The "Panama Papers"

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok. All you do is bitch at me. Oh, please. Coming from you, that's pretty rich! You falsely mischaracterized what I wrote just a couple of posts ago, first by saying I had "forgotten" one thing and "didn't understand" another. Wrong on both counts. I pointed out to you that I had addressed both of those issues in previous replies to you. You either paid no attention or have just about the poorest memory of anyone I've ever encountered. In the meantime, you popped off (falsely) in the Rand Paul thread that something I posted was "bullshit." When I challenged you to post a link or offer an argument rebutting it, you whiffed, as usual. Fine. You offer no alternate solutions. The 23%, IMHO, is a good number. It's been researched. No, it hasn't. It was just made up to try to make this harebrained scheme look like it works. I tried to maintain civility, but you refuse...Yeah, sure you do. That's why you popped off that something I posted about the FairTax was "bullshit," even though you have no understanding of the issue and couldn't even begin to explain why it was "bullshit." Don't give me a hypocritical lecture about civility. You've directed more uncivil verbiage toward me than anyone else in this entire forum. By far. And in gratuitous and unprovoked fashion. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that I have little patience with your antics.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's an average. Some will be more, others less. It's not exact in each and every instance. And the fluctuation of prices depends on the price elasticity of demand for the individual product or service. Overall, the price level should remain fairly static. (Only in the FairTax Fantasy World!)

If you don't think the 23% is real, do your own research. I'm trusting the authors of the bill. OK, now there's your problem! You take anything these people say as gospel. We won't know until we try it, and we won't try it because it would severely limit the ability of industry to control politicians, and politicians like being controlled because it is an income stream for them.


The 23% level is not convenient. It was planned that way. Yes, it certainly was, wasn't it? How very convenient! The bill is designed to be revenue neutral. No it wasn't. Like any economic prediction, it's a best guess. (But a very ill-conceived one.) The beauty of it is that the tax is out in the open, not hidden in thousands of pages in legalese that even Einstein said was incomprehensible back when it was much simpler. If Congress needed more money, the tax goes up. Everyone sees it. They will have to justify the increases to the people, rather than the lobbyists.


Regardless of whether the numbers are exact, the concept is beautiful. So if the "concept is beautiful," it doesn't matter whether the math works? How nice! It's market controlled, transparent, and much more embodies this country's ideals of liberty and personal responsibility than the income tax. We can adjust the numbers if necessary. And if the people think the tax is too high, Congress will need to prioritize spending. That's not a bad thing.

.

[Texas Contrarian]

Supporters of the FairTax propose to replace all federal taxes -- the income tax, the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, corporate income taxes, etc. -- with a simple, broad-based, 30% consumption tax.

Of course, a consumption tax is highly regressive relative to the current tax system. So, to soften the blow to lower income households that must spend a very high percentage of their gross income on necessities such as food, rent, clothing, health care, etc., the FairTax features what is called a "prebate," or an annual cash payment to all households based on family size.

Would this be good for most American families? Let's take a quick look at typical examples throughout the income distribution.

Consider a lower-income family in the bottom two quintiles of the distribution. Typically, they pay the payroll tax (if not unemployed or retired) and little else at the federal level. At first glance, one may reasonably assume they'd be quite a bit worse off under the FairTax, since they are more or less forced to consume a very high percentage of household income. However, the "prebate" may very well offer them enough resources that they'd end up better off than before. I think it's probably a close call in the aggregate, and for individual cases depends on factors such as family size, consumption habits, income, and employment status.

Travel just a little bit higher in the distribution and consider households with incomes about one standard deviation below and above the mean. Here the prebate is of less import, since it amounts to a lower percentage of household income, but it's till far from trivial. Working individuals and families in this range pay a fair portion of their income in payroll and income taxes. Consumption as a percentage of income for this group is still pretty high, since they aren't far enough up in the distribution that MPC begins to decline. Although the "prebate" would be a far less decisive factor for this group than for lower-income folks, I think it would be a decider for a rather large number of people who would, on net, be better off under the FairTax.

Go up just a little higher on the scale and consider middle-class and upper middle class individuals and families in the $100K to $300K income range. Here, MPC begins to decline just a bit, while marginal income tax rates rise substantially. There's little doubt that the vast majority of households in this group would get a net tax cut under the FairTax, in most cases a fairly substantial one. And when you go above $300K in annual income, it just keeps getting better and better!

