Equality?

[Thorne]

As I've stated before...rights do not come from government, laws do. The right to pursue happiness comes from God/nature (whatever you believe) but it remains that we are born with these rights. It is not something that is "handed" to us from another person. That in itself is the definition...rights come from a higher power, not an individual. Can your neighbor instill you with rights? No. Can your city council member instill you with rights? If not, then why can Congress??

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[denuseri]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

[steelish]

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

[Thorne]

I spoke of "inalienable" rights, as outlined by our Declaration of Independence. I guess my view is considered modern then, because I don't see what you've described as a "right" but more as a "privilege" bestowed by the ruling class. Just because they called them rights, doesn't make them so.

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

[Thorne]

And yet is it not also true that even the tyrant doth not rule alone, that were it not for the submission of others and those willing to support it, no one would rule for long at all?

Yes, that's true. But someone will replace that tyrant. And he might be worse than the devil you know!

Of course, you could make sure that no one replaces him. In which case everyone becomes a tyrant, taking what they want, killing anyone they please, until someone strong enough takes control, and you have another tyrant.

[denuseri]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

[Thorne]

Ahhh democracy...voluntary submission to elected tyranny....sighs so romantic.

LOL! It's only romantic if you enjoy voluntary submission! It's much more enjoyable being the tyrant, though. Romance is overrated anyway.

[SadisticNature]

Not in Florida.

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[Thorne]

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

[SadisticNature]

It seems that way, but homes generally contain families, not just individuals. Do you throw a man's family out of the home for his mistake? The wife didn't do anything wrong. Why punish her as well?

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

[SadisticNature]

The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.

Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.

Some industries are entirely killed by a high sales tax as well. For instance professional poker would move almost entirely outside the US if there was a X% tax for all entry fees with X around 30%. In this environment there are no poker pros, the edge of the best players in the world at the game is around 25% so they couldn't pay the rake + the tax and still make a living.

Lastly while the tax deduction rules are complicated and need simplification, removing the ability to make deductions entirely would eliminate the governments ability to encourage certain actions. Lack of deductions for charity would result in fewer donations, hurting many charities. Inability to provide financial incentives for marriage and children would result in lower birth rates and the need for more immigration to keep a population level that supports economic growth and funds existing programs. The inability to provide tax deductions for making choices with fewer external costs would result in a lot of individuals externalizing costs to the detriment of society.

High sales taxes would force increased welfare payments and drive up the minimum wage as well. When you shift more of the tax burden onto the poor, the programs that they need to get by will need more money.

[steelish]

Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.

Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.

We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

[SadisticNature]

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.



We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

[DuncanONeil]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry, it was not meant as an analogy, merely a statement of fact. That's the way things are in Florida. Each state is different...

Yeah! I know. Suppose it qualifies as a peeve.

[DuncanONeil]

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

I'm not sure this is accurate. Throughout history people have only had those "rights" which the ruling classes allowed, and they could be taken away at the whim of any member of that ruling class. It's only in modern times that we've begun thinking in terms of "human rights", thanks in large part to the advances of more democratic governments. I think that, ultimately, we can only have those rights which the most powerful people are willing to allow us to have. They have the power to rescind them by simply sending in the military/police forces. Once bullets and bombs start flying, the only right you have is the right to duck!

[DuncanONeil]

That's my point, though. Just because we call them "inalienable" doesn't make them so, either. It's a relatively modern concept. We claim the right to Life: yet at any time the universe can throw you a curve and take you right out. Your "rights" won't make a damn bit of difference. We claim the right of Liberty: but at any time the government can whisk you away, call you a terrorist and lock you up without even a trial. So much for Liberty. We claim a right to the Pursuit of Happiness: as long as Happiness doesn't involve marrying someone of the same sex as yourself.

With the "universe" having granted the right to life, than the "universe" taking that life back is consistent.
Admittedly it sounds counter intuitive but Liberty has limits. You are free to do as you will, but that does not extend to indiscriminate taking of life, for example. Happiness is not a right, the pursuit of said happiness is the right. By definition said pursuit can be unsuccessful!

All of these rights, and all of those outlined in the Bill of Rights, were given to us by the founders and leaders of this country. We consider them to be inalienable, or God-given, or natural. But in actuality they are as tenuous as a wisp of smoke.

Because of the intent expressed in the Declaration, on this we are going to have to disagree. We both know the reason for that disagreement, therefore discussion of the disagreement would likely go far afield and be unproductive.

[DuncanONeil]

In the case of one of my accidents we had the plate and description of the car. Police located the car and the owner. Owner said he was not driving.
That was all it took for the cost to be on my insurance. Too many of those and my cost goes up!

