Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts
Yes, you are naïve and uniformed, especially to how apportionment would effect our pinko state legislatures. Each would have to finally contribute a share proportionately equal to their big fat mouth when their Congressional Delegation spends federal revenue.
JWK
Oh, so now the state legislatures are filled with commies, too? And yet you want them to determine how to raise the revenue that will certainly be needed to meet a direct tax quota.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
At current spending levels, you would need tariffs of 200% on every item imported.Did you intentionally omit internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption?
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.
I can see your object is to misdirect and confuse, and not to have an intelligent discussion. But that has always been your game in this forum.
JWK
At current spending levels, you need an excise tax on every item of 30%.
Are states only allowed to collect revenues via your excise tax- or will there still be income taxes at the state level (your program says it will be able to get rid of income taxes)?
Yup. A number of the State Legislatures, such as New York, California, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc., are filled with communists and socialists. But what you deflect from is, each State, under our founders plan, would have to contribute a share proportionately equal to their big fat mouth when their Congressional Delegation spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes. How nice of you to side step the brilliance and wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to both representation and direct taxation. Just goes to show how disingenuous you really are.
JWK
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Taxes - the curtain in front of the farce
Power, Cronyism, Democracy, Spending, Fiefdoms. CUTS IN SPENDING, No more blackwaters, no more dozens of departments, no more staff. Ain't going to happen.
There you go again with an intentional distraction. Current spending levels are encouraged with the current communist/socialist inspired income tax. Under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment the socialist/communist love affair with government "free cheese", which drives up spending, will come to an abrupt end. So, your nonsensical "current spending levels" are nothing more than a distraction and an attempt to avoid a discussion of the merits, wisdom and brilliance of our Constitution's original tax plan, which would be re-established under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment ___ a proposal which our sewer rats in Washington fear with a passion. How dare someone promotes allowing working people to bring home a paycheck untaxed by our federal government and required Congress to balance the annual budget, even if it means imposing the apportioned direct tax.
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Fair Share Balanced Budget act would not get rid of the income tax- just shift it from the Federal Government level to the states. Feds still get the money- states get the responsibility of collecting it. It is an illusion that it ends people paying taxes to the federal government.
Would government spending actually be reduced if it passed? Would you get rid of Social Security and Defense Spending? Medicare? Would Congress (they would be voted out if they tried)? What would you get rid of?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-29-2017 at 09:08 PM.
The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment does remove this patently evil system of taxation from Congress' hands, and likewise encourages each State's Congressional Delegation to live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption in order to avoid the apportioned direct tax.
Let us once again review the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.
It is not "tax reform". It is income tax manipulation which keeps alive the notoriously evil and arbitrary powers associated with the communist/socialist income tax. It is an ongoing attack on our free market system and allows our Washington Swamp Creatures to use the power of taxation to subvert and undermine our nation's founding principles.
Real tax reform is found in the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment!
“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!
"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."
NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.
"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."
NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:
States’ population
---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE
Total U.S. Population
The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with proportional financial obligation!
Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:
State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Yes- you have posted the plan many times already. How does it impact spending? What will Congress actually cut? What would you actually cut? Spending is the real issue. You are moving around the chairs. It shifts who collects the funds- not where they go (because there is no way you will collect near enough with tariffs and excise taxes). States will still be sending the same people to vote on the same programs. The citizens of their states will still be paying for them.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-29-2017 at 10:16 PM.
Yes, I have posted the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment a number of times. And your questions indicate you have not even tried to figure out what positive impact it would have on each State’s Congressional Delegation sent to Washington, nor the various ways it removes the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s working class people. For example, you falsely assert the FSBBA does not raise enough revenue. The fact is, it does not put any limits on the amount of revenue Congress may raise. But it does encourage each State’s Congressional Delegation to spend no more than is brought in from imposts, duties and internal excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned direct tax levied upon the states, which would deplete each state’s own treasury. Do you not think this is an incentive for each state to elect members of Congress who will try to live within the revenue raised from imposts, duties and taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax?
Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?
Does it not end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?
Does it not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?
Does not end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?
Does it not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?
Does it not balance the budget on an annual basis and end the threat of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?
It is very telling that you find no benefits under the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, and prefer to obfuscate as to its benefits. Your attitude and postings indicates you are a great supporter of the socialist/communist inspired income tax, and Congress’ reckless spending which is primarily used to finance communist and socialist spending.
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
No, because Congress retains the right to choose the tax base. Even the Amendment has a default rule under which landowners are the losers if Congress has to impose a direct tax.