And that's not all! An "uninformed" person might think at first blush that if a 30% consumption tax on everything suddenly replaced all other taxes, he would pay close to the same amount of total tax that he does now by way of income and payroll taxes, or possibly even more.

But that's not how things work in the FairTax world!

Supporters claim that if you remove currently "embedded" taxes that factor into the cost of goods and services, you can add back in the 30% FairTax and the price level, on average, remains the same! (Yes, seriously. If you don't believe me, just look at their promotional websites and literature.)

Consider something now priced at $100. Then suppose that federal taxes levied on the producer were eliminated. FairTax supporters claim that the consequent removal of "embedded" taxes would then allow the price to drop to $77 without penalty to the seller. Then the $30 sales tax (FairTax) could be added back in, thus keeping the price level where it was before.

If all of that is true, virtually everyone in the middle class and working class would be much, much better off under the FairTax. Remember, since the income and payroll taxes would disappear, the worker's take-home paycheck would rise substantially. So, no one would any longer have to pay income and payroll taxes, since they would all be replaced with the consumption tax. But in the FairTax fantasy world, people wouldn't have to pay that either, since prices won't go up on net after all the "embedded taxes" mysteriously disappear. Pretty cool, huh!

(By now, you must surely think this whole thing is beginning to look like a game of three-card Monte.)

So, let's drill down just a little into this "embedded taxes" business. Just what are "embedded taxes," and for that matter, who actually ends up paying the tax? (You certainly aren't likely to get a straight answer if you ask a FairTax supporter. Ask them to back this up and they suddenly turn mute.)

But federal embedded taxes for a typical company can only consist, to any significant degree, of the employer's portion of the payroll tax and corporate income taxes.

Let's take care of that first item straight away. Economists are in virtually unanimous agreement that the incidence of the payroll tax (including the "employer's" portion) lands solely on the employee. Here's a good concise explanation:

http://www.economonitor.com/dolaneco...permanent-fix/

That leaves the corporate income tax. Economists have long disagreed on corporate tax incidence. Decades ago, it was widely believed that the incidence primarily landed upon shareholders. Then, with globalization and much greater mobility of capital, analysts came around to the point of view that the incidence had been mostly shifted to employees (not customers). So, if in fact relatively little corporate tax incidence now lands upon consumers, one should expect that prices should not fall materially if the tax is eliminated. (However, to the extent that some monies which would otherwise be paid in corporate taxes might end up in workers' paychecks (and they are, after all, also consumers!), a number of people might benefit.

Still, consider the fact that total corporate income taxes only account for about 10% of federal revenue, while the FairTax obviously would be called upon to raise all federal revenue. Thus it is easy to see that the removal of all embedded taxes cannot possibly amount to more than a very small percentage of the new 30% consumption tax.

The 23% embedded taxes stuff was just pulled out of thin air so that supporters could claim this whole thing is a huge free lunch for almost everybody. No credible, objective economist or tax policy analyst could possibly buy into this preposterously ridiculous nonsense.

The FairTax, in summary, would probably be neutral to slightly positive for most households in the lower to middle income ranges, a significant positive for those in the top one-third of the distribution, and a huge positive for the finances of those in the top 10%. And the more you make, the better it is for you!

So how in the world do these people claim revenue-neutrality? Who actually pays the tax, and how in the world do these people think they can claim anything remotely close to revenue-neutrality? Where do they think the money is going to come from? That's a good question!

So far, the FairTax people have not said that they're going to set up a suite of offices in the Marriner S. Eccles Building so they can just conjure money out of thin air like their neighbors. Maybe that's next!

The math doesn't work and the logic doesn't work, so consequently the whole idea doesn't work.
.

[CuteOldGuy]

Fine. Satisfied now? Any alternatives? No, of course not.

Look, you're not stupid. That's clear. When it comes to the stock market, you are much smarter than me. I won't deny that. But I disagree with your perception of the FairTax. Rant all you want, but I still think it is better for everyone. I do think you are sold out to the System. That's not an insult, just an observation. You get all your information from mainstream sources; sources that have a vested interest in the status quo. That's the same for many highly intelligent people.


