyone interested in learning about and promoting something that could really help. Mr. Boortz has retired from the radio and Congressman Linder retired from congress in 2011, but their book continues in the effort to promote the proposal.
Do you want to turbo charge our economy? Take back your liberty? Constrain the tyrants? Please read this book and investigate www.FairTax.org for detailed information about the proposal and how you can help. If you find it acceptable, then please urge your representatives in government to support the effort.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I could care less about your 'traps', but your philosophical clothes are wearing thin.
Rhetoric alone is meaningless. Facts. Facts. FACTS!
Start with debunking John Lott's paper on the effect of women's suffrage on government.
I will say in advance that I don't think you'll follow up for one of the following reasons;
1) You're too lazy to do any actual research.
2) You'll read the paper, realize it's irrefutable, and will not want to admit you're wrong, or worse, that I am right!
3) Lacking the integrity to admit when you're wrong, you will change the subject or post no reply at all.
In short, if you're lazy, cowardly, or deceitful, I don't expect a response to Lott's paper.
Of course, if you're NOT too lazy and you CAN refute the paper on a rational basis, this is a prime opportunity to make me look bad. Please! DON'T PASS IT UP! Take your best shot! Here's your chance!! Everyone will thumb you up to record numbers for engaging and defeating me! Come on! Here's the target on my chest. Take your best shot!
Tick… tick… tick…
What? Crickets again?
Fair enough. We disagree. The worst offenders are probably on this board - women who, claiming that they are opposed to socialism nonetheless refuse to acknowledge that it is women who are driving the socialist agenda. At least the other women are honest about their avarice and indifference to who they hurt. What they want is whatever they can get right now - and it might as well be tattooed on their foreheads. But the women here - they PRETEND to support freedom and independence, all the while defending the destroyers of America… women!
>> You cannot substantiate your assertion that these women have done nothing to convince other women... You have no evidence of the influence or lack thereof these women have had on others.
Actually, I have multiple instances of them DEFENDING women as a group. They don't say, "Yes, women are screwing America. Not me personally, because I know better." No. What they say is, that women aren't to blame - when the overwhelming evidence is that women ARE to blame for the destruction of America.
Let us listen to all the women on this site who will now tell us that they have told other women that women are destroying America.
Listening….
Listening…
Listening…
I can hear crickets.
Is there not a single woman on this board, in the face of such overwhelming evidence who will stand up and say, "You're right! Women are destroying America!"??
No?
Then I call you all hypocrites and liars… and if the truth hurts, it's only the very least that you deserve.
Regards the rest… Putting "friends" above truth should be beneath you… but perhaps it's not. Fair tax? The current tax? How about NO TAX!? That's what we could have, were it not for the voting patterns of women.
If you love sucking up to females more than truth, if you would rather cater to the vagaries of women than stand up for liberty, if you are a coward who cannot stand the piercing light of hard facts… censor away!
The out of context anecdotes and statistical massaging used by BambiB to foment loathing of half the human race, is the same kind of rationale used by the most notorious groups in history to enslave, 'train', or 'cleanse' those that don't measure up their 'standards', or those that are blamed for the destruction of 'their' ideals. Just like any "big lie", this message comes half dressed in comments found agreeable to the intended audience; but its true nature is exposed when it ignores the nature of the human mind and man's rights, then tries to isolate its target group based on an irrelevant common denominator. This "lie" paves the way for any brute to 'correct the problem' and bring about utopia when everyone is in their Proper place doing only the functions they are 'genetically' capable of doing.
I will not live in that kind of place.
Good points. Although if I recall correctly BambiB is not a she, but a he. I could be wrong...
O.A.
"You think this is a topic not worth discussing?..."
I have said no such thing. You are the one who said "the die was cast" ...that nothing you say or do will have any affect... Yet you go on...I do not object to discussing this issue, but I believe your efforts would serve you better if you took a different approach and went to a venue where the worst offenders are.
You cannot substantiate your assertion that these women have done nothing to convince other women... You have no evidence of the influence or lack thereof these women have had on others.
Neville Chamberlain...really? ... please... I will not dignify that with a retort. By all means keep going about your blame game all you wish, in the manner you wish, for all the good it will do you... No skin off my behind. But, please do it on another thread. This is my thread. This subject is off topic and I tire of the tedium and useless kvetching.
I do not mind a little meandering, presentation of your statistics and thesis in a factual, impersonal, unemotional way, but you have made it personal, derogatory and offensive to friends of mine on this board. Despite the merits of your thesis your manner is off-putting to those you seem to want to reach the most. Insults will gain few converts.