It seems strange to me that one can choose to not buy insurance, cause damages and then not have one's assets seized to play those damages, particular if the other person is denied quality care because they can't afford to pay medical bills due to that settlement not being made.

To me it seems here the law is unfairly protecting someone's home from being forfeit as the consequence of their actions.

[DuncanONeil]

Because marriage is a financial contract. It doesn't seem reasonable to use the argument that you can't punish people financially because innocents are involved in the consequences, as that fails in other venues. If a company is involved in an environmental violation most of the stock holders are oblivious but we fine the company, not the executives.

I just find its complicated that someone can be denied a treatment they need because they can't afford to pay for it even though they are owed the money to cover it, because someone was legally allowed to operate a motor vehicle without insurance and did so in a manner causing serious harm.

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

[DuncanONeil]

[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?

"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans

"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.

"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )

Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )

[DuncanONeil]

The free market has a lot to do with who succeeds and who doesn't. Regardless of prices, offer a substandard product and word gets around. Also, America currently has a 38% Corporate tax - the highest in the world. Doing away with the corporate tax and adding a higher tax at the point of purchase would result in corporations lowering product costs. If they can't sell their product, they can't make money...supply and demand.



We're already double-taxed. We have our income tax and we have our sales tax (which differs state to state).

The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

[DuncanONeil]

You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

[DuncanONeil]

How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.

Two types of taxes is not necessarily doubling the taxation. Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation.

Getting taxed X% sales tax for small X and Y% income tax for a larger Y is not double taxation compared to paying 30+% sales tax. For anyone who has Y around 30%, the sales tax is actually comparable.

When Ontario introduced the PST, they replaced an internal manufacturing tax, with an external sales tax. The tax was larger, but none of the savings from scrapping the manufacturing tax got passed on to the consumer.

As for free market success rates, my point is consider the following for two contractors with:

-Similar Quality of Work
-Similar Track Record

Offer 1:

$100,000 + 30% sales tax $30,000 =$130,000

Offer 2:
$77,000 + 30% sales tax $23,100 = $101,000

The only difference being in Offer 2 the sales tax never actually gets paid to the government. Offer 2 is not substandard quality, its a huge savings due to cheating on taxes.

[SadisticNature]

For the basis of clarification.

Income tax occurs currently. If I have money I have saved from now, that is post-tax money, and I have paid income tax on it. If fair tax were to be implemented and I go out and spend that money, I am being double taxed on it, no ifs and ands about it.

So while UnfairTax terminates income tax it doesn't do so retroactively and hence doesn't solve this double taxation problem.

You did get it wrong!
" Taxing the entirety of an income tax on said money, then turning around and raising the sales tax massively is true double taxation. "
Does not occur! The FairTax terminates income tax. It is not an additional tax!!!

[SadisticNature]

The person in example 2 defrauds the government and keeps the tax money for themselves. In an income tax model you are taxed on profits, so choosing to cheat on taxes is a matter of reducing profits.

In a sales tax model you are taxed on revenue, so the cheaters can easily drive the honest people out of business by offering far lower prices.

How does example two not get paid to the Government?

This is a basic misunderstanding of the FairTax as well.

[SadisticNature]

Lets make the math less messy on the example.

Person A charges you:

$1000 + $300 in sales tax for $1300 total and reports the sale properly and sends the amount on to the government.

Person B charges you:

$770 + $230 in sales tax for $1000 total and doesn't report the sale properly, and doesn't send the amount on to the government. On your bill it appears as sales tax, but it doesn't get reported to the government that way, they just pocket it. It also appears to you as if the government got paid and you have no easy way of knowing they haven't.

So by going with person B for better price for the same quality customers are driving person A out of business. Why? Because he was being honest on his taxes.

As for poker tournaments, the typical entry for big live events is $10,000 + $100. The entry fee is 1% of the prizes + television and spectator revenues. If they were to take 50% of the entry as fees the industry would die, because no pros could make a profit on that. Paying 23% of an entry fee out of the 1% taken is a rather difficult thing to do! I also dispute that 23% is the actual correct number. It's far more likely to be 30%+, unless you want to increase the deficit dramatically.

For every economist claiming that this tax does better I can give you nine who disagree. The problem is the analysis assumes a fraud free model. If there is no fraud in either model then the UnfairTax drives the economy more aggressively, by forcing unprofitable and less profitable companies to pay a larger tax burden, which includes making marginally profitable companies unprofitable, and resulting in companies that are struggling slightly, going outright under. If you assume the government isn't going to bail out any of these companies (pretty big if given the track record), then the ones that succeed can drive the economy. However in any model where companies are allowed to defraud the taxation, the economy is driven almost entirely by fraudsters bankrupting honest taxpayers. This leads to needing to raise taxation as revenues decrease and further hurts the country.

