Here's the email I got: ------ Dear Sap, You are recieving this email because you are a member of BlueSecurity (http://www.bluesecurity.com).
The blue frog is poisonous and causing us all a very excrutiating and slow death. Please make it stop. Or else...
Or else what you ask? Oh, don't worry-- we'll think of something. Something bad. Very, very bad.
If you do not cave in to our harmless threats, a great wrath of biblical proportions shall be visited upon your house the likes of which you could never conceive in your most awful nightmares. Seriously. God, the law, and logic are all on our side. Think about it...
Sincerely, Yet another punk ass bitch who couldn't cut it in the real marketplace.
Corporations make lots of money too This statement is misleading since corporations own nothing. All wealth is owned by individuals. All the wealth in corporations is individual shareholders.
which would be properly taxed by a true progressive income tax. So when the corporations are taxed and they raise their prices in order to meet that tax burden, passing the tax burden on to consumers, that's proper? Funny, I call it obscuring the cost of the federal government.
The problem is that now there are too many loopholes There are several solutions for that. The most feasible is doing away with the whole income tax system and replacing it with something that doesn't have loophooles (much more likely than relying on congress to go thru the tax code and plug up all --or even half-- of the thousands of holes).
If he [...] doesn't make any actual money, why should he pay income tax? I'm not saying he should pay an income tax if he doesn't make any income. But doesn't it get under your skin to know that he can both be wealthy and live tax free? It does for me. And that's a loophole that no reasonable edit to the current tax code can fix. He still uses the government services, he should pay for them somehow. Basing taxes on income doesn't do it. Basing taxes on consumption does.
You also seem to forget that a consumption tax has already been tried. It was called the Gilded Age First, I found no mention of consumption taxes here. Second, let's assume for a second that you're being honest and that there were consumption taxes back then, which led to drastic increase in immigration which led to "increased prejudice and racial discrimination". Consider for a moment why that would happen. For starters, this was before the civil rights movement. Next, there are suddenly a bunch of people flocking to the USA because of a booming economy (and this is a bad thing?). For each that flocked here legally, I'd have no problem with that, nor should anyone else. Otherwise, flock the flockers.
Do you realize that with our current system, the "rich" are not necessarily taxed? The current system taxes based on income. But this excludes those who go a year without earning anything, rather just living off their earnings from previous years. The income tax treats them differently- it gives them a free pass. The FairTax does not.
I'd rather have some huge crapware business pay taxes than me. Right now, with our current tax system, both you and the business are paying taxes. Except with corporate income taxes, the corporations raise their prices to foot their bill, passing their tax burden on to you. The FairTax removes corporate income taxes. Then market competition will force them to lower their prices.Then you stop paying for corporate income taxes.
in general, a consumption based tax is <i>regressive</i> In general, yes. Not with the FairTax, because of the prebate you mentioned, the FairTax is a system that is progressive.
the brunt of the tax will be felt by the middle class Read up a little more on who are the winners and losers of the FairTax
The more money you make, the more you save[. T]he more you save, the less you consume. There is a flaw in your logic. If the more money you make is greater than what you plan to save, then you can both save more and consume more. Also read up on what increased saving does to interest rates and how that benefits the whole economy.
A good, clean, progressive income tax (without all these exceptions) is what we need A common point against the FairTax is that it's a good idea, but it'll never happen. I agree that the likelihood (and more to the point, ease) of getting the FairTax passed isn't its strongest aspect, but it is way more likely than hoping Congress will go thru our current system and plug up all of its thousands of holes. The current system is a whopping steaming piece of shit. It needs to be scrapped an replaced.
Eliminate the system that mails a cheque to every person every month Maybe instead would be better to have electronic transfers?
The arguments that.. the costs of all retail goods and services will fall... are tenuous. How do you figure? When the corporate taxes are removed, why won't the companies reduce costs to stay competitive?
The issue with new homes versus existing homes seems fishy How so?
I doubt companies would lower prices When the corporate income tax is removed, this will free up businesses to lower their prices. They might not do it right away. They might all get together for some backroom deal, wink wink nudge nudge, let's all keep our prices up. Unfortunately the market doesn't work that way. It is driven by fear and greed. One of them will break ranks and lower prices. Customers will flock to that one. The others will follow.
