Cameron Childress <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, completely out of my arse. But it's a small arse guess. If you >> pressed me for accuracy, depending on what kind of loss tolerance we >> agreed to, I'd say more like 10x. > > Why not 1,000x or 10,000x?
Enough with the histrionics already. Exercise just a tab bit of emotional control once in awhile, huh? I think it is reasonable to have an opinion that says that the administration and auditing of this tax system would take significantly more staff that is currently used, if only because it's completely new. What do you think the number would be? Less that current staff? More? But more to the point - Vivec is right: this thing doesn't have a chance in hell. Beyond all the other reasons given (states won't accept it, lobbyists won't accept it, administrative and transition costs astronomical, et al) here's why: * The lower middle class. There is a large part of this country that lives check to check and uses income tax refunds as a savings account. Yes they're having too much taken out, but either they don't know that or if they do they still choose to do it because otherwise they'd piss the money away. Now for those people all of a sudden they wouldn't have the yearly tax windfall AND the daily prices of things they buy would jump by, say, 15%. That might take those things off the table without multi-check savings. I don't think they'd stand for tha ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:339803 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
