Some Points for Tax Reform

[anEinherjer]

Just a few facts providing ammunition for tax reform:

# The number of pages of federal tax rules and regulations increased from 40,500 in 1995 to 66,498 in 2006;
# The number of pages in the IRS guide for Form 1040 increased from 84 in 1995 to 142 in 2005;
# The number of different IRS tax forms increased from 475 in 2000 to 582 in 2006;
# The cost of compliance for federal taxpayers - filling out tax returns and related chores - increased from $112 billion in 1995 to $265 billion in 2005;
# H&R Block's revenues from tax preparation soared from $740 million in 1996 to $2.2 billion in 2005; (they got my $25 or whatever it was this year)
# The complex alternative minimum tax hits 4 million taxpayers today, but will hit 30 million by 2010 if not repealed.

[anEinherjer]

Also just to mention: Want to remove some of the influence of K St and the lobbyist ****ing leeches here in DC? Simplify the tax code and take out all the stupid, manipulable loopholes and breaks that have driven the massive increase in the tax code.

My guess is billions are wasted every year by ******* lobbyists, not buying new laws, per se, but ****ing around with the tax code to get their buyers a new break/loophole.

Our tax code is an embarrassment. I'd even take a percent or two higher if I didn't have to fill out any paperwork at the end of the year (ie, a consumption tax).

[sukie]

Abolish the IRS thru simplicity.

[nehemiah]

abolish the IRS through laziness.

there's plenty of free tax prep places. go use one. weren't you bragging about doing your own taxes just last week? "a libertarian recruiting tool" or something?

[sukie]

Oh mighty dingleberry breath.... Abolishing the IRS has nothing to do with tax prep ease.
It's an agency that is useless if the code was easy. Public harrassment would cease.

You could terraform Mars with the savings.

[nehemiah]

Abolishing the IRS has nothing to do with tax prep ease.
It's an agency that is useless if the code was easy. Public harrassment would cease.

You could terraform Mars with the savings.so taxes would go away b/c why again? :rofl:

but TERRAFORM!

:rockon: now you're talking my language!

[sukie]

Taxes wouldn't go away. Direct to the treasury. The IRS wouldn't be needed if it was simplistic.

[nehemiah]

you guys are nuts.

[sukie]

Nehe... Are there automatic toll booths near you? Speed pass lanes etc?

If everyone had speed passes (simple taxation), there would be no need for collectors.(IRS)

[sukie]

I also advocate getting rid of pennies and nickels... make this the lowest denomination and every transaction is rounded...
http://archive.democrats.com/elandslide/images/CHUCKMAN%20-%20REAGAN%20-%20DIME.jpg

[sukie]

Then in 8 years do away with all currency. Digital transfer only. Like all purpose ATM's imbedded in our sternums. WiFi of course since Blue Tooth sucks.

No treasury... terraforming is done that much quicker. Muggings and pick pocketting become trivia questions.

[Ru]

Hey, c'mon now!!! That complexity keeps me in business. Are you trying to take food off my table?

[sukie]

Hey, c'mon now!!! That complexity keeps me in business. Are you trying to take food off my table?

Ru, you can live in Nehe's Commune for IV drug users.

[Ru]

Ru, you can live in Nehe's Commune for IV drug users.

Sweet!!! I heard the chicks there are easy.

[anEinherjer]

you guys are nuts.

What exactly the hell is nuts about simplifying our disaster of a tax code? I was not bragging about anything of the sort nehe, pay attention. I _can_ do my own, I _would_ if HR were going to sell my information, and the complexity of the current tax embarrassment IS a pretty effective tool for attacking gov't in general.

Are you seriously suggesting that you LIKE our current tax abomination? That it's FAIR in any way? That it's an effective tool for liberty (which you claim to support - liberty, that is - with your "tear it all down" rhetoric).

As for abolishing the IRS, I wouldn't dream of believing that we could actually remove a federal agency :rolleyes: but in the meantime... how big and powerful is your average state tax collection agency? Particularly the department dealing with collecting sales taxes? (hint: Nowhere near the relative size/power of the IRS, because sales tax is relatively easy to collect afaik.......)