I don't think there is all that much money there. (1) The underground economy is estimated to be around $1 trillion annually. Taxing any part of a $trillion is still a big number. (2) The Fairtax will collect revenue from 45 million foreign visitors annually. (3) the Fairtax will collect revenue from 11 million illegal aliens---and they won't be receiving the offsetting prebate.
"Special interests and income tax loophole exploiters" - sounds good, but who exactly are we talking about? Companies, labor unions, and other organizations who spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Special interests who retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street. Others have lobbyists working in-house. Clients (Organizations Paying for Lobbying) in 121 profiled sectors & industries numbered 1411 in 2004, 545 (incomplete total) in 2005, lobbying alone for TAXATION/INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. For 2005, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES there were a total of 4854 clients.
Heck I can think of a dozen ways to avoid your sales tax that you aren't going to stop without a massive and expensive enforcement agency There will be a registration procedure that is required to make untaxed purchases. The risk of cheating and getting caught increases when government agents only have to keep an eye on 18 million collection points rather than 130 million income tax returns. The whole tax story is contained on every cash register receipt for everyone to see. Totally transparent!! Will there still be cheating? Sure, but will it compare to the $350 billion in uncollected taxes left on the table each year by the 110,000 IRS employees that cost us taxpayers $11 billion per year in their salaries and wages? I don't think so.
sales taxes are regressive as compared to income taxes. You need to break free of income, wealth and soak-the-rich thinking. Under the FairTax, it's all about consumption, not production. How much you earn, how much you have and how much of it you spend is irrelevant. You have money, you spend it. Spend more money, pay more tax. Progressive. It might take a while to get used to the idea.
The FairTax taxes consumption. And one acquire things to consume with...income? Not necessarily. With resources - ie, wealth (unless you're the government, or a thief, in which case it is done with force).
you can find people there to support all manner of crackpot schemes This doesn't mean that there cannot be someone among the crackpots might have a good idea.
I don't see that they found one to support the FairTax. Just as an example of one of the many places you'll find them supporting it, if you take the time to do some reading: From Dr. Jorgenson of Harvard's Department of Economics, in this document "If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, we would each be ten percent better off today." But like you said, this does nothing to convince you. Some folks are pretty set in their ways...
For the record, I'm old and loaded In that case, you may find #5 more interesting.
in the long term, I think our economy would collapse That's interesting- why do you think that?
Yes, I heard that part. I think it's insufficient You think the prebate is insufficient? Why? And what would be "sufficient" in your opinion? More to the point, how do you define sufficient in this case?
While this back and forth bickering is fun and all I wouldn't call it bickering, and it's more than useless fun. It's a productive dialouge for exchaning ideas. Thru this record of communication, I'm getting an understanding of why people oppose the FairTax, while others (and maybe you) are coming to learn why one should support it.
who pays more than they do under our current system, and why is that a good idea? First, I'd refer you to #8, then to go a step further and answer your question about where does all the money come from to make it revenue neutral: It comes from those who don't pay income taxes now- drug dealers, the porn industry, special interests and income tax loophole exploiters and the like. As they begin paying taxes thru the national retail sale tax, they pick up the slack that they've been eluding in our current system. As for why is this a good idea- because it's fair.
I always include at least one gramatical error in every post Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.
How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit? Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.
spend on average about twice as much.. despite making 5+ times as much. So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?
nor does your link lead to any I can find Fine, I'll do the digging for you: 1234567891011 Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures. Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.
Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level? Have you considered reading The FairTax book?
I want to sock it to you, who I know didn't! This is a joke, right? You didn't just seriously use a nominative pronoun where an objective pronoun should have gone, did you? And how do you know I didn't?
Wealthy people do not consume more proportional to their greater net worth, not even close. Got any figures to back that up? While you were skimming the site, did you happen upon the figures from the MIT and Harvard economists?
Either you're acting as a parody of fools or you're really being serious. If it's the latter, let me know when you're more read up on what you're talking about.
The point I was making was that regardless of how you collect the tax, it will take the same _amount_ of tax So right here I was thinking "Great, finally another person who gets it and going to express understanding and go on to say "it will take the same _amount_ of tax only this way will make it glaringly unavoidably obvious to every American just how big the tax burden is..." but sadly no...
