That’s Bachmann, with two ‘N’s. “Bachman’s, Inc”, a large florist and garden company here in Minn. wanted to make it clear back in 2008 that the Bachman family and their business have nothing to do with her. It was at a time when they lost their leader, Todd Bachman, at the Olympics and Michele Bachmann took her ravings national.

I know it was only a typo, and I usually let them go, but Bachman’s is a fine company that tends to treat their employees and customers like family - nothing at all like Bachmann.

It also doesn’t help that her district borders on mine and she is local news even more than national news. Every time she foams at the mouth, I have to wash my windows.

For one thing, the Democrat win in 2006 helped push Rumsfeld and his ilk out. Once they were replaced with competent people, we started winning in Iraq. Three years of republican “stay the course” failure in Iraq brought to an end. Thanks to the Democrats.

Just how many years did Clinton face a republican-controlled Congress? You blame him for everything that happened during his years, but ignore 3/4 of the Bush years.

And true, it is not usually called “republicanomics”, it is “Reaganomics” or “voodoo economics” or “trickle-down prosperity”. Whatever you call it, it is toxic and unsustainable economically.

Impartial information on this subject seems to be hard to find. The implicit problems tend to be completely ignored.

H.R. 77
An attempt to undermine the recent minimum wage increase. Typical anti-worker partisanship. Not really health care reform, either.

H.R. 109
I got a good laugh out of this one

  (1) Findings.—Congress finds the following:
    (A) The regulation of the practice of insurance is a State prerogative.

Followed by:

a class of federally certified insurance products that can be purchased in the individual market without being subject to State benefit mandate laws.

and:

may be offered and sold to such individuals without regard to any State or local law respecting mandates for benefits.

The bill violates one of it’s own “findings” and allows outside insurers to ignore state regulation. It also transfers some state authority from the state legislative to state administrative branch via federal law. This is just slum-lord politics. Why do republicans keep trying to undermine state sovereignty?

“(3) Authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014.—There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014—
  “(A) $10,000,000 to carry out subsection (a); and
  “(B) $100,000,000, of which, subject to paragraph

These are increases of $9M and $25M respectively. Where does the money come from?

H.R. 198

“(2) Deduction not available for payment of ancillary coverage premiums.—Any amount paid as a premium for insurance which provides for—
  “(A) coverage for accidents, disability, dental care, vision care, or a specified illness, or
  “(B) making payments of a fixed amount per day (or other period) by reason of being hospitalized,
shall not be taken into account under subsection (a).

This is not partisan, I just wonder why “dental care, vision care, or a specified illness” are not considered medical expenses?

“(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—   “(1) Medical care.—
    “(A) In general.—The term `medical care’ has the meaning given such term by section 213(d) without regard to—
      “(i) paragraph (1)(C) thereof, and
      “(ii) so much of paragraph (1)(D) thereof as relates to qualified long-term care insurance contracts.

Still making tax laws complicated and confusing.

So what we have here is an unfunded tax cut. Not partisan, but not revenue-neutral. How do you plan to pay for it?

Sorry, three strikes. Show me something worth passing.

Zera, I have no idea where you are getting your information, but I encourage you to do more research. You prefer to continuously tax goods and services at every step of the delivery process as is done now? You prefer to pay tax after tax on the money as you do now?

Leigh, I encourage you to read between the lines and look past the propaganda. You only need to look at California to see how disastrous it can be to define your revenue streams too narrowly, and this is talking about putting virtually all the eggs in one basket. That would be quite foolish if you want a stable government.

Your 50% penalty point it utter nonsense.

Not really.

“(5) Gross payments.—The term `gross payments’ means payments for taxable property or services, including Federal taxes imposed by this title.

“(13) Tax inclusive fair market value.—The term `tax inclusive fair market value’ means the fair market value of taxable property or services plus the tax imposed by this subtitle.

“(a) In General.—There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.
“(b) Rate.—
  “(1) For 2011.—In the calendar year 2011, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
  “(2) For years after 2011.—For years after the calendar year 2011, the rate of tax is the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in paragraph (3)) of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
  “(3) Combined federal tax rate percentage.—The combined Federal tax rate percentage is the sum of—
    “(A) the general revenue rate (as defined in paragraph (4),
    “(B) the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and
    “(C) the hospital insurance rate.
  “(4) General revenue rate.—The general revenue rate shall be 14.91 percent. (Note: this is where the far-right special interests kill off the federal government.)

How do you get from “fair market value” to “gross payments”? Here’s the sleight-of-hand:

GP=FMV/(1-RATE)
GP=FMV/(1-.23)=FMV/.77=FMV*(1/.77)=FMV*1.298701299
GP=1.2987 * FMV
Effective tax rate= 29.87%

Or maybe you prefer:

“(iii) the national sales tax factor is equal to 1 plus the quotient that is—
  “(I) the sales tax rate imposed by section 101 of the Internal Revenue Code of 2009, divided by
  “(II) the quantity that is 1 minus such sales tax rate.”.

factor = 1 + (.23)/(1-.23) = 1 + .23/.77 = 1.2987

That’s a lot of arithmetic just to hide the true tax rate.

The average state sales tax+gross receipts tax is about 5.13% with a median of 5.75%. When weighted by population, it is more like 7.17% for the average shopper. Just to make the number round out, and to avoid the extreme ends of the spectrum, I’ll call it 6.13% for the typical consumer.

This brings us up to 36% national/state/local sales tax. But wait, there’s more!