Sorry Ru, the tax complexity takes more away from the economy than it adds. You're a bright dude, you won't have trouble getting other work. :D

[Ru]

Sorry Ru, the tax complexity takes more away from the economy than it adds. You're a bright dude, you won't have trouble getting other work. :D

Yeah, I was just joking. Actually, I think the complexity of the tax code is absurd (but it does make me money), and I actually would be in favor of a major overhaul of the system. However, tax work is only a portion of what I do. Most of my work is performing financial audits, and I'm positive the need for that service will never cease.

[sukie]

What's up with the flat tax... dead topic?

[anEinherjer]

I don't know. I guess the socialists don't like it for some reason (even though it's good enough for their old buddies in eastern Europe). I kind of like the idea of a choice: one article I read a while ago advocated providing a slightly higher flat (simplified) tax if you wanted to do it, or you could continue with the current mess... that way if you wanted one simple piece of paper, boom, you're done; but no deductions or any other "social engineering"....

Tons of ideas for tax reform (both large and small) are out there. Just need a little more momentum in DC to get anything going, but with this being an election year.... yeah, good luck with that.

[nehemiah]

flat tax sucks.

[sukie]

The feds are losing 100's of billions due to errors and omissions each year. Flat, no deductions, special rate classifications for certain situations (applications applly)

[anEinherjer]

"flat tax sucks."

We can always count on Nehe to talk a big game about reform, revolution, etc, and then to complain about every proposal that comes along. Thanks for coming through with such a stunning insight on this one, man!

Sukie, you're right. Some article I read the other day pegged it at over 300 billion.

If a flat tax is good for eastern europe (now seeing their coffers grow at a faster rate than "old" europe) why is it no good for the USA? Answer: It's not, unless you're a special interest who likes the current tax mess.

[gilchristfan]

St. Augustine and the Tax Code

One day, thinking and trying to understand the mystery of Tax code with all its complexities and how to simplify it, he was walking along the seashore. Suddenly he saw a little boy digging a trench in the sand. He walked over to the boy and asked him what was he doing? The little fellow replied; “Sir, I am making a trench.” “Why are you doing it?” He asked. The boy answered; “I am going to empty the sea into my trench.” St. Augustine told the boy it was impossible. Then the boy replied: “So it is for you for what you are trying to do now.”

[sukie]

tax code as is equals...
http://www.lostbrain.com/features/jay/toilet$.jpg

Available in avacado gren.


Nehe, we could do some serious war finance with the 300 bil savings each year.

[nehemiah]

you guys are full of hooey. flat tax sucks.

you being lazy is no reason to rearrange the current tax code so the wealthy pay less and the poor pay more.

[sukie]

Who said less or more? You make this much... this is your rate. You make this much... your rate is this... What is the problem?

[nehemiah]

give us a reason for a flat tax that does not boil down to: "you are a lazy sod".

[sukie]

over 300 billion reasons listed above.

[anEinherjer]

Wow. "I don't understand how the flat tax would work so you're all lazy". That's unique, I hadn't heard that criticism before. So I should work hard on my taxes "just because hard work is good for you"? Is that the gist of it?

And when rich people can loophole their way out of taxes way better than anyone else, how hard is it to see that a flat tax with fewer loopholes

The good old "poor will pay more" canard I have heard; that's easily debunked through programs you may have heard about called "welfare".

Truth be told, I want a flat consumption tax. That's the only one that's fair, to me. Provide "welfare" to low-income people so their consumption is offset, and off you go.

But feel free to continue to argue for the status-quo, you revolutionary guy, you!

[nehemiah]

Wow. "I don't understand how the flat tax would work so you're all lazy". That's unique, I hadn't heard that criticism before. So I should work hard on my taxes "just because hard work is good for you"? Is that the gist of it?

And when rich people can loophole their way out of taxes way better than anyone else, how hard is it to see that a flat tax with fewer loopholes

The good old "poor will pay more" canard I have heard; that's easily debunked through programs you may have heard about called "welfare".

Truth be told, I want a flat consumption tax. That's the only one that's fair, to me. Provide "welfare" to low-income people so their consumption is offset, and off you go.

But feel free to continue to argue for the status-quo, you revolutionary guy, you!so your post boils down to: "can't defend the flat tax - attack the questioner", eh? o wait - can't forget the: "white collar crime is occurring! let's arrange the tax system so those nice folks won't be forced to break the law"!

btw, who said anything about the status quo? i am all for forcibly taking sukie's money and distributing it to the homeless.