I've seen our tax system from the inside. It has to change, if we have any chance of remaining free. I have more education than I need, and more experience than I want. That's how I know the System must be changed. And I also know how to spot the lies coming from the MSM. There are many.


So rant all you want about the FairTax. I disagree with your assessment. There are things I would change about the bill, but overall it's a solid plan, and is consistent with Liberty. There may be other plans, better plans, that are also consistent with Liberty. I don't know of any, but if you do, pass them along.


But I'm not going to get into a long, drawn out "hate fest" over this. It bores me. Over the years I've heard, and refuted every argument you make. I'm not going to do that with you because you do not have an open mind, and you refuse to be civil in this matter. It's a waste of time, and not fun. I come here to have fun. You're not fun.


So think what you want. Continue your brilliant discourse in The Conference Room. It's fascinating. And I won't try to engage you on tax alternatives any more.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I come here to have fun. You're not fun.

I beg to differ! The Captain's posts are lots of fun to read. Even when he isn't “speaking economics” he writes more elegantly than 95% of the posters here. He doesn't spam to run up his post count. When he posts, he has something to say that's worth reading. And if he roughs you up, COG, it's usually because you deserve it. If his verbal slings and arrows were directed at me or anyone else, you'd think it was fun too!

By the way, some of your deflecting habits are becoming tiresome. When asked to back up an argument, you always like to say “you're a smart guy – do your own research! Or remain ignorant, I don't care!” I have two problems with this. First, because I'm a smart guy I usually already did a little research, came up empty-handed, and wondered if I missed something. Second, most folks who are confident in their views will jump at the chance to say “Here's a link - read it and weep!” Why pass up an opportunity to educate others by introducing them to your superior, non-mainstream sources of information? Your constant deflecting only tells me you can't back up an argument.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I beg to differ! The Captain's posts are lots of fun to read. Even when he isn't “speaking economics” he writes more elegantly than 95% of the posters here. He doesn't spam to run up his post count. When he posts, he has something to say that's worth reading. And if he roughs you up, COG, it's usually because you deserve it. If his verbal slings were directed at me or anyone else, you'd think it was fun too!

By the way, some of your deflecting habits are becoming tiresome. When asked to back up an argument, you always like to say “you're a smart guy – do your own research! Or remain ignorant, I don't care!” I have two problems with this. First, because I'm a smart guy I usually already did a little research, came up empty-handed, and wondered if I missed something. Second, most folks who are confident in their views will jump at the chance to say “Here's a link - read it and weep!” Why pass up an opportunity to educate others by introducing them to your superior, non-mainstream sources of information? Your constant deflecting only tells me you can't back up an argument.

Some of the Captain's posts are fun. But not on this topic. I haven't been roughed up, I just refuse to engage. The debate will go on forever, and nothing will be accomplished. I'll post a link, he'll post a link, with paragraphs colorfully describing how stupid the FairTax is, and its adherents are even more ignorant. He jumps on me for relying on others research, but he does the same. You've made up your mind. Fine.


I have tried to be civil. He refuses. If I say anything critical, he thinks it's uncivil. Calling something bullshit is not being uncivil, it's how we talk. Based on my experience, education, reading and analysis, the FairTax is the best option for the US. There may be other options, and I'd be happy to hear them. But to spend each and every post attacking my position, and never offering an alternative is not something in which I want to engage. If you want to defend the current tax code, fine. I'm not going there.


A simple discussion of income tax alternatives could be fun, but it's not going to happen.


If you think my posts are tiresome, you're welcome to not read them.


And there wouldn't be any "education" going on. I'd be planting targets. Fuck that. You want to learn? The first thing you have to do is realize that the MSM is lying to you. Until you get that, none of the things I say or post will make sense. They will attack your paradigm, in which you have so much invested. It's out there. You'll find it when you want it. And a lot of what I discuss is based on my own ability to reason (go ahead, attack that, I know you will). For example, after vicious attacks for my position on 9-11, guess what? I was right! I didn't fight back much on those, either, because it was pointless. But it turns out I was right. And as soon as the 28 pages are released, you'll see it. But first you have to realize that the government and MSM have no vested interest in telling you the truth. That's 90% of the battle.