Sorry to hear you are bored by the idea of tax reform. Indeed it is a boring subject for most to listen to (especially those who have not matured enough to care about such things) and nearly impossible to speak about it captivatingly. But it is important, I assure you. Personally I prefer to just refer ppl to the book (which I don't have with me else my self-damning hyperbole would have been more palatable I'm sure). I highly recommend reading it to anyone who doesn't understand the idea fully.
If by "that" in "that's highly inaccurate" you mean the 0.01% figure I just pulled out of my ass, then yes it is highly innacurate, but such is the nature of hyperbole designed to get a point across, which is sadly so hard to get across these days to certain folks. And yes, I do still think the IRS is abusive, disregarding what other nations use because we are not other nations, and regardless of the Roosevelt Corollary, which is not of what I speak. I speak of the FairTax, which seems to be much better idea than inheritance taxes and income taxes and all the others it replaces.
Won't the inheritance tax only tax the inheritance, which is received only once and therefore only be taxed once? If you really wanna sock it to my rich grandma, consider the FairTax which really taxes wealth (consumption) not like the income tax which only taxes income, and not necessarily wealthy folks, like those who just happen upon a fat stack of cash, or those who escape it thru loopholes and special interest deals.
It's a concern to all if you consider that the income tax started out only taxing the top 0.01% and now taxes Everybody to some extent. This present cap is temporary. If history is a teacher (and it is) it is perfectly valid to wonder and worry how your digital property will be be taxed even when you're wormfood.
BTW, just curious- is there some where you can point me to verify this "hundreds of thousands of dollars" cap you speak of?
Those with the most wealth (whether they take it home from work or just happened to have it by way of inheritance, or finding a bag of money on the side of the road) do pay more of the taxes because this is a tax on consumption. Those who spend more (the evil hated rich) get taxed more.
And if we taxed toilet paper, then the rich could really evade taxes cuz they can all afford bidets. See, you gotta think these things thru;-)
Please read up on the subject matter more before making asinine comments like this.
The FairTax relieves the poor of all tax liability up to the poverty level by way of prebate. Those who spend more (the evil hated rich) get taxed more. Is that "fair" enough for you?
Apology accepted. Lots of morons use acronyms where their meaning isn't previously established in the thread, and then don't own up to making the mistake. Glad to see you're not one of them.
It greatly simplifies that way taxes are collected and removes loopholes that special interests use to evade taxes, thus heaping more responsibility on you and me.
Fair: adj: 1- free from favoritism, self-interest, or preference in judgment
EVERYONE paying the SAME tax rate == Not fair? How?
You know, since unhappiness over cartoons from Denmark somehow translated into burning down a KFC in Pakistan. You know, that famous Danish outfit, "Kentucky Fried Chicken."
This reminds me of the silliness I heard a few days ago about how they're no longer calling that flaky pastry a "danish." Instead they're gonna start calling it a Rose of the Prophet Mohammed. (Or is it "The" Rose of the Prophet Mohammed? I'm sorry, I don't know, please don't kill me!)
Well whaddya know, America isn't the only country that pulls this kind of dumbass shit.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the email I got:
------
Dear Sap,
You are recieving this email because you are a member of BlueSecurity (http://www.bluesecurity.com).
The blue frog is poisonous and causing us all a very excrutiating and slow death. Please make it stop. Or else...
Or else what you ask? Oh, don't worry-- we'll think of something. Something bad. Very, very bad.
If you do not cave in to our harmless threats, a great wrath of biblical proportions shall be visited upon your house the likes of which you could never conceive in your most awful nightmares. Seriously. God, the law, and logic are all on our side. Think about it...
Sincerely,
Yet another punk ass bitch who couldn't cut it in the real marketplace.
PS, click here for v1agra.
Corporations make lots of money too
This statement is misleading since corporations own nothing. All wealth is owned by individuals. All the wealth in corporations is individual shareholders.
which would be properly taxed by a true progressive income tax.
So when the corporations are taxed and they raise their prices in order to meet that tax burden, passing the tax burden on to consumers, that's proper? Funny, I call it obscuring the cost of the federal government.