[B]"Defraud"
It is easier to defraud under the current system. It only takes on actor to accomplish such an action. Under the FairTax such would require collusion among actors. The seller and buyer at least.
Of course the seller can charge what they see fit. Even if it is a smaller amount. Tax is still due. But if they report they charged less than was paid somebody else knows. You write me a receipt for $1,000 and charge me $1,200 I know what you are doing. I have no incentive to help you.
Say a job costs $1,900 and your scammer comes in and charges $1,900 minus tax of $437, i.e. $1,463 adding 30% for a fee of $1,902. He still sends 23% to the Feds. Where is the scammers gain?

"Double tax on investment"
The FairTax repeals the income tax imposed on investment income and pension benefits or IRA withdrawals. No form of savings or investment is taxed. The beneficiaries and owners of pension funds, IRAs, and 401(k) plans

"Poker"
One thing I think you may have misunderstood. The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It replaces federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.
Those that set up the tournaments are providing a service for which they take a fee, half of the entry. 23% of that fee is due to the Feds there is no increased cost to the entrant.

"Government encourage"
That is the whole point. Where did Government get the power to decide what companies or industries should succeed? They have no right to be picking the winners in losers in commerce.
You mentioned charity. You must agree that a significant factor in charitable contribution is disposable income. The Fair Tax improves that. Charitable contributions depend on one factor more than any other: The health of the economy (not tax benefits). As a wide range of economists agree on the economic expansion the FairTax delivers, charitable contributions benefit also. With the penalty for working harder and producing more removed, Americans are free to keep every dollar they earn, and a new era of economic growth and job creation is unleashed. Hidden taxes are history, Americans are able to save more, and businesses invest more. Capital formation, the real source of job creation and innovation, is facilitated. Gross domestic product (GDP) increases by an estimated 10.5 percent in the first year alone.

As U.S. companies and individuals repatriate, on a tax-free basis, income generated overseas, huge amounts of new capital flood into the United States. With such a huge capital supply, real interest rates remain low. Additionally, other international investors will seek to invest here to avoid taxes on income in their own countries, thereby further spurring the growth of our own economy.

Real wages are 10.3 percent, 9.5 percent, and 9.2 percent higher in years 1, 10, and 25, respectively than would otherwise be the case.
(Tuerck, David G., Jonathan Haughton, Keshab Bhattarai, Phuong Viet Ngo, and Alfonso Sanchez-Penalver, “The Economic Effects of the FairTax: Results from the Beacon Hill Institute CGE Model,” The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, February 2007. )

Disposable personal income is higher than if the current tax system remains in place: 1.7 percent in year 1, 8.7 percent in year 5, and 11.8 percent in year 10.
The economy as measured by GDP is 2.4 percent higher in the first year and 11.3 percent higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.
(Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, “A Macroeconomic Analysis of the FairTax Proposal,” July 2006. )

[SadisticNature]

Hospitals have three obligations under EMTALA:

1. Individuals requesting emergency care, or those for whom a representative has made a request if the patient is unable, must receive a medical screening examination to determine whether an emergency medical condition (EMC) exists. Examination and treatment cannot be delayed to inquire about methods of payment or insurance coverage, or a patient's citizenship or legal status. The hospital may only start the process of payment inquiry and billing once the patient has been stabilized to a degree that the process will not interfere with or otherwise compromise patient care.
2. The emergency room (or other better equipped units within the hospital) must treat an individual with an EMC until the condition is resolved or stabilized and the patient is able to provide self-care following discharge, or if unable, can receive needed continual care. Inpatient care provided must be at an equal level for all patients, regardless of ability to pay. Hospitals may not discharge a patient prior to stabilization if the patient's insurance is canceled or otherwise discontinues payment during course of stay.
3. If the hospital does not have the capability to treat the condition, the hospital must make an "appropriate" transfer of the patient to another hospital with such capability. This includes a long-term care or rehabilitation facilities for patients unable to provide self-care. Hospitals with specialized capabilities must accept such transfers and may not discharge a patient until the condition is resolved and the patient is able to provide self-care or is transferred to another facility.

I've covered several times why Emergency Care doesn't meet the standard of care, and you have responded to it in the past.

Here we go again.

Emergency care just covers life-threatening care. It doesn't cover what most of us would want. If I have a choice between an expensive surgery to save a limb or a less expensive amputation as a result of you hitting me, should I be forced into an amputation because you don't have the ability to pay damages, even if you have protective assets that would cover those costs?