So you guys have fun. Gloat about how you "got" me. You haven't, and I don't care. This just isn't a game I find fun.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

When asked to back up an argument, you always like to say “you're a smart guy – do your own research! Or remain ignorant, I don't care!” I have two problems with this. First, because I'm a smart guy I usually already did a little research, came up empty-handed, and wondered if I missed something. Second, most folks who are confident in their views will jump at the chance to say “Here's a link - read it and weep!” Why pass up an opportunity to educate others by introducing them to your superior, non-mainstream sources of information? Your constant deflecting only tells me you can't back up an argument.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The first thing you have to do is realize that the MSM is lying to you... It's out there. You'll find it when you want it...

What the fuck... you just did it again!

Thanks for making my point!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Some of the Captain's posts are fun. But not on this topic. I haven't been roughed up, I just refuse to engage. Because you have no idea how to back up all that laughable bullshit. The debate will go on forever, and nothing will be accomplished. Quite right! You won't bother to try to learn a damned thing about tax policy. I'll post a link, he'll post a link, with paragraphs colorfully describing how stupid the FairTax is, and its adherents are even more ignorant. He jumps on me for relying on others research, but he does the same. Huh?? What "research?" In the past, I've challenged you time and again to cite a link to said "research." In every instance, all you did was deflect, insult, or ignore, according to what your mood happened to be at the moment. You've made up your mind. Fine. I posted fact- and reason-based arguments Refute them. (If you can! But you can't, so you won't.)


I have tried to be civil. LOL! He refuses. If I say anything critical, he thinks it's uncivil. Calling something bullshit is not being uncivil, it's how we talk. The problem is that you characterize other people's statements as bullshit, but when pressed to explain why, always deflect or refuse to try to rebut them. On the other hand, I make an effort at each turn to make a cogent argument supporting my views. See the difference? Based on my experience, education, reading and analysis, the FairTax is the best option for the US. Oh, please! What reading? What "analysis?" There may be other options, and I'd be happy to hear them. But to spend each and every post attacking my position, and never offering an alternative is not something in which I want to engage. If you want to defend the current tax code, fine. I'm not going there. Another deflection. What a surprise! Who is "defending" the current tax code?


A simple discussion of income tax alternatives could be fun, but it's not going to happen.


If you think my posts are tiresome, you're welcome to not read them. Some of your posts are much too humorous to ignore! (But not for the reasons you think.)


And there wouldn't be any "education" going on. I'd be planting targets. Fuck that. You want to learn? The first thing you have to do is realize that the MSM is lying to you. Until you get that, none of the things I say or post will make sense. They will attack your paradigm, in which you have so much invested. It's out there. You'll find it when you want it. And a lot of what I discuss is based on my own ability to reason (go ahead, attack that, I know you will). For example, after vicious attacks for my position on 9-11, guess what? I was right! I didn't fight back much on those, either, because it was pointless. But it turns out I was right. I didn't follow closely or participate in the 9/11 debate, so I don't know what you're referring to here. But aren't you one of those "9/11 truther" guys who think the World Trade Center buildings were taken down with a controlled demolition? And as soon as the 28 pages are released, you'll see it. But first you have to realize that the government and MSM have no vested interest in telling you the truth. That's 90% of the battle.


So you guys have fun. Gloat about how you "got" me. You haven't, and I don't care. This just isn't a game I find fun. No, of course you don't find it fun. You got pushed out of your comfort zone, and you don't like it when the fact that you can't defend that massive, steaming pile of prime bullshit is exposed for all to see.

Note to CuteOldGuy: Lustylad is exactly right, COG. I'd had enough of your antics after the first few times you gratuitously attacked me in that long 2013 FairTax thread in the Sandbox, just before the Political Forum was created. After I pointed out (politely!) some of the misconceptions about the FairTax, you launched into a non-stop fusillade of insults. All the while you made nary an effort to understand anything at all about the topic. Much later, you offered a lukewarm pseudo-apology of sorts and said you'd try to cool it with the uncivil behavior in the future. You did OK for a while, but in the long run it turned out that you just couldn't help yourself. If it seems to you that I have a much quicker trigger finger when replying to you than to others, you shouldn't be surprised. I told you that would remain the case until you had shown that you could knock off the obnoxious behavior.