Now, I will ask you respectfully, one more time to please move this discussion from my thread if you wish to continue. I have shown you respect... that I have some respect for your position and statistics. If I did not I would have down-voted and/or hidden some of your comments. Will you respond in kind? Please, do not make me regret my actions thus far, or cause me to take actions that might censor the worthy points you have made. They deserve an airing and should stand on their own without the added derision.
O.A.
So with women continuing to vote for ever-larger social welfare programs (they re-elected Obama knowing it would lead to implementation of Obamacare), what is YOUR solution? Being vigilant means you can see it happening. But what's the difference between not knowing what's happening and just watching it happen?
Your post should be on the general guidelines for this site.
Attack the ideas not the person. She's not even attacking the people but a group they belong to. We could just as easily say affluent urban areas are the problem or people with dark skin. Enemies of individualism don't want us talking about ideas or even each other. It's "men", "women", "urbanites", "suburbanites", "the educated", "African Americans", "soccer moms". Maybe that makes sense to an election strategist, but real people.
If critics of Rand were to send someone disrupt this message board by spreading a veiled anti-liberty message in a divisive way, it would look like BambiB.
"You have to first change the system… or become invisible to it. Ayn Rand's thesis is that if you can't do the former, do the latter."
I think Rand was warning of a bad thing (collapse, people going into hiding, etc) we must avoid by being vigilant. She was not IMHO arguing that we must become invisible, have a collapse, etc in order to change the system.
Under the current system, the mob dictates policy. Women are the biggest mob - so their policies take top precedence. You want self-rule? You have to first change the system… or become invisible to it. Ayn Rand's thesis is that if you can't do the former, do the latter.
What is to be gained? That even those women who think they are anti-socialism come to know that they lie to themselves when they say it is not women who have created the problem. Women don't listen to men unless the men are telling them what they'd like to hear. They instead cluster with other women and seek mutual approval. So if khalling isn't telling her "sisters" that they're destroying America - what good is she? "Oh no, I'd never vote for socialism - but neither will I call out the bitches who do. In fact, I will defend them - and deny that they are the problem."
Your call for peace at any price is reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain's miscalculation. Today's women are the enemy, not only of men, but of themselves and their children and their children's children! Their short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness leads them to act on a primal level to secure to themselves all the guarantees of safety and provisions that they can - despite the falsity of the promises upon which they depend and the fact that in doing so, they doom the future.
You think this is a topic not worth discussing? Or that the self-righteous women on this board have actually done anything to convince women that they are, in fact, the problem? Of course not. They do not even admit the truth to themselves. Khalling and Suzanne and Mimi and the rest will never come right out and say, "Women ARE the problem. As a group, women are destroying America. The Obama agenda, state control of everything and socialism, is the agenda women voted for. It will bankrupt this Country and force our children, and their children, to live in misery."
Instead the women here say things like, "**I** don't think that way." Or "it's the men running everything (without admitting that the men who are screwing America's future are elected by women.) They cannot, will not, accept the truth. They are delusional, and their delusions are every bit as dangerous as the delusions of women (and some men) who think free things come from the government.
Why point out their dishonesty? Because when it all falls down, no one should have any pang of conscience in turning his back on a woman in need. No one should ever worry that she might starve, or be raped, or die, or that her children might starve or die. When the collapse comes, it should be the women who bear the brunt, and they should know why. And for those who survive, they should always doubt their ability to think, to make a decision, for fear that once again they will destroy everything through their stupidity. And when society is rebuilt, it should be everyone, every man and every woman who understands that women destroyed what men had built. Men built. Men create. Women sap and destroy. But they can only do it because men permit their abuse. In a future society, warned of the danger of letting women speak, men may simply say, "No. Not again."
So people committed to individualism must take a step back to take two steps forward? We must play group politics to achieve an agenda that ends group politics?
Food for thought: Then, if you believe as you say "the die is cast" and nothing you say or do will affect your life, then what is to be gained by alienating the women who would not vote for the things you object to? Consider how you may make what remains of your life as pleasant as possible. Whether you are a believer or not there is wisdom in the Serenity Prayer. Life is too short to spend making enemies and offending those generally sympathetic to your goals and may in fact be our best hope. Save your ire for those who would use their vote to enslave you regardless of gender. We will all be better served. Sometimes the old cliche that you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar is the best approach. I believe that this is a better way to appeal to those inclined to making decisions in the way you object to. What have you to lose?
Please start a new thread to continue this line if you wish to vent further, though I believe the women you have the most problem with are not on this site. This site has the most independent and anti welfare state people regardless of sex as you are likely to encounter.