Absolutely not. The Amendment specifically recognizes that there can be a deficit in a particular fiscal year and allows the can to be kicked down the road for an indefinite period -- reread Section 4, which says that the direct tax revenue that is to be used to erase a deficit is to be paid by the States "by a final date set by Congress", which could be years in the future.
Moreover, as written Section 4 doesn't accomplish its purpose. If the direct tax is supposed to erase the deficit and if all of the States pay on time, they still get a 10% discount, which means the deficit won't be erased.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Regarding representation, it's fine. Regarding taxation, it's neither brilliant nor wise, because it can lead to different tax rates for similarly situated taxpayers, as I pointed out before. Only a capitation tax with no exemptions would be a fair direct tax.
Indeed. And your proposed direct tax method would suffer from the same problem.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
There you go again, posting false claims. When laying and collecting impost, duties and internal taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption, the tax is not laid upon individuals, so winners and losers cannot be picked.
And when the apportioned tax is laid, each state is free to raise its share of the tax in its own chosen way. But if a state refuses to pay its share, then, and only then, is Congress free to enter the state to collect the state’s tax burden.
Stop making crap up.
JWK
Stop with the nonsense and misdirection and posting words out of context. Under the Articles of Confederation some states were delinquent in meeting their quoted. This was corrected under our existing Constitution by granting power to Congress to lay and collect direct taxes, and if necessary, enter a state and collect the tax. However, as Pinckney pointed out, this taxing power could not be abused by Congress. The full quote, which you intentionally edited for a nefarious reason is:
“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6
Seems that you are very comfortable with misrepresentations to sustain your outright and false assertions. Of course, those who support keeping the patently evil income tax alive and in Congress’ hands, have no problem using it for a variety of nefarious reasons.
JWK
“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41___Mr. PENDLETON
For me personally, the tax plan looks great.
http://taxplancalculator.com/
The OP is saying that no change in the tax code short of eliminating the income tax completely can ever be a good thing.
That's silly.
Tariffs do pick winners and losers. It penalizes companies which need to import materials to produce their products. All forms of taxation have winners and losers. The tax is not directly laid upon individuals but it does get added into the prices they pay for the things they buy. It reduces competition from companies outside the US which means that US companies are not forced to be more competitive meaning they can be less efficient and charge higher prices than if they had that competition. They cost consumers more. You pay the tax via higher prices for goods and services. The whole point of a tariff is protectionism.
Some people make the mistake thinking that tariffs are a free ride- that it isn't US citizens paying taxes but only foreign companies wanting to sell in the US. That is wrong- it is the US consumer who pays those taxes. There ins't a "free ride" where you don't have to pay anything. It just hides the taxes better so you have no idea what the taxes are actually costing you.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 01:59 PM.
Of course they can. A tariff on, say, imported French wine will make winners out of domestic wine growers and losers out of the importers of French wine who will be forced to charge a higher price and may find that they can't compete with domestic wine (which, after all, is the whole purpose of protective tariffs). Indeed, a tax on any particular article of consumption will make losers out of the producers and sellers of such articles, because it will increase the price and therefore reduce the demand (unless the demand for the article is inelastic).
There's nothing in the Amendment that says Congress can't initially specify the tax base of a direct tax. In fact, Congress has done so in every direct tax it has ever imposed (1798, 1813, 1815, 1816, and 1861) -- land, dwelling houses, and slaves (the latter weren't included in the 1861 tax). If you want the States to be able to decide how to raise their respective shares of revenue, you're going to need to add language to that effect to the Amendment.
Moreover, nothing in the Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing a capitation tax, which is another way of choosing the tax base.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Good grief.
So after that purity test OP, it turns out you're still for taxes anyway.
No, it does not. They can still pass laws which benefit one industry/ company at the expense of another.Additionally, does the FSBBA not end Congress’s ability to pick winners and losers in return for campaign contributions?
Tariffs and excise taxes do pick winners and losers. It changes how they can pick winners- it does not remove their ability to pick winners via taxation. It still lets States determine "taxable income" and even have an income tax. You are right that it removes the income tax at the federal level.Does it not end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?
They can still use an excise tax for that purpose.Does it not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?
They can do that for other reasons.Does not end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?
Tariffs and excise taxes makes consumers and businesses pay more for things. It protects lazy and unproductive US companies from competition from foreign countries.Does it not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?
It does not require a balanced budget every year- it lays out how they can get around it- by forcing states to pay in more money.Does it not balance the budget on an annual basis and end the threat of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?
SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing,
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 02:19 PM.