[sukie]

I haven't heard a legitimate problem with my idea in posts 20 and 25 other than your lazy... (Funny, since I am educated therefore do not work hard... does that qualify as laziness?)

[nehemiah]

well - you have to explain your justification for making the change - not vice versa.

[anEinherjer]

so your post boils down to: "can't defend the flat tax - attack the questioner", eh? o wait - can't forget the: "white collar crime is occurring! let's arrange the tax system so those nice folks won't be forced to break the law"!

Nice try. I put up suggestion, you put up "no", it's not up to me to come up with "yes". You're not a parent saying "Because" to their kids, here.

"forced"? Don't make me larf. You simplify the tax code to reduce the available loopholes. I'd think you'd be all for it, or at least something other than what we have now. But I guess you're happy with 40+ thousand pages of tax rules. Have fun with that.

btw, who said anything about the status quo? i am all for forcibly taking sukie's money and distributing it to the homeless.

YOU did. You're the one shooting it down without providing an alternative - that's arguing for the status quo. As per usual.

Your "you have to provide justification" charge is a joke: READ POST #1.

[nehemiah]

YOU did. You're the one shooting it down without providing an alternative - that's arguing for the status quo. As per usual.:D is that an insult? seems like an insult - but that would be flinging poo... and we all know that libertarians only argue the FACTs, right? :rolleyes2


flat tax sucks. FACT. and you are required to argue otherwise - you brought it up. the FACT of the matter is: simply b/c one system is not working does not mean that we should blindly go into the next. so defend your position or shut up. both of youse.
#1 the current set up is too expensive? that's debateable... but just b/c we don't have an income tax doesn't the IRS is going anywhere.
#2 the current set up is too complex? big deal. not a valid complaint.
#3 the current set up has too many loopholes? start prosecuting people who break the law.


consumption tax sucks too:
#1 the poor spend a higher percentage of their income - so their tax burden would be too high.
#2 you are going to inhibit spending? we have a service economy... inhibiting spending is the LAST thing we need to do.


so bring it, toughguys. let's rumble! :rockon:

[sukie]

The 200 billion in uncollected tax revenue is insignificant? Errors are insignificant? Loophole exploitation is insignificant? You are correct Nehe... Let the wealthy keep all the cash . I like it. My bad. WTF was I thinking.

[nehemiah]

The 200 billion in uncollected tax revenue is insignificant? Errors are insignificant? Loophole exploitation is insignificant? You are correct Nehe... Let the wealthy keep all the cash . I like it. My bad. WTF was I thinking.so ****ing collect the money, stop making errors, and prosecute the loophole exploiters.

again you try to use laziness as an excuse. that **** don't float, man.

[sukie]

I'm not arguing against the high cost of prosecutions or the fact that they are simple omissions done repeatedly by the confused public that need to be collected through expensive audits and harrassing coorespondence. I'm in full agreement for the status quo.

[anEinherjer]

:D is that an insult? seems like an insult - but that would be flinging poo... and we all know that libertarians only argue the FACTs, right? :rolleyes2

Oh please. Don't get into a pissing contest, you're the one who's been doing nothing but dancing for weeks. And I never once suggested that I don't fling poo, just that it doesn't help a discussion. But since (until this post) you didn't seem to WANT a discussion.......

flat tax sucks. FACT.

Methinks you throw the term "fact" around way the hell too often.

and you are required to argue otherwise - you brought it up. the FACT of the matter is: simply b/c one system is not working does not mean that we should blindly go into the next. so defend your position or shut up. both of youse.

Wow. Arguing for censorship on the board? Surprising! Point me to one post where I suggested we should ever go anywhere blindly (like Mars?).

But finally, a little meat to try to back up your "fact":

#1 the current set up is too expensive? that's debateable... but just b/c we don't have an income tax doesn't the IRS is going anywhere.

You'll argue til your blue in the face that the military is overspending, but then not agree that filing taxes with the fed is a waste of time? Odd. Cherry-picking where you don't like spending, I guess. The IRS doesn't have to go anywhere (like I said before, agencies never die...), but the cost to individuals for tax compliance sure can go down. I can't believe you're arguing against that.

#2 the current set up is too complex? big deal. not a valid complaint.

What?????? Why the hell is that not a valid complaint?? In my eyes, ridiculous complexity costs money, and that's certainly valid. You tossing it aside because you don't think so is what's invalid.