The bill would leave no time for states to adjust their tax strategies and state/local income taxes to account for the disappearance of the federal tax code. This would force them to make the same conversion from income to sales tax. I allowed for a 14% state sales tax increase to account for this. I admit that it is only a WAG, but considering that it has to cover personal and corporate income taxes, and all re-sale of products are exempt, 14% is probably conservative. It is half the federal rate, and less than twice the average existing state sales tax rate (average of state rate weighted by state population).

That brings us up to 50% typical sales tax. Add a 20% gratuity, and there is the 70% addition for a restaurant meal. Far from utter nonsense, it is more likely a conservative estimate.

An excellent breeding ground for fraud and corruption - high motivation and weakened enforcement.

But wait, there’s more!

“(2) Conforming state sales tax.—The term `conforming State sales tax’ means a sales tax imposed by a State that adopts the same definition of taxable property and services as adopted by this subtitle.

Some states do not charge sales tax for necessities like food, clothing, and prescription drugs. This bill would pressure states to “conform” to the national tax standard - which would add even more to the cost of these commodities in such states.

But wait, there’s more!

What are Alaska and Texas going to do for income? No doubt they would continue to charge state income tax on the oil companies regardless of the hypocrisy, but how much does their taxation process depend on documentation, definitions, and rules that would no longer exist? tic-toc

23% of everything you buy already has embedded taxes in it.

Every business would have to inventory everything they own and classify it under the new rules. They would have to renegotiate every contract they have, redesign their cost structure, re-tool reports, forms, software, accounting practices, training, …

That would not come cheap, but it would come out of consumers’ pockets.

The bill does not require businesses to lower their prices according to the reduction in their taxes. There is no reason to expect them to do so.

Hidden agendas? Name them. The tax code won’t be manipulated to reward and punish because there won’t be a tax code.

Elimination of the tax code IS the manipulation. It is a complete abdication to corporate and special interests.

Decades to overhaul the tax code? Overhaul it perhaps…but we are talking abolishment.

I was referring to state tax law, obviously.

What special interests are going to be strengthened? Tax accountants? Tax attorneys? Lobbyists?

The attorneys would love this bill, there are years of litigation over the bill alone. There aren’t enough lawyers in the country to deal with all the problems this bill would create.

This would certainly free up more money for lobbying and advertising by special interests. The average Joe Six-pack would never stand a chance against all the propaganda.

But the biggest concern would be organized religion. Without the threat of taxation, they would be free to preach politics to their heart’s content. The GOP has had a religious litmus test in place for years, and the past two elections have amply demonstrated how faith-based mob rule can overwhelm our Republican form of government. Say good-by to “Equality” and “Freedom of Religion” and hello to theocracy.

I know who is behind it. People who want fair taxation in order for the government to do its very limited job and power returned to the people.

You see? The far ‘right’ agenda. This would return nothing to the people, and it would cost them plenty.

If you want the United States to become - in all respects - a third-world country, this is the bill for you.

Ooooo. Your goood. <8-D

Which one doesn’t belong?

White after Labor Day?

Public Solitude

Personal Head Space.

I see you still do not know what net neutrality is. Nor do you appear to know anything about the computer industry. Profit margins on desktops are quite thin. Dell’s numbers are almost identical to WellPoint, and they are diversifying. Packard Bell is gone (no great loss), Micron, Insight, eMachines, …
Compaq bought Tandem in 1997, then was bought by HP in 2007. Lenovo (China) bought IBM’s PC division five years ago and Acer (Taiwan) bought Gateway two years ago. It is a cutthroat business. The hardware makers sell in bulk and make their money elsewhere (like service). Microsoft makes most of the profits from PC sales.

PC sales usually fall early in a downturn and pick up early in a recovery.

I am dying to hear how you think the government could use net neutrality to take over the computer industry. It’s like accusing traffic cops of plotting to take over the auto industry. Who writes your material?

For one thing, it would take decades and cost billions of dollars to rewrite every law, ruling, court order, agreement, and settlement affected by the tax code or income tax records. Obviously, this cannot possibly be done within the timeframe specified by the bill.

For another thing, “To tax all consumption of goods and services in the United States once, without exception, but only once.”
Consumption of goods and services being the driving force of the economy, this would put the full weight of governmental funding directly on the carotid artery of the economy. Imagine what would happen to the construction industry if there was a 50% penalty for buying new construction as opposed to existing construction? What would happen to the auto industry? We’ve just had a traumatic demonstration of what happens to the economy when those markets crash. Black markets would spring up for all sorts of things. And yes, I said 50%. As sales tax is currently calculated, the rate in the bill is 29.87%. Apparently there was a study done that determined 23% to be the most that the public would accept for a national sales tax. They claim a 23% tax rate by applying it to 129.87% of the value of the item. The excuse is that because this would replace the income tax, it should be calculated like an income tax instead of the sales tax it is identified as. They call it “tax inclusive fair market value”. This does not include state and local sales taxes, or the conversion of state and local income taxes to sales taxes. How often would you go to a restaurant if the bill came with an added 70%+ in tax and tip? No business would want to invest in an economy that carries that kind of penalty on sales to customers.

And then there are the hidden agendas. This bill would strengthen special interests, not weaken them. Who do you think is behind it?

Leigh, I have read every last line of the Fair Tax bill - and it is not a feasible solution to anything. It would certainly not do what you think it would.

Speaking of Facebook…

Three witches walk into a bar.
The fourth one ducks.