Look, I make every effort to get along with people here as well as in real life. But I don't have a lot of patience with people whose "debate" style involves hurling charges of "bullshit" without trying to explain why. That just doesn't work for me, sorry. I doubt that it works for anyone else, either. You have repeatedly shown a terribly embarrassing penchant for letting your impetuousness and your obnoxiousness write checks that your brain can't cash.

Now, back to the topic. A number of people are curious about where this 23% "embedded taxes" business comes from. It appears that some model written by a research assistant to an obscure economist no one has ever heard of says it's so! Then comes Neal Boortz, a stupefyingly ignorant, obnoxious, attention-seeking radio talk show host. He somehow glommed onto this idea and capitalized by writing a New York Times bestseller extolling it's virtue. It's quite a piece of work, and I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

In the book, and on advocacy websites created subsequently, the claim is made that even after adding the 30% FairTax, prices won't rise because the addition of the consumption tax is balanced by the elimination of embedded taxes. (By the way, Boortz tends to become quite offended and goes into something of a rage if anyone describes the FairTax rate as 30% instead of 23%, although that's obviously what it is.)

Then Boortz claims that everyone gets to "keep their whole paycheck" under the FairTax, since there would no longer be any deductions for payroll and income tax withholding. (That part is true!) So, obviously, every working person would be much better off because they would no longer have to pay income and payroll taxes, while prices of the stuff upon which the new tax would be levied would somehow not rise. So it's a tax that no one actually has to pay. It's like magic! And it gets even better. As you go through life, the higher your income rises, the better off you are, since your effective tax rate as a percentage of your income will decline rather than rise!

Another thing Boortz has been saying over the years is that more than $20 million has spent on research. Really? Then why can't he or any of his followers find it or cite it? I have not looked at the FairTax websites in a couple of years, but when I did, the "research" page contained nothing more than testimonials and other bullshit. You'd think that if there was any credible research supporting any of this, they'd proudly display it. That tells you all you need to know.

One rather amusing thing about the claims made by the Neal Boortz Hallelujah Chorus involves the "prebate." They say its purpose is to avoid burdening low-income households with tax on necessities.

http://www.ohfairtax.org/pdf/FT04.pdf

However, if prices would not rise after adding the FairTax and subtracting out "embedded taxes," which supporters claim to be a wash, why is the prebate even necessary? After all, the price level isn't supposed to rise, right? Good luck getting a FairTax supporter to explain this obvious incongruity!

Come on, get real. This is simply a sham. The "23% embedded tax" bullshit was obviously just made up. As I explained in terms simple and clear enough that any first-year economics student remotely capable of critical thinking could easily understand, the "embedded taxes," while not zero, cannot possibly be more than a small fraction of the amount claimed.

You can't continue peddling this sort of crap and be taken seriously in a tax policy debate, at least not if anyone present has any grounding in economics or finance. You'd be considered a laughingstock.

If you're gullible enough to fall for this, I sure hope you don't get any emails from relatives of crooked, recently deceased Nigerian government officials!
.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You have repeatedly shown a terribly embarrassing penchant for letting your impetuousness and your obnoxiousness write checks that your brain can't cash.

Your insults are much improved, Captain! That one was far better than the lame "fuck you, asshole" that you hurled at me a while ago... I guess I don't rate, lol.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Your insults are much improved, Captain! That one was far better than the lame "fuck you, asshole" that you hurled at me a while ago... I guess I don't rate, lol.

No, I guess you don't! LOL

(Lest anyone misunderstand this exchange, Lustylad and I jokingly traded childish insults in a couple of posts by way of mocking the behavior of some of this forum's participants. He told me then that my efforts were trite and lame, and I agreed! But I'm out of practice. I left 4th grade way back when Ike was prez!)

.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

I believe that once I have paid taxes on what I have earned it is my right to do with my money as I please. If that means taking it out of the country and depositing it someplace else it should be no business of the government. The same goes for the government sticking their noses into how much a deposit or take out of my accounts.

Do not test them. If you opened a foreign account and did not declare it to the U.S. government on form Fincen 114, they can go back 6 years and charge you a penalty of 50% of the maximum account value for each year. In other words, the penalty can exceed 600% of your account balance. They can also put you in jail. In practice, they haven't been quite that bad. The penalty may be more like 150% of the amount in the account. I do know someone who failed to report the existence of a foreign account, in Canada, and also $7.00 in taxable interest income from the account. He went to the IRS voluntarily to correct the problem, and was charged a fine of $3,000. Again, he only under-reported taxable income by $7.00. He also incurred significant legal and accounting fees.