#3 the current set up has too many loopholes? start prosecuting people who break the law.

Great, spend even more money instead of fixing the problem. Symptom or disease, which would you rather treat, Nehe?

consumption tax sucks too:
#1 the poor spend a higher percentage of their income - so their tax burden would be too high.

What part of welfare do you not understand? You provide monthly rebates to the poor. You don't put the consumption tax on "necessities" like bread and milk - just like every state does now with sales taxes. What's this? Oh yes, states use sales taxes all the time - are you suggesting they're all wrong? What's the issue again?

"burden" is a socialist word anyway.

#2 you are going to inhibit spending? we have a service economy... inhibiting spending is the LAST thing we need to do.

Hmm... so we're going to inhibit earning instead? Sounds like an argument for eliminating coercive taxation altogether. Okay, I'm on board with that.

so bring it, toughguys. let's rumble! :rockon:

Yeah yeah, I'll throw up another argument you can't answer and you'll start dancing. If that's what you call a rumble, well then huzzah!

[anEinherjer]

And actually, Gil shot down your "not valid" nonsense last week. To recap from an excellent post:

1. Filing taxes is complex.
2. You mess up because it is.
3. You go to jail.

Hmm.... yeah, complexity isn't important at all.

[sukie]

:popcorn:

[nehemiah]

Yeah yeah, I'll throw up another argument you can't answer and you'll start dancing. If that's what you call a rumble, well then huzzah!dancing meme is boring. but keep posting it. simple pleasures for simple minds, i guess. and when you're losing the argument - you have to get any enjoyment you can, eh?

[sukie]

Nehe have a seat...
http://www.todaysclassroom.com/upload/351/small/76.jpg

[nehemiah]

Wow. Arguing for censorship on the board? Surprising! Point me to one post where I suggested we should ever go anywhere blindly (like Mars?).arguing for censorship? please. :coocoo:

you offered nothing other than the current system sucks... so let's have a flat tax.You'll argue til your blue in the face that the military is overspending, but then not agree that filing taxes with the fed is a waste of time? Odd. Cherry-picking where you don't like spending, I guess. The IRS doesn't have to go anywhere (like I said before, agencies never die...), but the cost to individuals for tax compliance sure can go down. I can't believe you're arguing against that.my point is that the IRS is not going anywhere - even if you have a flat tax.

and for the record, defense spending dwarfs tax collection to the point that it is ludicrous to even make the comparison... and yet you do. o well.What?????? Why the hell is that not a valid complaint?? In my eyes, ridiculous complexity costs money, and that's certainly valid. You tossing it aside because you don't think so is what's invalid.complexity does cost money. everything costs money. what the **** is your point?Great, spend even more money instead of fixing the problem.:dunno: WTF you're talking about here. people break the law. they should be prosecuted. are you arguing that we should have no criminal justice system?What part of welfare do you not understand? You provide monthly rebates to the poor. You don't put the consumption tax on "necessities" like bread and milk - just like every state does now with sales taxes. What's this? Oh yes, states use sales taxes all the time - are you suggesting they're all wrong? What's the issue again?i'm sure that "welfare" will be of paramount concern in your republican-libertarian paradise. you sure have shown compassion for the poor in your past posting history. :rolleyes: Hmm... so we're going to inhibit earning instead? Sounds like an argument for eliminating coercive taxation altogether. Okay, I'm on board with that.again - try and catch the point. we live in a country whose economy is based on consumption. figure it out from there.

[sukie]

thinking to myself...

Consumption will never be altered by taxation... Buying stuff is too cool FACT.

[rob on the job]

Nehe have a seat...

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/06/dunce.jpg

[anEinherjer]

arguing for censorship? please. :coocoo:

I'm not the one who demanded that sukie and I "shut up".

you offered nothing other than the current system sucks... so let's have a flat tax.

Yep, it does suck, but I offered up some FACTs about why I think it does, and then I threw out a suggestion for a replacement. Your only response so far is "it sucks" with no real evidence of such other than your opinion.

my point is that the IRS is not going anywhere - even if you have a flat tax.

and for the record, defense spending dwarfs tax collection to the point that it is ludicrous to even make the comparison... and yet you do. o well.

