Obamarama

eric lavine wrote: im going to see if i can be Jesse Ventura's side kick on his new show "conspiracy theory" I was glued to the TV last night, underground bunkers for 2012 for the rich, global warming. the taboo has been placed on conspiracy's over the years, kinda like the boy that cried wolf, but one day the boy did get ate by the wolf

That guy there is freeking joke!!!

Jesse made some very interesting discoveries. If there is any truth to what he discovered the governmnet will surely put an end to that show. I for one side with him as many experts do agree on climate changes being a normal occurance. The idea that Al Gore and others are profitting from a media spun scare seems very plausible.


The airport and underground bunkers saving the "chosen ones" is another avenue where I believe our government knows more than the average citizen and is looking out for only themselves. Once again if this becomes questioned Jesse will be stifled.

Eric, I don't know how the forecloser crisis will work out, but it amazes me how poorly the money and legalities are handled. If I was in forecloser, I would think it was a good thing the paper work was all screwed up. In Maine appraisers have done very little forecloser work. The lenders have relied on broker opinions. I hear USDA loans are the new sub prime loans. All the players seem the same to me.

be an American, if every family in the US sent Uncle Sam a check for $86,019.00 we could wipe out the national debt....get out your checkbook, a few years back it would be possible to run to the bank and get a check that big

I hope it os televised when Nancy Pelosi has to hand over the Airplane

Okie Boarder wrote: Here's a novel concept...stop spending instead of trying to figure out ways to increase revenue.

Exactly

Riley wrote: I'm waiting for them to figure out how to tax internet commerce.

Careful what you wish for..... They are working on it!!!

Dave,

I understand the point you are trying to make, but it is still a regressive tax. If a lower income person engages in any of the transactions that the tax covers, they will be taxed equally (percentage wise) to someone of a higher income stature. Yes, the higher income person will likely engage in more transactions, but they don't have to either.

Most economists will refer to flat taxes, sales taxes and exise taxes as regressive, because it isn't a tiered system where the higher income folks pay more and the lower income folks pay less (or nothing). This tax would fall into that category.

I agree how this bill could breed a heavier reliance on cash or transactions not subject to the tax. That's the thing that cracks me up. These politicians come up with new tax schemes thinking they can guarantee more revenue, and we can usually find a way around it, so they don't produce the revenue they thought. Meanwhile, they keep spending and find themselves in a pickle when they have a deficit.

Here's a novel concept...stop spending instead of trying to figure out ways to increase revenue.

If you or I were struggling to make ends meet, we would typically find ways to spend less money in our household to balance the budget. Yes, we could possibly look to increase revenue too, but that isn't always feasible and we don't have the power to just make it so. I would love to see Washington apply this same sort of principle and stop coming up with more ways to tax and already overtaxed populace.

Something that also strikes me as funny is that a lot of these politicians don't get it. Have you ever looked at revenues related to tax policy? Most of th time revenues go up when taxes are cut. The way the politicians behave, it is like they totally ignore that data. Or, at least many of them do.

Eric, if a commoner like yourself didn't/doesn't see big tax breaks under GW's tax cuts, then you had the wrong guy doing your taxes.

I'm waiting for them to figure out how to tax internet commerce.

lesson learned? commoners dont get a break
but you are 100% correct on the cash is king theory, discount for cash

Okie Boarder wrote: harddock wrote: it's problably not that progressive and we won't know until it passes and someone then can read it True, it could change, but the way the summary reads it taxes everyone "equally". Democrats aren't known for implementing that sort of tax scheme, they usually propose the opposite.

I think this is a way progreesive tax. A poor person can take the one percent tax when they cash their check or even get paid in cash paying nothing. They can then use cash for rent, groceries or anything else.

Imagine how this will effect the middle income and rich in the interim. I sell my cabin for 165000, they tax the net @ 18% in my case taxes would be about 18,000 (pissed already), they would get 1% of the sales check or $1,650. Now I move my profits into an interst earning account, they net 1% of one hundred thousand or $1000, Now as I pay bills online or use almost any other way they will collect another $1000
Instead of $18,000, they have collected 21,650. their 1% tax generated 23% more collections from my side of this transaction alone. Now remember , everyone that recieved this money from me also was taxed 1%,checks get dispersed for closing costs, mortgage payoff and profit neting another 1% or 1,650, and so on.... very insidious.


How will this affect society. Greater reliance on cash. Businesses increasing cash transactions, more robberies looking for cash. Increased muggings cause eveyone carries cash again. Black market economies. Banks devestated. Investing greatly effected, especially short term trading. What are the chances of anyone selling property between now and 2017? Why is there not a "pulling my hair out " emoticon?

and to boot, he would be half price

harddock wrote: it's problably not that progressive and we won't know until it passes and someone then can read it

True, it could change, but the way the summary reads it taxes everyone "equally". Democrats aren't known for implementing that sort of tax scheme, they usually propose the opposite.

Mike,

Love it!