Still ignoring reality as well. How about some actual figures? How much do you think the government can raise via excise taxes and tariffs? How big should government spending be? How would you reduce the size of government? What would you cut and by how much? Tariffs and excise taxes currently only take in about $150 billion a year. Your plan would require a massive increase in that.
Since under the Constitution Congress can choose the tax base for a direct tax, it could abuse its power by choosing the things to be taxed so as to favor or disfavor certain States.
This observation is restricted to the House of Representatives. The Framers had no such problem with the objection when it came to the Senate, in which Delaware has a hugely disproportionate weight compared to, say, California.The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”[/I][/b]3 Elliot’s 41___Mr. PENDLETON
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Tariffs do pick winners and losers. .
Nowhere near as does the income tax.
Does the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment end our Washington Swamp Creatures ability to pick winners and losers by arbitrarily dictating what is and what is not “taxable income”?
Does the FSBBA not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?
Does the FSBBA end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?
Does the FSBBA not end a system of taxation which punishes hard working citizens and businesses for their success, while rewarding the lazy and unproductive by allowing them to escape contributing income taxes into our federal treasury?
Does the FSBBA provide a specific method to balance the budget on an annual basis and end the devastating effects of reckless borrowing? Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?
Are there not many significant advantages in ending the federal income tax and adopting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment?
JWK
“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
Have you been drinking? What on earth are you talking about? If and when Congress lays a direct tax upon the States, the States are left to raise their apportioned share in their own chosen manner.
"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."
NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.
JWK
Not that I can see. It sets a goal but does not provide a mechanism for avoiding spending more than they take in in taxes. It lets them extort money from the states.Does the FSBBA provide a specific method to balance the budget on an annual basis and end the devastating effects of reckless borrowing?
They would still have other toys for that- including your excise taxes.Does the FSBBA not end our federal government’s existing use of income taxation as a weapon to attack and punish political foes?
Could the Feds use tax laws to do that under your suggestion? No. Could they still do it in other ways or for other reasons? Yes.Does the FSBBA end our Washington Swamp Creatures use of taxation to compel American Citizens to divulge the most personal aspects of their private lives, and do so under a penalty of perjury?
In the FY 2017 budget interest on the debt cost $266 billion. Your program makes it easy for them to ignore balancing the budget. Current imposts, tariffs and excise taxes (your suggested replacement for the income tax) does not collect enough to even pay for that.Tell me, how much does Congress now spend annually on interest to cover the national debt? Would a balanced budget amendment not be a blessing and encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 03:54 PM.
I'm a numbers guy. I want to see what the actual- not just theoretical- impact would be. I don't see spending changing significantly from what it is now- politicians don't have an incentive to cut spending when that will cost them votes.
Suppose we adopted your idea today- what would be the impact? (We aren't going to start over with zero government, zero spending, and zero debt). What would the rates on tariffs and excise taxes be? How would the economy react to that? How would the people react? "We will get rid of your income taxes (about half of all filers today owe no net income taxes) but instead we will replace that with a combination of higher price from tariffs on things you import and higher prices in the form of excise taxes. Would you like that?"
If we went 50-50 on the tariffs and excise taxes we can use a 100% tariff on everything imported and a 15% excise tax (sales tax) on everything you buy.
You dismiss it when I put up numbers but they are important. Reality. Not just theory in a perfect world.
Numbers guy?! You just Google stuff and post it.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
How does this "lien" on property thing work if a state doesn't kick in its "fair share"? Is that just state owned property or does it include privately owned lands as well? Can the government then come in and seize personal property because a state didn't kick in their "fair share"? How much land is actually owned by states vs private or federal government? (in most states, the state own less than three percent of the total land- in 13 states, the state owns one percent or less of the land) http://www.propertyrightsresearch.or...ent_land_o.htm
Does the lien apply to Federal Government lands within the state?
How is the state owned land valued?
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-30-2017 at 03:58 PM.
That's not what the Amendment says. The clause "Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress" doesn't say that each State can define the tax base for its quota. You may think it does but it doesn't, unless you shoehorn that meaning into the word "assume".
Look, the existing Constitution allows Congress to choose the tax base, and it has done so every time it has imposed a direct tax. Your Amendment doesn't eliminate its power to impose direct taxes in lieu of indirect taxes, nor does it eliminate Congress' power to define the tax base. If the intent of the Amendment is to make such a major change to Congress' existing taxing power, you'd be well advised to make it explicit. You also need to fix the glitch about the 10% discount, which as written will prevent the deficit from ever being eliminated.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
The best way to give them that incentive is by reducing their revenue through massive tax cuts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us