So because defense spending dwarfs the waste of tax collection we shouldn't bother to worry about the cost of tax collection? Interesting thesis. Let me know what other spending we shouldn't bother to worry about.

complexity does cost money. everything costs money. what the **** is your point?:dunno:

Here, let me explain it nice and slow: You said complexity wasn't a valid argument against the current system. I'm saying because it costs money, it is. If you can't figure that out (whether or not you agree) then Rob's picture is spot on.

WTF you're talking about here. people break the law. they should be prosecuted. are you arguing that we should have no criminal justice system?

Again, nice and slow: Do you treat the symptom or do you treat the disease? You are arguing for treating the symptom (go after 'cheaters'). I am arguing that is a waste of time (fix the system so there are no 'cheaters'). Like you've said before, "don't be daft".

i'm sure that "welfare" will be of paramount concern in your republican-libertarian paradise. you sure have shown compassion for the poor in your past posting history. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into your version of "compassion", which is simply to force me under threat of violence to be compassionate. Whether or not I am compassionate should be none of your concern.

I am going to buy into the idea that you can help the poor by providing tax rebates and NOT PUTTING TAX ON NECESSITIES, like states already do - it works. I guess I have to repeat myself over and over again because otherwise you just ignore the bits you don't like.

again - try and catch the point. we live in a country whose economy is based on consumption. figure it out from there.

That's a laugh, you suggesting I catch a point, seeing as you've basically ignored every single point I've made since the start of this thread.

I understand your point: Don't change tax code because everything is just FAAAABulous. No thanks. There is a better way. Do I know what that better way is? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not going to sit by the status quo like you are. There's an interesting parallel here: You argue that we should just prosecute here - do you think the same for illegal immigration? Of course not, you want to fix the system.

Next, please to define where the country's consumption would be hurt if income tax was NOT withheld from our paychecks but everything increased in cost about 15%. Nice try, though I disagree unless you can prove it or provide some evidence thereof.

If you are arguing for the status quo: Please just say so and this thread can come to a close (because there's no point in discussing it, is there?). If you are NOT arguing for the status quo, and not just throwing out silly shit like taking all Sukie's money, please state an alternative you think is better - because THAT is what this thread is about. The current system sucks rocks, and I want to see something better.

I have offered two different suggestions (albeit they're far from "mine" - I just offered them here). You have offered nothing but typical snide remarks and negativity. Please add to the conversation, don't just tear everything down all the time.

[anEinherjer]

dancing meme is boring. but keep posting it. simple pleasures for simple minds, i guess. and when you're losing the argument - you have to get any enjoyment you can, eh?

Interesting that you consider "losing" offering up ideas and receiving nothing but bullshit in return. I'd consider it "losing" but in a different sense - wasting time arguing with someone who offers nothing but negativity.

You can stop me using the "dancing meme" any time by answering questions directly for a change. Go ahead and call it boring but if the label fits.......:ladyrangers:

[nehemiah]

I understand your point: Don't change tax code because everything is just FAAAABulous.where did i post this? have you sunk so low as to make shit up?

i posted that a flat tax and a consumption tax both suck.

[sukie]

I don't think it's a dancing "meme" since anEin is the only one that uses it and the use is towards you exclusively, Nehemiah. Now if I used it then it would be a meme.

[nehemiah]

Interesting that you consider "losing" offering up ideas and receiving nothing but bullshit in return. I'd consider it "losing" but in a different sense - wasting time arguing with someone who offers nothing but negativity.

You can stop me using the "dancing meme" any time by answering questions directly for a change. Go ahead and call it boring but if the label fits.......:rofl:

talk about dancing. i just dropped some science on ya - and you resort to this.

W, M, L.

[nehemiah]

I'm not the one who demanded that sukie and I "shut up".

Yep, it does suck, but I offered up some FACTs about why I think it does, and then I threw out a suggestion for a replacement. Your only response so far is "it sucks" with no real evidence of such other than your opinion.

So because defense spending dwarfs the waste of tax collection we shouldn't bother to worry about the cost of tax collection? Interesting thesis. Let me know what other spending we shouldn't bother to worry about.

Here, let me explain it nice and slow: You said complexity wasn't a valid argument against the current system. I'm saying because it costs money, it is. If you can't figure that out (whether or not you agree) then Rob's picture is spot on.

