The tax code changes would be exciting... and GOOD. But, I'm not holding my breath. :/

The problem here is the way you word it (the right way) versus the way Hastert does: you frame it as an issue of fairness, where rich people use the tax code to allow themselves to pay much less of their incomes to the IRS than do the middle class.

The republicans -- most of them as out of touch with the middle class as is Teresa Heinz-Ketchup -- frame it in that tired, Jack Kemp, country club manner. They use the old "let the rich keep their money because they're the ones who create jobs"; a belief which is not only untrue but will never, never sell in middle America.

They use the old "let the rich keep their money because they're the ones who create jobs"; a belief which is not only untrue but will never, never sell in middle America.

Um... Prof? It certainly is true. What do rich people do with their money? Well, generally speaking, they either spend it or they save it. If they spend it, they stimulate the economy through consumption. (Not the best stimulus, not nothing to sneeze at.)

If they save it, do you think they're putting it under their mattresses? Heck, no. They're investing it. Even if they put it in something as simple and low-tech as an interest-bearing money-market account, that money goes to buy stocks and is then used by those companies to do things like make capital improvements or hire employees. I.e., it creates jobs.

But rich people don't just stick their money in money-market accounts; if they did, they never would have become rich in the first place. No, they invest it wisely, either in their own companies or in somebody else's.

Of course, there's always what I call the "stupid rich," typically sports celebrities or rock stars or Hollywood types who blow their money on coke or whatever. But these are the exception, not the rule.

Now, whether that plays in Peoria is another question entirely, and a valid point to consider.

Well, Bill just framed it exactly the way it should be done--the rich are using loopholes to pay less, so a flat-tax will make them pay their fair share. Yes, Prof. the way it is worded and presented is critical (I'm reading Horowitz' Political Warfare right now), but that could easily be done--"We will pay for tax cuts, healthcare and school vouchers for the poorest Americans by eliminating the loopholes for the very richest." And besides, poor or not, the IRS is a demonized by everyone and makes a universal target. As an added bonus, it would stand in relief to Kerry's ideas forcing him to ante up to a plan just as bold--and considering his plan for Iraq is, apparently, a secret would make him look idealess. If this is not for real, we need to demand Bush adopt it, its a briliiant strategy.

Oh man. I've been over this idea for a while, ever since I started reading about the Fair Tax initiative.

We'd be saving like 500 billion dollars a year just from no longer having to deal with the complexity of the tax code.

This could seriously be the single most important thing to happen to the US economically since the IT revolution.

Jeff: It's a myth that when someone buys stocks that they're investing in the company; unless it's an IPO or new offering, when you buy stocks you're getting them from another investor who thinks it's time to get out. This type of speculation does very little to create jobs.

What does create jobs is when middle class people have more capital and start small businesses. Thus fair tax proposals are not only more equitible, they also will lead to job growth (as opposed to merely GDP growth). But the Republican party is out of touch with this kind of thinking.

I'm a third year college professor who paid just about the same percentage of my income to the IRS last year as John Kerry (22 percent). Explain it that way, and middle America might come around.

thanks for the link.

luv the johnnyboy hummel

are they made in France?