The problem is that now there are too many loopholes
There are several solutions for that. The most feasible is doing away with the whole income tax system and replacing it with something that doesn't have loophooles (much more likely than relying on congress to go thru the tax code and plug up all --or even half-- of the thousands of holes).
If he [...] doesn't make any actual money, why should he pay income tax?
I'm not saying he should pay an income tax if he doesn't make any income. But doesn't it get under your skin to know that he can both be wealthy and live tax free? It does for me. And that's a loophole that no reasonable edit to the current tax code can fix. He still uses the government services, he should pay for them somehow. Basing taxes on income doesn't do it. Basing taxes on consumption does.
You also seem to forget that a consumption tax has already been tried. It was called the Gilded Age
First, I found no mention of consumption taxes here.
Second, let's assume for a second that you're being honest and that there were consumption taxes back then, which led to drastic increase in immigration which led to "increased prejudice and racial discrimination". Consider for a moment why that would happen. For starters, this was before the civil rights movement. Next, there are suddenly a bunch of people flocking to the USA because of a booming economy (and this is a bad thing?). For each that flocked here legally, I'd have no problem with that, nor should anyone else. Otherwise, flock the flockers.
Do you realize that with our current system, the "rich" are not necessarily taxed? The current system taxes based on income. But this excludes those who go a year without earning anything, rather just living off their earnings from previous years. The income tax treats them differently- it gives them a free pass. The FairTax does not.
I'd rather have some huge crapware business pay taxes than me.
Right now, with our current tax system, both you and the business are paying taxes. Except with corporate income taxes, the corporations raise their prices to foot their bill, passing their tax burden on to you. The FairTax removes corporate income taxes. Then market competition will force them to lower their prices.Then you stop paying for corporate income taxes.
in general, a consumption based tax is <i>regressive</i>
In general, yes. Not with the FairTax, because of the prebate you mentioned, the FairTax is a system that is progressive.
the brunt of the tax will be felt by the middle class
Read up a little more on who are the winners and losers of the FairTax
The more money you make, the more you save[. T]he more you save, the less you consume.
There is a flaw in your logic. If the more money you make is greater than what you plan to save, then you can both save more and consume more. Also read up on what increased saving does to interest rates and how that benefits the whole economy.
A good, clean, progressive income tax (without all these exceptions) is what we need
A common point against the FairTax is that it's a good idea, but it'll never happen. I agree that the likelihood (and more to the point, ease) of getting the FairTax passed isn't its strongest aspect, but it is way more likely than hoping Congress will go thru our current system and plug up all of its thousands of holes. The current system is a whopping steaming piece of shit. It needs to be scrapped an replaced.
Just FYI, here is how China handles eminent domain
Can someone please explain to me how parent comment is flamebait? (Seems a lot more informative to me.) Serously, I'm curious and want to know.
Eliminate the system that mails a cheque to every person every month
.. the costs of all retail goods and services will fall ... are tenuous.
Maybe instead would be better to have electronic transfers?
The arguments that
How do you figure? When the corporate taxes are removed, why won't the companies reduce costs to stay competitive?
The issue with new homes versus existing homes seems fishy
How so?
I doubt companies would lower prices
When the corporate income tax is removed, this will free up businesses to lower their prices. They might not do it right away. They might all get together for some backroom deal, wink wink nudge nudge, let's all keep our prices up. Unfortunately the market doesn't work that way. It is driven by fear and greed. One of them will break ranks and lower prices. Customers will flock to that one. The others will follow.
will wipe the middle class completly out
How do you propose it'll do that?
I don't think there is all that much money there.
(1) The underground economy is estimated to be around $1 trillion annually. Taxing any part of a $trillion is still a big number. (2) The Fairtax will collect revenue from 45 million foreign visitors annually. (3) the Fairtax will collect revenue from 11 million illegal aliens---and they won't be receiving the offsetting prebate.
"Special interests and income tax loophole exploiters" - sounds good, but who exactly are we talking about?
Companies, labor unions, and other organizations who spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Special interests who retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington's legendary K Street. Others have lobbyists working in-house. Clients (Organizations Paying for Lobbying) in 121 profiled sectors & industries numbered 1411 in 2004, 545 (incomplete total) in 2005, lobbying alone for TAXATION/INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. For 2005, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES there were a total of 4854 clients.