Again, nice and slow: Do you treat the symptom or do you treat the disease? You are arguing for treating the symptom (go after 'cheaters'). I am arguing that is a waste of time (fix the system so there are no 'cheaters'). Like you've said before, "don't be daft".

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into your version of "compassion", which is simply to force me under threat of violence to be compassionate. Whether or not I am compassionate should be none of your concern.

I am going to buy into the idea that you can help the poor by providing tax rebates and NOT PUTTING TAX ON NECESSITIES, like states already do - it works. I guess I have to repeat myself over and over again because otherwise you just ignore the bits you don't like.

That's a laugh, you suggesting I catch a point, seeing as you've basically ignored every single point I've made since the start of this thread.

I understand your point: Don't change tax code because everything is just FAAAABulous. No thanks. There is a better way. Do I know what that better way is? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not going to sit by the status quo like you are. There's an interesting parallel here: You argue that we should just prosecute here - do you think the same for illegal immigration? Of course not, you want to fix the system.

Next, please to define where the country's consumption would be hurt if income tax was NOT withheld from our paychecks but everything increased in cost about 15%. Nice try, though I disagree unless you can prove it or provide some evidence thereof.

If you are arguing for the status quo: Please just say so and this thread can come to a close (because there's no point in discussing it, is there?). If you are NOT arguing for the status quo, and not just throwing out silly shit like taking all Sukie's money, please state an alternative you think is better - because THAT is what this thread is about. The current system sucks rocks, and I want to see something better.

I have offered two different suggestions (albeit they're far from "mine" - I just offered them here). You have offered nothing but typical snide remarks and negativity. Please add to the conversation, don't just tear everything down all the time.this post is so hollow the echo from reading it makes my ears ring.

[anEinherjer]

Pathetic. Dancing once again. Just pathetic. Just admit you have no answers, it's okay not to know something.

[nehemiah]

it's okay not to know something.as proven by your continued existence. :D



btw, when is the last time one of our discussions ended any differently than this?

[anEinherjer]

I don't know. You don't argue intelligently any longer. You just say "it sucks" and wander off topic usually, which is why I accuse you of dancing.

Good riposte with the "existance" crack, though. :D

[nehemiah]

I don't know. You don't argue intelligently any longer. You just say "it sucks" and wander off topic usually, which is why I accuse you of dancing.i answered every one of your ****ing questions. what the **** are you talking about?

we already have one village idiot (no offense to that person) around here. find a different character.

[rob on the job]

Well, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.

Let us depart in peace.

[gilchristfan]

thinking to myself...

Consumption will never be altered by taxation... Buying stuff is too cool FACT.

And thinking to myself... arguing the relative merits of using antimatter as a propulsion material for interstellar travel may get more accomplished.

At least it has more of a chance to occur than a simplified tax system.

[gilchristfan]

we already have one village idiot (no offense to that person) around here. find a different character.

Hey!!! Leeve mi otta thiz

[anEinherjer]

i answered every one of your ****ing questions. what the **** are you talking about?

Read back over the thread. If you honestly consider that answering all my "****ing" questions, I'd hate to see you in your personal relationships..... "It sucks FACT" is not an answer.

I do see a pattern though: I throw out ideas, some of which are half-baked (or to be more kind, 'unfinished'), and you slap 'em around with no regard to coming up with something civilized or reasonable in response.

When was the last time you started a thread suggesting something could be done better? When was the last time you offered up suggestions for consideration that were not snide, silly, or called for someone to be thrown in jail?

Feel free to continue along the same vein though. All your anti-Bush anti-business threads are great entertainment. I will continue to argue the alternatives.

[sukie]

I hate being Village Idiot and having my questions ignored.

[nehemiah]

I hate being Village Idiotit was a term of respect, sukie... in a homer simpson type way.

[anEinherjer]

I'd hate to see your terms of disrespect! :D

[sukie]

Because I shrowd my ideas in saarcasm they are sluffedd off... No probs here.

[nehemiah]

Because I shrowd my ideas in saarcasm they are sluffedd off... No probs here.like the fool in king lear?

o... :hmm: well... :hmm: um... :hmm:

okay. i could see that.

:D

[sukie]

I say we swap our current poor and homeless with the criminally present even up with nations of origin. Then tax our new poor since they WILL at least endeavor to make a living. Solves 4 problems. Poverty, homelessness, immigration, and cheap labor.