[SadisticNature]

I'm not trying to justify it, just explain it. But isn't that what laws are intended to do? Protect the innocent from the guilty?


But they aren't providing insurance, they're providing a service. Only those hospitals which are publicly funded are required to provide indigent care, since they have already received payment from our taxes. And those hospitals are within their legal rights to recover any expenditures from the patient. True, in many cases that's not possible, but if you have any assets and require emergency care, the hospital can sue to acquire those assets to pay for that care. That's what insurance is for, to cover the patients' costs, not to cover the hospitals and doctors. If I choose to go without insurance, I run the risk of losing everything I own in order to pay for any care I'm given.

With all the claims and counter-claims going on, with all the lying and stretching of the truth on both sides of this fight, it's hard to know exactly what will happen if this program gets passed. But one thing I know is that the taxpayers are going to take it in the end. Those who are in most need of health care, the poor and indigent, don't pay taxes, or don't pay much in taxes, and so aren't going to have to pay for the care they want. But those who do pay taxes can frequently get health care from their employers, yet they are going to have to pay more in taxes to cover those who can't, or won't, buy insurance. It's my opinion that, if the government wants to create a nanny state, let them do so by cutting funding for other, unnecessary programs and use those funds to pay for health care. Force politicians and government employees to be covered by the government run plan, and use the savings to pay for it. But whenever I see Congress trying to push a bill through for my "own good" but they exempt themselves and/or government workers, I get paranoid. If this health care package is good enough for me, then it's good enough for them, too. And when they put that kind of language into the bill, then maybe I can support it.

But I think hell will have to freeze over before that happens. By which time we're likely to have a lot of very chilly politicians.

You can't lose your car unless you have used it as colateral on a loan.

You can't lose a house unless it is involved in a loan.

So by anything you have you actually mean 'Assets not protected under the law'. And those assets are generally rather limited.

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

As to the legitimacy of that argument, if you think anything violating small government is bad you'll never be convinced. I will point out the countries with the smallest governments and no income taxes are among the worst off in the world. I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break. It's worked well since the 80's after all there isn't this authoritarian regime called China threatening to overtake the US as a superpower in the next 20 years.

[SadisticNature]

It seems than just about every right you claim you have from any legal document in the United States is a privilege that has been taken away by the supreme court whenever convenient.

For speech consider the jailing of peaceful war protesters, upheld by the US supreme court.

For guns consider weapons bans upheld as constitutional.

And the list goes on and on.

So basically you have a piece of paper that says you have rights, and the way they are upheld would suggest they are privileges.

So how about we stop pretending the US is any different just because it claims to be.

Seems that if the "right" can be taken away it is a "privilege" rather than a "right".
(a moral, or ethical principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.)

[Thorne]

As for the other stuff, its the usual politics. The fact is the country is largely divided between those who support small government and those who don't. You happen to support small government, but you are presenting an argument that basically says all government bills should have that nature. FDR supported a larger government, so did many of the best leaders of the United States of America.

I don't support either, to be honest. What I want is responsible government. As I stated, we should not permit Congress to pass a law and then make themselves exempt from that law. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for them. How many businesses have struggled and gone under because of OSHA violations, either deliberate or accidental? Yet Congress is exempt from OSHA oversight. You complain about people not having health care, yet Congress has the best health care available.

People not buying insurance are being FINED and those fines are covering the cost of those who WONT. So taxes are being used to cover those who CANT.

People are being forced to buy something they don't want, just because Congress, and the President, thinks they should have it. What's next? Will we have to pay a fine if we don't buy a GM car made by the government? What if we don't even drive a car? Do we still pay the fine? And this fine, if I remember, will be something to the tune of $350 per MONTH! Which means that the cost of the mandatory health care will be higher, no doubt. Can everyone here afford that extra $350+ per month? I know I can't!

I'd suggest that a country that is among the best would do well to not emulate the failed policies of those at the bottom.

So why do we want to institute socialist policies which have already failed around the world?

But who cares about the country or the debt or the future as long as AMERICANS get a tax break.

I, for one, would love to get a tax break, but that's not what I'm advocating. I want to see my current taxes being used responsibly by those who have been elected to do so! I want to see those representatives held to the same standards of law and taxation as they inflict upon the rest of us. I want to see those representatives forced out of office after a certain number of years so they can live among real people for a change. Stop paying them CEO-type salaries, with golden parachutes and elite health care. Let them survive on the same wages, IRA's and medical care the rest of us have to live with. Equality, it's called.