O.A.
As for my "cause" - nothing I say or do here is likely to affect my life. The die is cast. The disaster is coming. We will be destroyed by women. It is inevitable. When it happens, you may even remember that I told you it was coming.
In the aftermath, perhaps long after I'm dead, someone may be around to pick up the pieces. I hope they start out with, "This was done by women". As they reform the Country, perhaps they will say, "We must not allow this to happen again. Women must not be allowed to destroy us again." At that juncture, repeal of women's voting has a better than even chance - especially since so many women will be surviving solely through the good offices of men (as has been the case throughout the entire history of the species). Our descendants may come to look upon this brief period in history in a few countries around the world and think of it as a time of estrogen madness! When men allowed women a voice, and what the women said was, "Give me everything today - and to hell with tomorrow." It might even become known as the "Era of Insanity - When Women Voted and Everyone Suffered their Stupidity".
But that's for the future to decide.
I do not see her as the problem. She is clearly not one of the women who believe in the welfare state. Broad brushes do a disservice to those women who do not walk in lockstep. Ayn Rand did not believe in the welfare state and neither do the regular female contributors to this site, or else they would not be here. Taking away the vote from them will never happen. Any attempt to do so at this time would only make men's lives worse. While I will not dispute your statistics, I would point out that while the proportions may be reversed there are plenty of men who also ask others to live for their sake. Whether nature or nurture it is irrelevant since suffrage is not going to be revoked. Any blame placing and name calling will only reduce the positive reception of your arguments. Your points regarding education and removing the welfare state need to be heard, the uninformed need to learn and change, but your adversarial approach will only impede your cause.
Now, I hope you are not calling into question my honesty or intelligence. I have thus far been generally sympathetic to your basic thesis, but question the efficacy of your approach and appeal.
Respectfully,
O.A.
"women are too mentally unstable" - was not an argument I made. It's an argument Suzanne made - by way of demonstration.
Women survived (and more importantly, their progeny survived) by constantly seeking out sources of protection and food. What hundreds of millennia of programming has created is not undone in a few hundred years. Their foundational instinct is to seek out the "safety net" - which has come to mean government programs. And yes, it's genetic.
You got the "misogyny" part right. I don't hate women. I just regard them as hugely misguided, unaware and resistant to learning.
Thanks for the note on the Nazis. Yes, the feminists marching in lockstep DO make a noise that is difficult to overcome - but I try.
Frankly, I was holding back.
I said that the last Republican that would have lost was Goldwater. In case you didn't know, FDR was before Goldwater. In addition, if you look at the history of the debt, you'll see that it wasn't until the 1960-70s that the debt began to go into "unsustainable" mode. That's about the time femmes came out with "I am woman, hear me roar". Pretty much everything that came from women on politics since then has been "Ask not what I can do for my Country, what the hell is government going to do for ME!!??"
The cause and effect (women vote, debt soars, government grows) is pretty well documented. I assume you're just shooting from the hip, haven't bothered to check the cites I've provided and are arguing from emotion and ignorance. That's not an exclusively female approach - but it does seem to be a prevalent one.
"...that women are too mentally unstable to be allowed to vote...."
"Women are more likely to worry about who is going to take care of them than they are to philosophize about whether forcing other people to pay for their lives is moral."
"I'd even go so far as to say that the female inclination to favor socialism is GENETIC."
"Misogyny implies hatred of women. But hatred isn't rational because women can't help themselves. One might as well "hate" your dog for crapping on the carpet. Until they're trained differently, they're just dumb animals who don't know any better. It's the same with women - except you can't hit women over the nose with a rolled up newspaper. (At least, not through the internet.) So it's harder to train them because they get all in a huff over perceived slights and their heads just explode."
It's ironic that you make reference to the Nazis...they had the same ideas regarding other groups of people, too. Any other salient points you raise don't seem to make it above the sound of boots marching in lockstep.
Despite your strong disagreements with khalling, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from comments like the following. "Even you cannot be that dishonest/stupid." This is a personal attack and the implication is that she is stupid, or dishonest, but not " that dishonest/stupid." This is unfair and unnecessary roughness. You are plainly smart enough to see how this line could be antagonistic to our female contributors. Please keep it civil and impersonal.
Respectfully,
O.A.
A man who acted against the female penchant for welfare would lose in the next election and be replaced by someone who was all for women stealing more from the productive class.
And don't you DARE for a moment pretend that any attempt to cut welfare would not be cast as a "war against women". Even you cannot be that dishonest/stupid.
Load more comments...