Heck I can think of a dozen ways to avoid your sales tax that you aren't going to stop without a massive and expensive enforcement agency
There will be a registration procedure that is required to make untaxed purchases. The risk of cheating and getting caught increases when government agents only have to keep an eye on 18 million collection points rather than 130 million income tax returns. The whole tax story is contained on every cash register receipt for everyone to see. Totally transparent!! Will there still be cheating? Sure, but will it compare to the $350 billion in uncollected taxes left on the table each year by the 110,000 IRS employees that cost us taxpayers $11 billion per year in their salaries and wages? I don't think so.
sales taxes are regressive as compared to income taxes.
You need to break free of income, wealth and soak-the-rich thinking. Under the FairTax, it's all about consumption, not production. How much you earn, how much you have and how much of it you spend is irrelevant. You have money, you spend it. Spend more money, pay more tax. Progressive. It might take a while to get used to the idea.
The FairTax taxes consumption.
And one acquire things to consume with...income? Not necessarily. With resources - ie, wealth (unless you're the government, or a thief, in which case it is done with force).
you can find people there to support all manner of crackpot schemes
This doesn't mean that there cannot be someone among the crackpots might have a good idea.
I don't see that they found one to support the FairTax.
Just as an example of one of the many places you'll find them supporting it, if you take the time to do some reading:
From Dr. Jorgenson of Harvard's Department of Economics, in this document
"If we had enacted a FairTax ten years ago, we would each be ten percent better off today."
But like you said, this does nothing to convince you. Some folks are pretty set in their ways...
For the record, I'm old and loaded
In that case, you may find #5 more interesting.
in the long term, I think our economy would collapse
That's interesting- why do you think that?
Yes, I heard that part. I think it's insufficient
You think the prebate is insufficient? Why? And what would be "sufficient" in your opinion? More to the point, how do you define sufficient in this case?
While this back and forth bickering is fun and all
I wouldn't call it bickering, and it's more than useless fun. It's a productive dialouge for exchaning ideas. Thru this record of communication, I'm getting an understanding of why people oppose the FairTax, while others (and maybe you) are coming to learn why one should support it.
who pays more than they do under our current system, and why is that a good idea?
First, I'd refer you to #8, then to go a step further and answer your question about where does all the money come from to make it revenue neutral: It comes from those who don't pay income taxes now- drug dealers, the porn industry, special interests and income tax loophole exploiters and the like. As they begin paying taxes thru the national retail sale tax, they pick up the slack that they've been eluding in our current system.
As for why is this a good idea- because it's fair.
I always include at least one gramatical error in every post
.. despite making 5+ times as much.
Nice. I'll start making posts with 5 facts, one of which will always be lie, just to see who catches it. It'll be fun.
How do I know you didn't earn your rich grandma's money that you stand to inherit?
Oh I see, in this hypothetical you were assuming that I'd be inheriting my granny's money. An understandable mistake, but an incorrect assumption nonetheless.
spend on average about twice as much
So it's not enough for you that under the FairTax, they spend more and thus would be paying more taxes while the poor are completely relieved of any tax burden up to the poverty line. No, for the FairTax to work, the rich must spend as much as they make- from each according to their ability and all that, eh?
nor does your link lead to any I can find
Fine, I'll do the digging for you:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Start with #6-it should be particularly interesting to you, although it's more heavy on facts than on figures.
Those are all the ones I could find that would be somewhat pertinent to this discussion. Searching around will show you lots of other aspects that you may find interesting as well.
Give me a realistic theory why a sales tax doesn't move the tax burden away from the wealthy toward the working class
I take you haven't heard about the prebate part of the plan that removes all tax liability up to the poverty level?
Have you considered reading The FairTax book?
I am interested in your ideas because you do seem to have a good grasp of history (or at least how to make tags pointing to it). Do you have any regarding tax reform that you think would be better than a national retail sales tax? If so, please explain why your idea is better. That is, what shortcomings of the FT do your idea address? Does your idea involve a voluntary tax system, is it revenue neutral? Or are you of the opinion that the IRS is the best possible awfulness?
