(April 24, 2012 at 2:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Because obviously there is /no/ way the rule can be reworked to be more effective. /sarcasm
Did it ever occur to you that changing the tax code is inherently expensive?
What a lazy bit of skepticism.
"Hurr-durr, some change will cost money! Therefore I'm against it but for an even GREATER extant of changes (of which I've not calculated the expense for). Derp"
Eh? Did I ever state there was no way the tax code could be reworked? No I didn't. I merely pointed out the fact that Romney's criticism of Obama's current tax plan was valid; it would pay for 11 hours of government, and that's after it costs the government money in order to set it up.
I'm not against it because it'll cost money, I'm against it because (a) it's been shown that it generates barely any revenue, and (b) it's inherently unfair.
