dammit boy....we're rednecks.....but sometimes we ain't slow or dumba

they'll make it up in consumption.....just 'fkn A!' to common sense....

elimination of waste...... missippy state income tax phasing out plan

I can't wait for the legalization vote down da road.....it's an easy win....

Dangit.. I moved at the wrong time.

It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

(02-26-2015 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

(02-26-2015 02:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

I did not realize anyone in MS had income other than from the feds.

(02-26-2015 02:39 PM)dcCid Wrote:  I did not realize anyone in MS had income other than from the feds.

Classy

(02-26-2015 02:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

You have to pay close attention to where they are going to make up the loss in revenues.

It's burden shifting, not burden eliminating.

(02-26-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

(02-26-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It sucks for people on a fixed income.

It doesn't work because now they just kept thousands of people from being able to afford a home.

There are some factions in our legislature that support this idea. It's a place where Republicans couldn't be more wrong.

yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

(02-26-2015 02:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:26 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  yet it creates incentive to evolve (git up off one's arse)

can't have it both ways...

I would like to see firm data that supports "suck" for those that are "willing"

I don't care about those that are not....

Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

(02-26-2015 03:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:36 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Well certainly his point about people on a fixed income is correct. And anyone on the low end of the wage scale would be hurt as well. If you're not able to go out and get a high paying job - and for most, they'd already be in one if they were capable of it - then they'll be worse off. Unless there's something in the law to offset that.

so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

edit: once upon a time (not too long ago in this country) tulips were the 'crave 0'day'...value will take care of itself with this system

(02-26-2015 03:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:44 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  so let's extrapolate in internutz terminology...

b/c the baby boomers are trying to survive, one should abandon incentive based development?

legislation should only consist of prolonging death?

pain exists regardless....

it's always about money.....

I for one would like to see growth in this state.....

somebody has to suffer...it's not relevant to the argument of 'progress'....

I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

(02-26-2015 03:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think it would also increase the disparity between the rich and everyone else. So if it's a large part of the population, I'm not sure that's progress.

I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

it's hardly billions here.....but yes to the rest....you just defined why....

(02-26-2015 03:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 02:57 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  I would like to hear that 'why'....

I'm a consumption tax proponent...

h'burg implemented a 2% local tax increase on food/alcohol/hotels to build a convention center many years ago....the tax still exists, and the 'burg is still growing (in spite of our ****** mayor and city council structure)

I don't see how it raises prices......if they don't spend, pricing stays intact....

so many others.....but that's all for this post....

The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

it's hardly billions here.....but yes to the rest....you just defined why....

No, the poorer people, or according to the righties on this board, half the population, weren't paying much tax to begin with so their income won't increase much, but the cost of consumption will go up a lot.

(02-26-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:03 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The price on everything has to go up to pay for the loss of income tax.

or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

it's hardly billions here.....but yes to the rest....you just defined why....

No, the poorer people, or according to the righties on this board, half the population, weren't paying much tax to begin with so their income won't increase much, but the cost of consumption will go up a lot.

not sure what that means.....fixed income is not relevant....and I damn sure don't care about EBT spending....

if one buys into overall spending achieves the effect of leveling pricing (lowering/raising as req'd) or (simple example of price manipulation would be cost of fuel across county/state lines), then this is the right move

I cannot find 0 in logic with this premise after tossing out the garbage....

the poor remain poor

the middle remain poor

the rich can no longer be a tax shelter biatch

(02-26-2015 03:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  or the price reaches equilibrium based on demand.....

all states are hardly equal.....just like people...

People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

it's hardly billions here.....but yes to the rest....you just defined why....

No, the poorer people, or according to the righties on this board, half the population, weren't paying much tax to begin with so their income won't increase much, but the cost of consumption will go up a lot.

not sure what that means.....fixed income is not relevant....and I damn sure don't care about EBT spending....

if one buys into overall spending achieves the effect of leveling pricing (lowering/raising as req'd) or (simple example of price manipulation would be cost of fuel across county/state lines), then this is the right move

I cannot find 0 in logic with this premise after tossing out the garbage....

the poor remain poor

the middle remain poor

the rich can no longer be a tax shelter biatch

So you think you can eliminate all the income tax and not raise consumption taxes at all?

(02-26-2015 05:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-26-2015 03:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  People already overspend. They aren't going to spend so much more that it will make up for billions of dollars of lost income tax.

it's hardly billions here.....but yes to the rest....you just defined why....

No, the poorer people, or according to the righties on this board, half the population, weren't paying much tax to begin with so their income won't increase much, but the cost of consumption will go up a lot.

not sure what that means.....fixed income is not relevant....and I damn sure don't care about EBT spending....

if one buys into overall spending achieves the effect of leveling pricing (lowering/raising as req'd) or (simple example of price manipulation would be cost of fuel across county/state lines), then this is the right move

I cannot find 0 in logic with this premise after tossing out the garbage....

the poor remain poor

the middle remain poor

the rich can no longer be a tax shelter biatch

So you think you can eliminate all the income tax and not raise consumption taxes at all?

go back and reread....

if I misspoke, get back to me.....

no more help....

In general, states without an income tax grow faster than their neighbors, but I don't think it's a silver bullet to cure all ills.