Also, I'm still curious to know if you've read the book or have considered reading it.
Note, other grassroots political ideas that were believed to be destined to fail for reasons including their unyieldingness include the civil rights movement and women's suffrage.
I want to sock it to you, who I know didn't!
This is a joke, right? You didn't just seriously use a nominative pronoun where an objective pronoun should have gone, did you?
And how do you know I didn't?
Wealthy people do not consume more proportional to their greater net worth, not even close.
Got any figures to back that up? While you were skimming the site, did you happen upon the figures from the MIT and Harvard economists?
Either you're acting as a parody of fools or you're really being serious. If it's the latter, let me know when you're more read up on what you're talking about.
The point I was making was that regardless of how you collect the tax, it will take the same _amount_ of tax
So right here I was thinking "Great, finally another person who gets it and going to express understanding and go on to say "it will take the same _amount_ of tax only this way will make it glaringly unavoidably obvious to every American just how big the tax burden is..." but sadly no...
Sorry to hear you are bored by the idea of tax reform. Indeed it is a boring subject for most to listen to (especially those who have not matured enough to care about such things) and nearly impossible to speak about it captivatingly. But it is important, I assure you. Personally I prefer to just refer ppl to the book (which I don't have with me else my self-damning hyperbole would have been more palatable I'm sure). I highly recommend reading it to anyone who doesn't understand the idea fully.
If by "that" in "that's highly inaccurate" you mean the 0.01% figure I just pulled out of my ass, then yes it is highly innacurate, but such is the nature of hyperbole designed to get a point across, which is sadly so hard to get across these days to certain folks.
And yes, I do still think the IRS is abusive, disregarding what other nations use because we are not other nations, and regardless of the Roosevelt Corollary, which is not of what I speak. I speak of the FairTax, which seems to be much better idea than inheritance taxes and income taxes and all the others it replaces.
Won't the inheritance tax only tax the inheritance, which is received only once and therefore only be taxed once? If you really wanna sock it to my rich grandma, consider the FairTax which really taxes wealth (consumption) not like the income tax which only taxes income, and not necessarily wealthy folks, like those who just happen upon a fat stack of cash, or those who escape it thru loopholes and special interest deals.
It's a concern to all if you consider that the income tax started out only taxing the top 0.01% and now taxes Everybody to some extent. This present cap is temporary. If history is a teacher (and it is) it is perfectly valid to wonder and worry how your digital property will be be taxed even when you're wormfood.
BTW, just curious- is there some where you can point me to verify this "hundreds of thousands of dollars" cap you speak of?
Those with the most wealth (whether they take it home from work or just happened to have it by way of inheritance, or finding a bag of money on the side of the road) do pay more of the taxes because this is a tax on consumption. Those who spend more (the evil hated rich) get taxed more.
;-)
And if we taxed toilet paper, then the rich could really evade taxes cuz they can all afford bidets. See, you gotta think these things thru
Please read up on the subject matter more before making asinine comments like this.
The FairTax relieves the poor of all tax liability up to the poverty level by way of prebate. Those who spend more (the evil hated rich) get taxed more. Is that "fair" enough for you?
Apology accepted. Lots of morons use acronyms where their meaning isn't previously established in the thread, and then don't own up to making the mistake. Glad to see you're not one of them.
GS?
It greatly simplifies that way taxes are collected and removes loopholes that special interests use to evade taxes, thus heaping more responsibility on you and me.
Fair: adj:
1- free from favoritism, self-interest, or preference in judgment
EVERYONE paying the SAME tax rate == Not fair? How?
cor-ral
n.
1. An enclosure for confining livestock.
Interesting how this wording shows government views on the people.
You know, since unhappiness over cartoons from Denmark somehow translated into burning down a KFC in Pakistan. You know, that famous Danish outfit, "Kentucky Fried Chicken."
This reminds me of the silliness I heard a few days ago about how they're no longer calling that flaky pastry a "danish." Instead they're gonna start calling it a Rose of the Prophet Mohammed. (Or is it "The" Rose of the Prophet Mohammed? I'm sorry, I don't know, please don't kill me!)
Well whaddya know, America isn't the only country that pulls this kind of dumbass shit.