As to your second comment, government sticking their noses into how much you deposit or take out of your accounts, don't test them on that either. For example, if you take cash out of your account several times, each time in an amount less than $10,000, but the total exceeds $10,000, they can accuse you of structuring withdrawals so that your bank won't file the form required when a customer withdraws $10,000 or more. This is what Dennis Hastert is going to jail for. Yes, he should go to jail. No, it should not be for what he was charged with.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

(Lest anyone misunderstand this exchange, Lustylad and I jokingly traded childish insults in a couple of posts...)

Huh? What do you mean "jokingly"?


One point that hasn't been made about the FairTax - if it is as much of a miraculous free-lunch panacea as its proponents claim, why hasn't it been embraced by any of the leading GOP candidates? Nearly every Republican is keen to fix the current dysfunctional tax system - and they're all open to radical new ideas. Yet none of them has endorsed the FairTax, presumably because they all recognize it has been oversold and is highly vulnerable to the kinds of criticisms we elaborated (explode the deficit, push up prices, benefit the rich).

Instead of digging in and denying/stonewalling the critics, the FairTax advocates would be better advised to modify and adapt their proposal. I find it revealing that several GOP candidates have suggested swapping a new national sales tax for reductions in the income tax. While I am cautious about embracing such a plan, at least it recognizes we can't switch 100% overnight to a sales tax and scrap everything else without severe adverse economic consequences. But COG and his FairTax cohorts aren't open to compromise. They would rather grandstand with applause lines like "our current system is too corrupt and cannot be reformed" than deal with reality. At that point they allow emotion to override reason.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Huh? What do you mean "jokingly"? You mean you were serious? Holy shit! Sorry, I will not try to piss you off in the future! LOL

One point that hasn't been made about the FairTax - why hasn't it been embraced by any of the leading GOP candidates, if it is as much of a miraculous panacea as its proponents claim? Nearly every Republican is keen to fix the current dysfunctional tax sytem - and they're all open to radical new ideas. Yet none of them endorsed the FairTax, presumably because they all recognized it was being oversold and was highly vulnerable to the kinds of criticisms we elaborated (explode the deficit, push up prices, benefit the rich).

Hard to say for sure, but I'm guessing that they're just afraid they'd simply be destroyed in a debate against any competent, reasonably knowledgeable progressive opponent. They get bludgeoned badly enough as it is when they offer proposals that cut taxes for the affluent much, much less than the FairTax would.

Instead of digging in and denying and stonewalling the critics, the FairTax advocates would be better advised to try to modify and adapt their proposal. Several GOP candidates have suggested swapping a new national sales tax for reductions in the income tax. While I am cautious about embracing such a plan, at least it recognizes we can't switch 100% overnight to a sales tax without severe adverse economic consequences. But COG and his FairTax cohorts aren't open to compromise. They would rather grandstand with statements like "our current system is corrupt and cannot be reformed" than face reality. At that point they let emotion override reason.

I agree. FairTax advocates, although they make a few good points about such things as consumption taxes producing less deadweight loss burdening the economy than many other types of tax, do themselves no favors by promoting their plan in such blatantly dishonest fashion. As I have noted in the past, many conservative economists such as Bob Barro have suggested coupling a VAT (with rates more modest than those typical of Europe) with a greatly simplified flat (or at the very least, flatter) income tax. Of course, an argument against that idea is that a totally new consumption tax would give big spenders a chance to jack up the rate over time. But they can do that with the income tax, anyway, since rates on middle-income Americans are quite a bit lower than they used to be. I'm not so sure it's as easy to push up the rates on a consumption tax in the U.S. as it is in Europe. There's likely to be a great deal of pushback against those who might try, I suspect.

.

[CuteOldGuy]

Enjoy yourselves, boys.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Enjoy yourselves, boys.

Thanks, will do! (Easy task; life's good.)

Your existence is undoubtedly filled with happiness and pleasure as well, for that Kool-Aid you FairTax cult followers sit around swilling every night is some mightily intoxicating stuff, to be sure.

Enjoy!
.

[HSLWB]

Should we all start printing our own money, look like only the select few pocketing all that cash?